Happy Atheist Forum

General => Philosophy => Topic started by: Torlin on January 09, 2007, 10:14:39 PM

Title: neither free will nor predestination exist.
Post by: Torlin on January 09, 2007, 10:14:39 PM
(my first post yay!)

Hello this is my first post and what i'm going to try to explain is rather complicated (at least for me) so try and keep up.

Tons of people everywhere always talk about whether free will exists or not, but let me ask you something. If you had free will, would you act any differently than if you didn't? the answer is no.

For me neither freewill nor predistination exist. The idea exists, but the actual things don't. For something to exist it has to influence the world in some, however small or big (like taking up space, energy etc.) but i really don't think free will or the lack of really does anything. If you had freewill you would do the exact same thing you would do if you didn't, except you would choose to do it rather than not choosing to do it.

That didn't take as long as i thought it would. Well if you have comments or need clarification don't be afraid (like anyone can stop ye flamers) to post.
Title:
Post by: ImpaledSkier on January 09, 2007, 10:18:03 PM
Hah, I just mentioned this in a response to Kestrel.

The only actions that can be undertaken are the ones you took. I enjoy that thought.

...and...what's your story about predestination?
Title:
Post by: Torlin on January 09, 2007, 10:46:29 PM
It doesn't exist because, like free will, it really doesn't effect anything anyone does. And if something doesn't effect something else, it doesn't exist.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 09, 2007, 11:06:01 PM
Torlin, you are stating that predestination doesn't exist, but your explanation is stating that it does:   "...except you would choose to do it rather than not choosing to do it."  Also how are you defining effect on something?

Secondly, prredestination is a religious concept, what you're trying to do is more determinism vs. free will(a good possiblity for a topic), with your views being in the determinism camp.

here's a site that attempts to both define and explain both free will and determinism:
http://www.galilean-library.org/int13.html (http://www.galilean-library.org/int13.html)

free will is one of, if not the, most interesting topic in philosophy, so hopefully many will add their thoughts to this, regardless of whether it has or has not been decided beforehand
Title:
Post by: Whitney on January 10, 2007, 12:20:49 AM
I don't think it's so much about if free will or predestination (non-religiously determinism) exist as actual things, but if what we mean by them is how actions occur.

For instance, if we live in a world where every thing we do is determined from past events then we are more like pre-programed robots than the independent beings we like to view ourselves as.  Knowing that actions are predetermined and not the result of choice would have a huge effect on how the justice system functions and how we view our lives and the self in general.

It is true that no matter how our actions come to pass; free will or determinism then; we would have done the same things that are now considered history....but it is interesting to try and discover if the actions we do are the result of personal decisions or if those decisions are just an illusion since causal relationships determined that actions would be decided on well before the time to make a decision occurred.
Title:
Post by: Marke on January 24, 2007, 03:02:20 AM
Torlin, if this sort of thing interests you as it seems it does, read Dan Dennett's "Freedom Evolves"

A whole book from a atheist philosopher showing that free will does exist.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 24, 2007, 08:41:26 PM
Dennett is a waste of time, in a manner of speaking ..... hrmmm ..... how do you call someone an idiot in the politically correct manner .... oh yes, he's "academically challenged".

Anyone who studies genetics, theories of consciousness and cognition, will invariably find that the age old philosophical conundrum of "free will" is just another imaginative construct.

A simple study of mirror neurons will end this:  before you "decide" to do anything, your brain has already informed you that it is necessary to do, autonomously.  Example:

Mastriani is sitting at his desk in the morning, and "decides" to turn on his computer to check the latest news about the moron who allegedly runs the country while drinking coffee, as he does every morning.

What do we know:

1.  Mastriani is at his desk.
2.  There is a computer in this locale where Mastriani is located.
3.  Mastriani reads news articles
4.  Mastriani views political leaders as MO-rons.
5.  Mastriani doesn't believe the current leader is in control of his country.
6.  Mastriani drinks coffee.
7.  Mastriani, under normal conditions, will do this every morning.

But now we are left with this "decision" item.  Does he decide to turn on the computer, or is there something else at work?

3 - 5 seconds before my hand moves to the power switch, the "decision" was made for me.  Same issue with the coffee, I don't "decide" to have coffee, or "decide" to take a drink.  It is all chemical impetus from the brain, and we aren't aware of it, at all.  It starts in the life cycle before the birth of the hominid, and continues throughout life.  Mirror neurons are a survival mechanism, hard wired into the brain, to teach us about our environment, and environmental behavior .... all without our permission or attention.

Bottom line: There is no free will.  We choose nothing, it is done for us.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 24, 2007, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"Anyone who studies genetics, theories of consciousness and cognition, will invariably find that the age old philosophical conundrum of "free will" is just another imaginative construct.
And the philosopher or anyone that studies philosophy would say, "Balderdash!"

warning: semi-rhetorical questions ahead

What if your closely held theories of consciousness and cognition turn out to be wrong?

Do you choose to overuse the word hominid, or is it just hard wired into your brain?

Did you choose to join the forum and make posts, or was the decision already made before you discovered said forum?

And since you use homind in almost all of your posts, we should expect it in future posts.  Also, we can't blame you for its overuse, nor praise you for never using it again, since you were going to use it anyway, or stop using it if indeed you do stop.

Thusly, you shouldn't blame G-dub and company for being morons and fucking everything up, it was without their permission that such events occured.  But since you already think them worthless, it stands to reason that you will continue to do so, because, of course, you have no choice in the matter.  Nor do I in writing this post.
Title:
Post by: Sir_Nuttingham on January 24, 2007, 10:52:22 PM
Every action we take is just a combination of our braincells working together and making the "right" decision using the information you have at a particular moment. First you take in the situation around you using smell, sight and so on.. Then your braincells combine basic instinct and previous experience (wich can be éverything that happened in your life so far) to decide the action that you will take. Because there are so many experiences in peoples lives everyone will take action based on different experiences. Because of the gigantic variety of experiences people can have in life, there is also a huge variety of actions that people can take. Therefor it will look like peoples' actions are random while in fact, at least this is what i believe, actions are just a logical result of your perceptions of the world around you at that particular moment, your basic instinct and previous experience. This would mean that free will wouldn't actually exist.

For example, after reading this some people might want to do something random (like touching their computer screen or whatever) to prove that free will dóés exist, however, that choice will then have been made by experience (reading the above) and percepting the space around you (you see the computerscreen and figure it would be a random action of free will to touch it at any moment you would like)
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 25, 2007, 01:45:46 PM
donkey,

Nice argumentum ad hominem, historia indentidem ad infinitum,  and yes I will continue, unabated.  We are a hominid, a primate with overamplified traits.  Welcome to reality.

QuoteAnd the philosopher or anyone that studies philosophy would say, "Balderdash!"

Whatever imaginative construct you choose to use to make yourself feel important/necessary/useful, have at it.  It changes nothing, unless you would like to start a discourse on the magics of the interstellar teapot.

The rest of that, barely qualifies for rhetoric, more along the lines of useless digital inanity.  It's pixel punishment without due cause.

Read what Sir_Nuttingham posted and even the marginally literate will realise that it isn't "my" perception alone.  It's known, rather broadly really.
Title:
Post by: ImpaledSkier on January 25, 2007, 05:08:06 PM
QuoteFor example, after reading this some people might want to do something random (like touching their computer screen or whatever) to prove that free will dóés exist, however, that choice will then have been made by experience (reading the above) and percepting the space around you (you see the computerscreen and figure it would be a random action of free will to touch it at any moment you would like)

A very upsetting notion to a lot of people. (I think this is why people can be manipulated so easily.) I agree that we are pretty much programmed by past events, but really...what does it matter? We still feel free, and when this concept isn't being discussed we go along with life, happy as always. We could be right about it, we could be wrong, but either way, we can't change it.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 25, 2007, 06:07:44 PM
QuoteI agree that we are pretty much programmed by past events, but really...what does it matter?

It matters because of the inherent difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

It matters because what is left to subjectivity, becomes the object of hominid imagination, and a predicate of dissemination of non-evidentiary beliefs which do not benefit the species, or allow for the optimal conditions of edification or amelioration.

It matters, because certain hominids, even ones you may have knowledge of, prefer the objective, pragmatic reality; the reality where predatory instinct and elimination of rivals, is tantamount to living.

I prefer, as the Romans of antiquity, to make of the enemy, the manes.  With the full knowledge, there is no escape.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 25, 2007, 06:41:45 PM
Hi there Mastriani.
Good to meet you.


Interesting post.
One thing, though.

Quote from: "Mastriani"[highlight=yellow]Bottom line: There is no free will.  We choose nothing, it is done for us.[/highlight]
In light of your above extremely explicit statement, I'm confused by this;

QuoteMastriani; Whatever imaginative construct you choose to use to make yourself feel important/necessary/useful, have at it. It changes nothing, unless you would like to start a discourse on the magics of the interstellar teapot.

The rest of that, barely qualifies for rhetoric, more along the lines of useless digital inanity. It's pixel punishment without due cause.

Read what Sir_Nuttingham posted and even the marginally literate will realise[/color] that it isn't "my" perception alone. It's known, rather broadly really.

The red comments directly refute your above yellow highlighted quote.
What I find more interesting, is that the blue comments are actual judgments against the individual to whom you are responding. (!)

Not only am I interested in how you reconcile the red, with the yellow, I would very much like to know how you account for making a judgment against another, when it is your position that the poster exercised no free will in making the post??

(I gave you the BOTD, on the "teapot" thing.)
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 25, 2007, 07:15:09 PM
Kestrel,

Valid point.  Digital text does not lend itself to inflection, ergo my sarcasm was not likely to be understood.

Perhaps in the future I should probably notate my ascerbic/derisive commentary with [sarcasm][/sarcasm]?

As far as the blue comments, no, they are not "direct judgment", as there is no use of possessive pronouns which would indicate such position, linguistically or cerebrally.  But, again, lack of inflection makes it easy to understand how you draw that into context.  The commentary was against the post itself.  Which is inherently devoid of personhood.

What need is there of "benefit of the doubt"?  If you disagree, you disagree, small matter really.  To what end, if I may ask?
Title:
Post by: Sir_Nuttingham on January 25, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"A very upsetting notion to a lot of people. (I think this is why people can be manipulated so easily.) I agree that we are pretty much programmed by past events, but really...what does it matter?

This also matters because it can help us to understand the reason certain people act the way they do. Muslim extremists for instance have had experiences all their lives to make them act the way they do. Looking at that, their acts are a logical result of the experiences and circumstances in their lives. (this does not mean I think their extremist actions and thoughts are oke, far from that!)
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 25, 2007, 08:03:43 PM
Thanks Mastriani,
However, you didn't answer the thrust of my inquiry.
I'll rephrase;

Not only am I interested in how you reconcile the red, with the yellow, I would very much like to know how you account for making any judgment at all, positive or[/b] negative, when it is your position that people do not have free will and choose nothing?
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 25, 2007, 08:41:05 PM
Kestrel,

Essential problem with the proposed inquiry: judgment

Judgment means that any valuation is predicated upon a moral or ethical construct or other authoritative subjective, (i.e. lawful).  I have no such proclivities.

What is being expressed is instinctual valuation.  It is part and parcel of the "fight or flight" instinct.  Determination/discernment of any situation is paramount to survival.  Everything in environmental instance must be qualitatively assessed for fitness.  Example: you are hungry, you go to the fridge, pick up a food item, it has an awful smell : you don't eat it because you are suddenly overwhelmed by a sensation of nauseum. Was it your "decision" not to eat it?

Summarily, no.  It did not pass the valuation of fitness for comsumption because genetically we are inclined to test our environment, just as a caution, as it aids our ability to survive for ensuring procreation.  The food item in the example, has a negative valuation, as the smell is associated with something in historical information from genetics signaling danger.

Although in the hominid sphere, the inclusion of linguistics appears to cloud the issue, it only adds complexity.  The end result is the same.  We valuate for fitness, not as a choice, but as a matter of genetic history and survivability.  Hence, you do not ingest the food item, as your body recalls that nauseum prevents anything from going into the piehole.

There are many other spheres this discourse can and do fall into, but discertation is not particularly on my mind.  I'm certain you understand what I have stated here.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 25, 2007, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"Kestrel,
 What is being expressed is instinctual valuation.

Thank you.
That covers the blue.

And the "red" parts?
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 25, 2007, 09:25:21 PM
LOL, curious fellow aren't you?

As I stated, it is sarcasm, which is a linguistic expression of dominance.  Myself being an alpha specimen, it is natural for me to express such, in this case, through the only medium possbile; linguistic liberty.

In person, it would be a "bearing of weapons" sequence in the physical posturing.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 25, 2007, 09:52:28 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"As I stated, it is sarcasm, which is a linguistic expression of dominance.  Myself being an alpha specimen, it is natural for me to express such, in this case, through the only medium possbile; linguistic liberty.

Were you to have forgone the sarcasm in your reply to donkeyhoty, how would you have worded your reply to his post?

Thank you for indulging me.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 25, 2007, 11:07:21 PM
Matriani, you missed the point of my post completely, and the ideas of free will vs. determinism.  The reason these ideas are of such interest is because we have yet to figure out the exact workings of the universe.  This allows for the continuation of the argument ad infinitum, or at least until the Theory of Everything becomes gospel.  Regardless of, "Whatever imaginative construct you choose to use to make yourself feel important/necessary/useful" i.e.
Quote from: "Mastriani"Myself being an alpha specimen


Quote from: "Mastriani"The rest of that, barely qualifies for rhetoric, more along the lines of useless digital inanity. It's pixel punishment without due cause.
Argumentum ad hominem, and a red herring.  You chose not to answer the questions, because you either had a predetermined fight/flight response(determinism), or you chose not because of free will, or even because they have no good answer(rhetorical question).

It is also considered, "rather broadly really." that free will and determinism may coexist or not exist at all.

Quote from: "Mastriani"Nice argumentum ad hominem, historia indentidem ad infinitum, and yes I will continue, unabated. We are a hominid, a primate with overamplified traits. Welcome to reality.
Red herring.

Quote from: "Mastriani"As far as the blue comments, no, they are not "direct judgment", as there is no use of possessive pronouns which would indicate such position, linguistically or cerebrally. But, again, lack of inflection makes it easy to understand how you draw that into context. The commentary was against the post itself. Which is inherently devoid of personhood.
Of course, when the first word of your post directs it, personally, you need not add personal pronouns.  Unless you were being facetious in recognizing your ad hominem attacks.  (latin used sarcastially)


Quote from: "Mastriani"Was it your "decision" not to eat it?
Actually yes, it was your decision, but a decision has nothing to do with free will vs. determinism.  It is how that decision comes about, you are obviously of the determinism camp, and I am of the "agnostic" camp.

As you state there are many roads this discussion can take, hence the reason that free will vs. determinism, as well as whether they are compatible or not, can continue ad infinitum for us hominids.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 26, 2007, 12:18:39 AM
Allow me to elucidate for you donkeyhoty, as you are oblivious to what argumentum ad hominem actually is, and for the second time, you utterly misrepresent the obvious and easily provable.

To wit:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"
Quote from: "Mastriani"Anyone who studies genetics, theories of consciousness and cognition, will invariably find that the age old philosophical conundrum of "free will" is just another imaginative construct.
And the philosopher or anyone that studies philosophy would say, "Balderdash!"

warning: semi-rhetorical questions ahead

What if your closely held theories of consciousness and cognition turn out to be wrong?

Do you choose to overuse the word hominid, or is it just hard wired into your brain?
 Here is an attempt to directly discredit the argument by attacking me, indicated by use of the pronoun " you " and taking issue with a word use that has nothing to do with my proposed position.
Did you choose to join the forum and make posts, or was the decision already made before you discovered said forum?
Again here.
And since you use homind in almost all of your posts, we should expect it in future posts.  Also, we can't blame you for its overuse, nor praise you for never using it again, since you were going to use it anyway, or stop using it if indeed you do stop.
And yet again here.
Thusly, you shouldn't blame G-dub and company for being morons and fucking everything up, it was without their permission that such events occured.  But since you already think them worthless, it stands to reason that you will continue to do so, because, of course, you have no choice in the matter.  Nor do I in writing this post.
And yet again here for the grand finale.

We're done here.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 26, 2007, 12:21:51 AM
Quote from: "Kestrel"
Quote from: "Mastriani"As I stated, it is sarcasm, which is a linguistic expression of dominance.  Myself being an alpha specimen, it is natural for me to express such, in this case, through the only medium possbile; linguistic liberty.

Were you to have forgone the sarcasm in your reply to donkeyhoty, how would you have worded your reply to his post?

Thank you for indulging me.

This one fails to be understandable as to its intended purpose of inquiry.

What exactly are you attempting to get me to justify?  That my position is not favorable towards others perspective?  If so, we can make it short:  it isn't, and won't ever be.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 26, 2007, 12:41:05 AM
Mastriani, you're doing the same thing, but you fail to recognize it.  In my case it was done purposely to elucidate the fallacy of your contentions.  

You have no good evidence, and fail to respond to the ideas proposed.  That's a red herring.  Your attempt to confuse the discussions at hand was handled well by Kestrel.  Try and actually respond to the questions posed by Kestrel or myself instead of attempting to sound intelligent and deflect the discussion. (purposeful personal attack)

If that's all you want to do then yes we're done here, that's about the most intelligent thing you've stated. (another purposeful personal attack)
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 26, 2007, 01:26:06 AM
Quote from: "Mastriani"This one fails to be understandable as to its intended purpose of inquiry.
I understand.
I'm banking that one who can implement linguistic liberty, can also demonstrate linguistic discipline.

If you would be so kind.

QuoteWhat exactly are you attempting to get me to justify?  That my position is not favorable towards others perspective?  If so, we can make it short:  it isn't, and won't ever be.
Justify?
Absolutely nothing.

You've made your justification perfectly clear.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 26, 2007, 04:37:42 AM
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Mastriani, you're doing the same thing, but you fail to recognize it.  In my case it was done purposely to elucidate the fallacy of your contentions.  

You have no good evidence, and fail to respond to the ideas proposed.  That's a red herring.  Your attempt to confuse the discussions at hand was handled well by Kestrel.  Try and actually respond to the questions posed by Kestrel or myself instead of attempting to sound intelligent and deflect the discussion. (purposeful personal attack)

If that's all you want to do then yes we're done here, that's about the most intelligent thing you've stated. (another purposeful personal attack)

Testimony of one who does not understand argumentum ad hominem.

In order for me to be exercising ad hominem against you there is a requisite condition that states that you must have presented either an argumentative proposition or a counter proposition.  As there is no extant propostion to be found from your perspective, your straw man contention is dismissed.

In my first post in this thread, I presented the empirical fact that there are known conditions of reflexive/autonomous behavior from the mirror neurons.  This is one part of denouncement of the "free will" argument, as utter fallacy.  Add to this the empirical fact of the cytoskeletal structure of cell membranes being comprised of tubulin, the same material responsible for thought process creation in the hominid brain, it further denounces the possibility of "free will".  We are confined on both the biochemical and the cellular level.  No further evidence is required to dissolve that illusion of fancy.

As far as the "determinism" aspect, that is pure hyperbolic conjecture.  The simplest denunciation is logic: in order for "determinism" to be an actual process, the exigency of an objective observer, with a direct point of view perspective on all situations, yet outside the first person affectee, that has the capacity to act as the agent of cause for "determinism", must be met.  Since no such entity has been shown to be in evidence, it is also dismissed.

As far as responding to "ideas", it is without good purpose, when they are constructed of unsupportable imagination, and empirical evidence is already present to counter those illusions.  It would be much the same as playing "fetch" with an imaginary canine.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 26, 2007, 08:01:29 AM
Mast, this much is clear, you have no idea how to identify irony or sarcasm.  Also, your empirical evidence is conjecture.  Do these things actually debunk free will, or do you just contend that they do?  You are using the same false logic as intelligent design proponents.  Just because you think reflexive actions make free will a fallacy does not make it so.
Quote from: "Mastriani"No further evidence is required to dissolve that illusion of fancy.
Yes there is.  You have mentioned evidence of reflexive/autonomous actions.  This does not demonstrate that all actions are reflexive, nor does it take into account the control we can excercise over some of the body's reflexive actions, i.e. breathing(albeit, temporarily).  Nor, do you allow for the debunking of the empirical evidence by some future evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: "Mastriani"The simplest denunciation is logic: in order for "determinism" to be an actual process, the exigency of an objective observer, with a direct point of view perspective on all situations, yet outside the first person affectee, that has the capacity to act as the agent of cause for "determinism", must be met. Since no such entity has been shown to be in evidence, it is also dismissed.
Really?  You just solved one of history's most interesting philosophical questions.
And, you used faulty logic in your refutation of determinism.  You are assuming that you already know that which is unknown, the exact state of the universe.

Your understanding of empirical knowledge in philosophy is telling.  Let me give you a simple defintion of Fallibilism: since any empirical knowledge may be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as true may turn out to be false.

Moreover, you are far too reliant on empirical evidence in a discussion that is rooted in metaphysics.  

Quote from: "Mastriani"In order for me to be exercising ad hominem against you there is a requisite condition that states that you must have presented either an argumentative proposition or a counter proposition. As there is no extant propostion to be found from your perspective, your straw man contention is dismissed.
First off, you are identifying ad hominem attacks incorrectly.  An ad hominem attack by me would have been, "Mastriani overuses hominid in an attempt to identify himself as intellectual.  Overuse of a word is not intellectual.  Therfore, Mast's beliefs about mirror neurons are fallacious."  Identifying ideas and statements with a certain person has nothing to do with ad hominem.  I would have to make the claim that what you believe was false because of a personal trait, which I did not do, as I will illuminate later.  Although, you did use ad hominem in your attempted refutation.  This you accomplished by not recognizing what I was doing, and criticizing me for what you did not recognize.  Ever hear of the socratic method?
Quote from: "I"What if your closely held theories of consciousness and cognition turn out to be wrong?
This is a counter propostion that you have yet to answer.

Quote from: "I"Do you choose to overuse the word hominid, or is it just hard wired into your brain?, and Did you choose to join the forum and make posts, or was the decision already made before you discovered said forum?
Sarcastic, designed to see if you adhere to determinism, and if not, then what do you adhere to.  The so-called ad hominem attack is not because the contention of you overusing hominid has nothing to do with the question, it is only a hypothetical, personal example expressed to elicit a specific response.

Quote from: "I"And since you use homind in almost all of your posts, we should expect it in future posts. Also, we can't blame you for its overuse, nor praise you for never using it again, since you were going to use it anyway, or stop using it if indeed you do stop.

Thusly, you shouldn't blame G-dub and company for being morons and fucking everything up, it was without their permission that such events occured. But since you already think them worthless, it stands to reason that you will continue to do so, because, of course, you have no choice in the matter. Nor do I in writing this post.
Ironic, demonstrating problems with the deterministic position.  Once again, personal examples are used purposely to demonstrate the problems with free will vs. determinism.  Not once does it state, determinism is bunk because Mastriani overuses hominid.

Quote from: "Mastriani"It matters because of the inherent difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

It matters because what is left to subjectivity, becomes the object of hominid imagination, and a predicate of dissemination of non-evidentiary beliefs which do not benefit the species, or allow for the optimal conditions of edification or amelioration.
Some, such as Max Velmans, would disagree.  

If you are really that gung-ho about empirical evidence then why do you bother with a metaphysical debate that does not rely on it?  Especially considering the problems with determinism and the exact state of the universe. (see Laplace's demon, or regarding empirical evidence Brain-in-a-vat)  
Not ad hominem, but an honest question. i.e. I don't believe in christianity, so I don't bother with arguments about the holy trinity.
Title:
Post by: BGMA on January 26, 2007, 01:49:30 PM
Here's a rough view of "scientific" determinism vs. free will that I heard somewhere on the net:

Picture a worm in the dirt near a sidewalk.  Pour a lot of water around.  The worm will crawl to the sidewalk.  Let it dry.  The worm will crawl back toward the dirt.  All worms will likely do the same, with very little variation.  A worm has almost no free will.

Picture a squirrel.  Pen the squirrel in a yard with a tree and some food and a dog on a leash.  The squirrel will take the food or climb the tree or test the limits of the dog.  There might be a little variation, but not much, from squirrel to squirrel.  A squirrel's brain is more complex than that of a worm, and the squirrel has many more options of action to choose from, but still not many.  A squirrel only has a little free will.

Picture a person, confronted with another person.  Now you have someone with hundreds of options of how to react to every single situation.  Some of those options are very unpredictable.  The threshhold necessary for a person to change from one choice of action to another is very small, possibly in some cases so small that quantum differences in the actions of atoms in the brain could push a person from one decision to another.

Additionally, a person is extremely sensitive to their surroundings, such that infinitesimally small differences in the surroundings can lead to major changes in course of action.  Finally, much of a person's actions happen after hundreds of complicated feedback loops within the brain, all of which can give rise to many different courses of action.  If I hit your knee in the right spot, you will kick, a non-free-will action.  But if I call you a jerk, you can laugh or call me a name or grimace or walk away or hit me or act confused or quietly seethe, and all of those actions can happen in a hundred different ways.  People have a lot of free will.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 26, 2007, 01:59:33 PM
QuoteFirst off, you are identifying ad hominem attacks incorrectly. An ad hominem attack by me would have been, "Mastriani overuses hominid in an attempt to identify himself as intellectual. Overuse of a word is not intellectual. Therfore, Mast's beliefs about mirror neurons are fallacious." Identifying ideas and statements with a certain person has nothing to do with ad hominem. I would have to make the claim that what you believe was false because of a personal trait, which I did not do, as I will illuminate later. Although, you did use ad hominem in your attempted refutation. This you accomplished by not recognizing what I was doing, and criticizing me for what you did not recognize. Ever hear of the socratic method?

No, it is you, as seems to be your habit, not knowing what you are talking about, yet again.

Ad hominem, which was already defined, states clearly, attacking the proponent, as opposed to attacking the argument.  There are no other necessary defining parameters.  Your attempted retreat is pointless and unsupported, the definition cannot be contorted to suit your weak minded retreat.

Presenting inquiries are not equated to presenting an argumentative proposition.  You seem to be utterly bereft of anything even resembling knowledge.

You can choose to speculate that the empirical evidence is conjecture, that's a personal choice.  It bears no, zero, qualitative validity.  You have offered no concrete proof to the contrary, only metaphysical speculation.  Also note, this is not my information/knowledge.  Mine is the exercise of reiterating what is known/expounded/researched by others, (i.e. professionals and academics).

For the last comment, what you posted in the quote above, is most telling.  You assume, incorrectly, that it is "Mastriani's" words that make the proof, and consistently make a point of using first person possessive with regards to the format of knowledge.  Again, instead of addressing the issue in context, you address the personhood behind.  Obviously, another instance of you lacking any useful information towards creation of a counter proposition.

Don't bother to attempt rebuke, you're summarily an uninteresting hominid, and easily dismissed.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 26, 2007, 09:05:30 PM
Masty, you're out of your element.  The empirical evidence you state does not prove anything regarding free will vs. determinism.  It only adds weight, albeit not much, to your position that they are both false.  A more widely held theory, the string theory, has adherents that find it to be deterministic and others that find it to be indeterministic.  The only empirical evidence that can debunk free will vs. determinism is the understading ot the entire universe, and that is not forthcoming.

You are a fundamentalist simpleton.  You fail to respond to direct questioning and evidence contrary to your opinion.  Like a recent fundie, saukhasi, you disavow or disregard the refutations of your beliefs.  You choose instead to rely on empty rhetoric.
Quote from: "Mastriani"Mine is the exercise of reiterating what is known/expounded/researched by others, (i.e. professionals and academics).
Actually yours is the excercise of the fundie, take a theory that supports your belief and contend it is the end all and be all, while disregarding anything to the contrary.

I will now be presumptuous and speak for everyone here.  We neither want nor need your empty contributions.  Don't go away angry, just go away.
Title:
Post by: Sir_Nuttingham on January 26, 2007, 09:15:45 PM
Quote from: "BGMA"Here's a rough view of "scientific" determinism vs. free will that I heard somewhere on the net:

Picture a worm in the dirt near a sidewalk.  Pour a lot of water around.  The worm will crawl to the sidewalk.  Let it dry.  The worm will crawl back toward the dirt.  All worms will likely do the same, with very little variation.  A worm has almost no free will.

Picture a squirrel.  Pen the squirrel in a yard with a tree and some food and a dog on a leash.  The squirrel will take the food or climb the tree or test the limits of the dog.  There might be a little variation, but not much, from squirrel to squirrel.  A squirrel's brain is more complex than that of a worm, and the squirrel has many more options of action to choose from, but still not many.  A squirrel only has a little free will.

Picture a person, confronted with another person.  Now you have someone with hundreds of options of how to react to every single situation.  Some of those options are very unpredictable.  The threshhold necessary for a person to change from one choice of action to another is very small, possibly in some cases so small that quantum differences in the actions of atoms in the brain could push a person from one decision to another.

Additionally, a person is extremely sensitive to their surroundings, such that infinitesimally small differences in the surroundings can lead to major changes in course of action.  Finally, much of a person's actions happen after hundreds of complicated feedback loops within the brain, all of which can give rise to many different courses of action.  If I hit your knee in the right spot, you will kick, a non-free-will action.  But if I call you a jerk, you can laugh or call me a name or grimace or walk away or hit me or act confused or quietly seethe, and all of those actions can happen in a hundred different ways.  People have a lot of free will.


I don't think this proves that humans have a higher level of free will than worms and squirrels nor that it proves that humans have free will at all. It just shows that in contrary to worms, humans have experience and memory to define their most logical next act. Worms don't have memory, therefor they will only act using instinct and their senses, where as I stated, humans have experience and memory as cumulative factors. A squirrel problaby has a little more reliability on experience and memory, but not the wide range that humans have.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 27, 2007, 12:32:49 AM
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Masty, you're out of your element.  The empirical evidence you state does not prove anything regarding free will vs. determinism.  It only adds weight, albeit not much, to your position that they are both false.  A more widely held theory, the string theory, has adherents that find it to be deterministic and others that find it to be indeterministic.  The only empirical evidence that can debunk free will vs. determinism is the understading ot the entire universe, and that is not forthcoming.

You are a fundamentalist simpleton.  You fail to respond to direct questioning and evidence contrary to your opinion.  Like a recent fundie, saukhasi, you disavow or disregard the refutations of your beliefs.  You choose instead to rely on empty rhetoric.
Quote from: "Mastriani"Mine is the exercise of reiterating what is known/expounded/researched by others, (i.e. professionals and academics).
Actually yours is the excercise of the fundie, take a theory that supports your belief and contend it is the end all and be all, while disregarding anything to the contrary.

I will now be presumptuous and speak for everyone here.  We neither want nor need your empty contributions.  Don't go away angry, just go away.

LMMFAO, now you are so arrogant as to "speak for everyone here" ....

You are so bereft of logic and knowledge, you can't see that you have not presented a single scintilla of information or evidence.  Not once.  Inquiring is neither proposition, nor rebuttal.

Present a refutation.  Anything, at all.  

String theory is nothing more than mathematical conjecture, is not "widely accepted" and fails on the "what is in evidence".  Currently, string theory does not even have a solid foundation, as the mathematicians can't even decide the number of dimensional likelihoods that are not only possible, but provable.

What is known in evidence directly contradicts "free will" as a possibility, because the hominid is incapable of making a choice, the conscious is superceded by the physical.  If the conscious does not have the primary instance of "choice" under its control, then no "choice" can be made.  Simply that you don't accept that, is not refutation.

Metaphysics, interstellar teapots, and any other forms of conjecturist imagination are of no use.  No self-respecting atheist would resort to such things, unless, they aren't an atheist whatsoever.
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 27, 2007, 12:41:19 AM
This thread has taken some interesting (and nasty) turns. I first want to ask Mastriani if you would please present some evidence to the assertion you made in your first post in this topic: A simple study of mirror neurons will end this: before you "decide" to do anything, your brain has already informed you that it is necessary to do, autonomously.

There is still much speculation on mirror neurons and their functions. This is a very new and inadequately studied field. It is very early and presumptuous to make any conclusions like this. Cite specific primary studies that reach this conclusion.

Additionally, unless everyone agrees what type of "Free Will" we are talking about, then any discussion is pointless. First, we would have to all agree to define Free Will in a mutually acceptable context.

I agree with many of the points made by Mastriani, although I find his tone unduly pedantic. And yes, he is overusing and probably misusing the word "Hominid".

Mastriani, perhaps you could try to discuss this topic without the sarcasm and condescension? It doesn't make you look smarter, more "alpha", or more correct. I think you can make some excellent contributions to this thread, but your valid points are overshadowed by the tone. You only lose ground and create unnecessary animosity when you do this.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on January 27, 2007, 02:07:20 AM
Quote from: "Mastriani"As far as the "determinism" aspect, that is pure hyperbolic conjecture.  The simplest denunciation is logic: in order for "determinism" to be an actual process, the exigency of an objective observer, with a direct point of view perspective on all situations, yet outside the first person affectee, that has the capacity to act as the agent of cause for "determinism", must be met.  Since no such entity has been shown to be in evidence, it is also dismissed.

I have always been under the impression that determinism refers to the idea that everything we do is beyond our actual control.  Predestination is what refers to a being of some sort causing this deterministic process.  Natural selection doesn't have to have a being orchestrating it for us to consider it a mechanism of evolution.  In this same way determinism, if it is what really occurs, is the mechanism through which our actions occur.

As McQ pointed out...it would be very helpful to know what definition of free will everyone is actually think of when they discuss "free will."  I view free will as the ability to choose between two or more choices without restraint from an outside force.  If the way the world is makes it so that when there appears to be multiple choices we are only capable of selecting a certain option; then we don't have free will.  

Environment certainly affects what we will choose but it's not absolutely taking away the ability to choose other options and even what sort of environment we are in can be the result of choice (do I hang out with the bad kids or the good kids when both groups will accept me?).

I would think that if mirror neuron truly are controlling our decisions that we would make the same choice every time we were placed in the same situation...yet even someone who live a very ritualistic life will sometimes do something different when nothing about the typical situation appears to have changed.  I'd also like to see the studies; especially since you are the first person I've heard claim they prove free will doesn't exist.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 27, 2007, 04:34:33 AM
Mastriani,
I find your vocabulary impressive and your syntax impeccable.
Which is why, when you present what you feel is a fact, such as:
Quote from: "Mastriani"Bottom line: There is no free will.  We choose nothing, it is done for us.

...I am left being more than reasonably confident, that you mean exactly what you say.
However, when I read your reply to donkeyhoty, the problem of your "bottom line" became evident. Not wanting to make an assumption, I asked questions about your response, figuring you would clear up my misunderstanding. Instead you consistently pulled farther away from your stated bottom line. Which tells me you have almost zero confidence in your bottom line, or your bottom line is in fact, incomplete and in need of adjustment.

Here's why;
The best response to donkeyhoty's query, given your stated bottom line would have been;
Quote.........................

That is to say, the best response, the only response is no response.

I believe it was earlier in this thread where ImpaledSkier asked in response to a no free will position, "What's the point"? And he is right in asking. The answer of course, is that for sentience, having no free will, there is no point. In fact the act of posting your statement actually cancels it out. The act itself makes the statement self refuting.

Instead of saying nothing to donkeyhoty's post, you answered with admitted sarcasm and what you called "instinctual valuation". Which is just a pretty way of saying, contempt.

You see, my point is that in your answer to donkeyhoty's post, you hold him accountable for the very thing that your bottom line states, he cannot be held accountable for. More than that, you hold him in contempt. But the contempt thing is a separate issue.
(Any further comment in that area I'll hold in reserve.)

How do you explain the difference between your bottom line and your contradictory actions?
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 27, 2007, 04:48:42 AM
For my part, I define free will as any decision that can be carried out without interference by natural occurrence* or by conflicting decisions of another individual.

*As a believer, natural includes the action of a deity.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 27, 2007, 05:31:25 AM
McQ,

Your assumption on my usage of the term hominid is incorrect, to wit:

QuoteCertain morphological characteristics are still used conventionally (though incorrectly) to support the idea that hominid should only denote humans and human ancestors, namely bipedalism and large brains. These points of departure between human beings and the other great apes are important, but taxonomically do not divide us into separate families. Genetics, rather than morphology, is the critical test of relatedness and in this respect humans and the other great apes ought to be of the same family. Indeed, the terms hominid and "great ape" are now effectively coterminous. However, anthropologists use the term to mean humans and their direct and near-direct ancestors, despite the changes in the understanding of hominoid taxonomy that have happened in the past several decades.

The only morphological characteristic that separates us from the other, more simian primates, is the extent of imagination in tool making.

Hominid stands, as in usage.

I find your post amusing, as you repeat my name on three different occasions in bold, and slant the monologue towards my linguistic semantics not being prompted or provoked.  But, there is no surprise in this at all.

Although expected, it is also amusing in peculiar fashion, that no one seems able to mount a counter proposition.  It seems that the onus of responsibility rests solely with me, regardless of the fact no one else has presented anything factual in refutation.

As far as my hierarchical standing within sociality, you are not sufficiently equipped in "intimate" knowledge of my person to have any chance at a valid claim of denial.  Summarily, my body is my record of my standing as an alpha specimen, the damage speaks for itself.  Intelligence will only get you to the prey, violence of the reptilian mind is what lifts one to the apex.

I will not be around tomorrow, but may have time on Sunday to provide the verbose post you require.

laetusatheos,

I'm not certain "predestinationism" is actually a valid philosophical position?  As far as the "determinism", you are correct on my partial error, as my mind jumped at "theological determinism" as the sum whole of the term.  Point conceded.

You may have another point of contention on the issue of "free will" in definition.  After checking my resources, "free will" is often misused where "free action" is more applicable.  We'll have to see where that finds its logical conclusion.

Kestrel,

How you advance from: "There is no free will. We choose nothing, it is done for us."

To:
"That is to say, the best response, the only response is no response."

Summarily, it is beyond me.  It appears to be non sequitur.  You'll have to explain your reasoning, I simply fail to see the logical line of that assertion.
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 27, 2007, 06:00:03 AM
Mastriani, if you paid attention to posts, you'd see that it is my custom, and the custom of many others in many forums to put in bold print, the names of those to whom they are speaking. This is to reduce confusion when posts get lengthy, as people don't always know who the message is for.

Your messages were not provoked to sarcasm. You simply acted like an arrogant jerk. I couldn't care less about your unwarranted boasting and chest beating, except to have it illuminate the apparent inadequacies you feel about yourself. The more you boast, the more I know you're full of shit.

And you do use hominid incorrectly. Thank you for clearing up that much. Perhaps before you take on someone in a forum you should do your own homework, just in case the person you're dealing with might have expertise in an area where you're trying to bullshit your way through.

And like all internet bullies (they're so pathetic) and bully wannabees, you just make wrong assumptions and bad judgments about others.

I tried to meet you on common ground in the hope of real discourse, but if you just want to come to this forum to piss and fight, then you will not last long.

Oh, and make no mistake. I don't care if you post again at all, let alone a verbose post that I never asked for. That  is a couple of straw men you've tried to throw at me. Tsk-tsk.

Now, back to the subject at hand: how about citing some studies to support your assertion?
And then get serious about trying to define what you mean by free will.

It amuses me when a new person comes bursting into a forum trying to intimidate members who really wouldn't care if he was face down in a lake.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 27, 2007, 06:50:22 AM
Quote from: "Mastriani"Kestrel,

How you advance from: "There is no free will. We choose nothing, it is done for us."

To:
"That is to say, the best response, the only response is no response."

Summarily, it is beyond me.  It appears to be non sequitur.  You'll have to explain your reasoning, I simply fail to see the logical line of that assertion.

Alright. I'll try it this way;
If there is no free will, no choice as is your claim, then there is no convincing. An individual cannot read your post and make a choice to agree or disagree with it. Your stance alleviates any personal responsibility, period. You might as well say that you are a programmed robot. You've actually talked yourself into a box. One that prohibits reasonable intellectual movement. Your bottom line, even states that you cannot take personal responsibility for your stance!

Yet you do take responsibility, voiding your bottom line.

Look Mastriani, I'm going to hazard a guess here, that you are fully prepared to hose down this thread in ubermensch-terone. And that stuff is a bitch to get out of ones hair.

Work with me here a bit longer, K?
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on January 28, 2007, 01:11:32 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.iprimus.com.au%2Fcomicmint%2Fcomic-book-guy-milhouse-E1352.JPG&hash=76b85813da8bc56842cae7eba11cb7c53207fe29)

Worst thread ever!

Sorry I couldn't resist, Mastriani, but you remind me of CBG off of the Simpsons. I'm not sure about physical appearance because I haven't see you but you remind me of him when I read your posts.

I disagree, there is always free will but the choices are rarely ever equal in weight. For example...

You are chained to a wall. You have a few choices, among them are trying to break your bonds or just lay in a semi-comatose state and just take the abuse of your captors while they give you Indian rub burns, purple nurples, and Bangkok after Bangkok.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 28, 2007, 10:23:01 AM
Quote from: "Master Debater"Although expected, it is also amusing in peculiar fashion, that no one seems able to mount a counter proposition.
To what?  You have yet to propose anything of value besides mirror neurons(worth $1.05), and your belief that this evidence outweighs all other evidence to the contrary.  

Furthermore, your refutation of string theory proves my point in refering to you as a fundie.  You discount all other evidence and refuse to believe that your own ideas are not widely held, or false, or may turn out to be false.

Quote from: "McQ"...who really wouldn't care if he was face down in a lake.
Don't we have enough pollution in our water?
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 28, 2007, 10:34:37 PM
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm)

Everything you never wanted to know about free will v determinism.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 30, 2007, 07:28:33 PM
Did our friend take his mirror neurons and go home?
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 30, 2007, 08:24:37 PM
Quote from: "Kestrel"Did our friend take his mirror neurons and go home?

Maybe he's reading another Wikipedia reference on something in order to become an "expert", just like with all the other shit he pretends to be an expert in.

Gee that was sarcastic of me. Does that mean I'm being a virtual alpha male? Is that a breach of social contract theory? Or was that an ad hominem attack?
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 30, 2007, 11:08:37 PM
McQ, to wit:  
I think that is all three.  
Congratulations, you hit the trifecta.  Please proceed to the customer help desk to procure your free t-shirt.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 31, 2007, 03:23:58 AM
No, actually, I have a career, a life, and a family, added to first quarter release development, and it doesn't always allow me time for trivialities such as forum discussions.

McQ, your pathetically inane prattle isn't worth the effort.  If you had any credibility as an intellect, you would have gone looking for information on your own.

It is good to be of Sicilian ancestry, you Americans are a sad and pathetic ilk.  Maundering about the internet, so much belief in your own ego bound delusions, expecting everyone to do for you, what you obviously haven't the sense or ability to do for yourself.

Learn something for a change, mirror neurons infer action. (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079)

Cellular level communication networking (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-483X4VX-3&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F07%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b8da5caad094a7023a81684b829a1840)

Further research developments in cellular tektins (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/18/21/8912)

P.S.  Don't bother to deny your mental lassitude.  Your oblivious response regarding hominid, pronounces clearly your level of acumen regarding literacy, comprehension, and vocabulary.  "bipedalism and large brain" with respect to higher primates ... hominid.  Although, the commentary regarding need of taxonomical adjustments is likely correct, in light of the current abject discourse.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on January 31, 2007, 03:46:44 AM
Yet you are still here talking shit on this forum. Some life you have there, you didn't realize that everything you just described about us (by the way, we have British and Canadians among others here) is really just a projection of yourself.

With all those big words, you still are on this forum and posting. And we "sad and pathetic ilk" saved your asses from Facism, so feel free to bitch away bub. A lot of country boys with rifles died saving you from Il Duce and his like. You're welcome, you pompous cockmaster.
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 31, 2007, 03:58:28 AM
Quote from: "Mastriani"No, actually, I have a career, a life, and a family, added to first quarter release development, and it doesn't always allow me time for trivialities such as forum discussions.

McQ, your pathetically inane prattle isn't worth the effort.  If you had any credibility as an intellect, you would have gone looking for information on your own.

It is good to be of Sicilian ancestry, you Americans are a sad and pathetic ilk.  Maundering about the internet, so much belief in your own ego bound delusions, expecting everyone to do for you, what you obviously haven't the sense or ability to do for yourself.

Learn something for a change. (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079)

Wow, that's the best laugh I've had in a while, Mastriani. Thank you! Do you even understand what that study says? It has nothing to do with your assertion that we have no free will.

And what about that humorous sentence about me looking for information on my own? It's not up to me to do your homework for you. You made the claim. Back it up. I already know what mirror neurons are and I'm familiar with the research. That's why I called you on your claim that they prove we don't have free will.

So, feel free to do your own homework and back up your claim. I already did mine.

It must be tough to be you, huh? Surrounded by lesser hominids, always having to explain everything in simple terms. Here's a present for you. I'll give you and everyone else an idea of who you are with this link:

http://allpsych.com/disorders/personali ... ssism.html (http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/narcissism.html)

But it is nice to see you demonstrate the very thing you deride, choosing to go for the ad hominem attacks instead of sticking to the subject at hand.

I look forward to your next stunning comeback. In the meantime, good luck finding the studies to support your claim of mirror neurons proving that humans don't have free will. We will wait patiently for those from you.
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 31, 2007, 04:08:54 AM
Isn't it interesting that Mastriani, who has a life, career, family, etc...blah-blah-blah....has the time to post verbose bullshit here, but not the time to post evidence to back up his claims?

Additionally, he fails to see or note that I agreed with most of what he said early on, and chose to act insulted, offended, and whine about the one thing on which I disagreed?

Instead of taking a few deep breaths and trying to realize the common ground, he simply attacks as if he was a wounded animal. As I recall, I was quite polite in suggesting that he try to discuss this topic without the sarcasm and condescension.

Interesting.
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 31, 2007, 04:12:04 AM
LMAO, McQ, you didn't even have the time to read that study, it was just posted, and there is more beyond the abstract.

Mirror neurons categorically record for memory, sensory input directly relating to environmental interaction, then they also infer what other plausible actions are relevant.  Using what is in evidence all throughout nature, out of the "choices" given, you will be autonomously routed to the "path of least resistance".  Effectively, you have been told what is the best option to take, so choice is eliminated.

Your assertion about what you "know", is summarily rebuked.  As far as the ad hominem, you and donkey initiated and I granted you your wanted retaliation.  Again, rebuked.  For the fourth time, none here have provided an iota of information as rebuttle to anything stated by myself, but instead proffered unsupported, non-factual opines, and it matters not.

Conclusively, a pack of monkeys humping a greased football.  

Abyssus abyssum invocat
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 31, 2007, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: "Mastriani"LMAO, McQ, you didn't even have the time to read that study, it was just posted, and there is more beyond the abstract.

Mirror neurons categorically record for memory, sensory input directly relating to environmental interaction, then they also infer what other plausible actions are relevant.  Using what is in evidence all throughout nature, out of the "choices" given, you will be autonomously routed to the "path of least resistance".  Effectively, you have been told what is the best option to take, so choice is eliminated.

Your assertion about what you "know", is summarily rebuked.  As far as the ad hominem, you and donkey initiated and I granted you your wanted retaliation.  Again, rebuked.  For the fourth time, none here have provided an iota of information as rebuttle to anything stated by myself, but instead proffered unsupported, non-factual opines, and it matters not.

Conclusively, a pack of monkeys humping a greased football.  

Abyssus abyssum invocat

Keep trying. You have yourself convinced at least. We'll just sit back and wait for your evidence. Yawn.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 31, 2007, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: "Master Debater"Your assertion about what you "know", is summarily rebuked.
Ditto.

Quote from: "Master Debater"For the fourth time, none here have provided an iota of information as rebuttle to anything stated by myself, but instead proffered unsupported, non-factual opines, and it matters not.
Did you read the many papers posted on the link I provided?  Of course you didn't.  Here it is again:  http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm)

Quote from: "Master Debater also"Effectively, you have been told what is the best option to take, so choice is eliminated.
An option is a choice.  You can also choose to take a path that is not of least resistance.  Have you ever seen the Navy SEAL training shows on the Military/History channel?  Nothing that they do would ever be considered a path of least resistance.  The whole idea is to overcome ingrained notions of self-interest.  An excercise in free will, but certainly not proof of free will.

Your evidence does not prove that there is no free will, but you fail to realize it.  Once again, it only adds weight, and not much, to your proposition.  
Quote from: "Second study"Experimentally determining the importance of cellular extensions within a whole animal remains a challenge and understanding the interplay between physical forces and signaling within such extensions even more so. Genetic and molecular manipulation of extension formation (for example, perturbing the actin cytoskeleton), is likely to affect other cellular processes as well. Untangling the effects on extensions from other effects will be difficult. Some help may be at hand with the emergence of imaging techniques for following individual cells and their extensions in live embryos. These new techniques may be especially powerful when coupled with other manipulations. In some systems, it may be possible to physically ablate, block, or misdirect individual extensions and follow the effects of these manipulations on sending and receiving cells. It may also be useful to tag and follow “touched” cells and compare their subsequent behavior with that of neighboring “untouched” cells. Of course, imaging approaches are still limited both in terms of spatial resolution and speed. Ideally, we would like to ascribe specific functions to specific extensions. This is likely to present a challenge for quite some time to come.
Not proof of anything regarding free will.

Quote from: "First study"The conventional view on intention understanding is that the description of an action and the interpretation of the reason why that action is executed rely on largely different mechanisms. In contrast, the present data show that the intentions behind the actions of others can be recognized by the motor system using a mirror mechanism. Mirror neurons are thought to recognize the actions of others, by matching the observed action onto its motor counterpart coded by the same neurons. The present findings strongly suggest that coding the intention associated with the actions of others is based on the activation of a neuronal chain formed by mirror neurons coding the observed motor act and by “logically related” mirror neurons coding the motor acts that are most likely to follow the observed one, in a given context. To ascribe an intention is to infer a forthcoming new goal, and this is an operation that the motor system does automatically.
Once again, no proof of anything regarding free will.  Recognizing how someone picks up a mug, and having no choice in how you pick up a mug are not the same thing.
 
I will say, yet again, there is nothing that will prove or disprove free will save the understanding of the entire universe.  
Whether you like it or not, free will v. determinism is a heavily metaphysical debate.  If you are unprepared or unable to discuss things of a metaphysical nature(and Masty, you definitely are) then you shouldn't bother.

And here's the obligatory ad hominem for you,
Quote from: "Master Debater"Again, there is no certainty that the flat tire is not a ruse for an alterior motive or agenda.
Quite the cunning linquist, aren't we?  Alterior is not a word, never has been, never will be.
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 31, 2007, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"LMAO, McQ, you didn't even have the time to read that study, it was just posted, and there is more beyond the abstract.

How would you know how fast I read, dipstick? Reading clinical studies is what I do every day as part of my job. I also explain them, teach them, and review them. If you weren't such a horse's ass you'd realize that there are other educated people here. But then, that's part of your personality disorder, so we can't expect much of you in that regard.

You are nothing more than a troll with a propped up vocabulary, slathered with an ego, surrounded by delusions of persecution.

I can waste no more time with you, as I too have a life, family, and career. But I do love a good meltdown, so would you do me the favor and please continue?
Title:
Post by: Mastriani on January 31, 2007, 03:47:27 PM
LMMFAOROTFL ... For the first time McQ, you are right about something.

Any further discourse with you, or anyone of that ilk, is decisively unproductive.  Philosophy/philosophers are nothing more than a pack of monkeys humping a greased football.  The hominid mind, like all others, is nothing but a chain of biochemical mechanisms, (physical action), too overly dependent upon historicity and imagination.  Free will is the same lie as the interstellar teapot, but say hello to both of them for me.  LMMFAO!!!

Don't bother to reply, I'll look for more rational atheists, elsewhere.  

Qui deciderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

P.S.  Ability to manipulate language is the highest empirically regarded cursory ability for defining intellectual acuity.  But don't let that stop you ... LMMFAO.
Title:
Post by: McQ on January 31, 2007, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"LMMFAOROTFL ... For the first time McQ, you are right about something.

Any further discourse with you, or anyone of that ilk, is decisively unproductive.  Philosophy/philosophers are nothing more than a pack of monkeys humping a greased football.  The hominid mind, like all others, is nothing but a chain of biochemical mechanisms, (physical action), too overly dependent upon historicity and imagination.  Free will is the same lie as the interstellar teapot, but say hello to both of them for me.  LMMFAO!!!

Don't bother to reply, I'll look for more rational atheists, elsewhere.  

Qui deciderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

P.S.  Ability to manipulate language is the highest empirically regarded cursory ability for defining intellectual acuity.  But don't let that stop you ... LMMFAO.

And I agree with you in a way, Mastriani. Philosophers can go round and round on this and never agree, which is why, as a Biologist working in Hematology and Oncology, I depend on solid clinical studies to further any information about the brain. That's why I'm still waiting to see if you can produce such a study that concludes humans do not have free will based on mirror neurons.

But feel free to keep dodging it, and re-using the same cliches about humping footballs. This too, is enjoyable, although I'm not sure how long the admins will accept your trollish behavior and megalomania.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on January 31, 2007, 08:24:10 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"Don't bother to reply, I'll look for more rational atheists, elsewhere.

Good luck finding a place where people will agree with everything you say.  Really, if that's what you are looking for you should become an evangelist and only participate on CARM.
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on January 31, 2007, 09:05:06 PM
Quote from: "Mastriani"Don't bother to reply, I'll look for more rational atheists, elsewhere.  

 
You can't.



Remember; you don't have free will, mate.

Cheers.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on January 31, 2007, 09:55:40 PM
How does a monkey hump a football?  In the sense that,
Quote from: "Master Debater"Everything in environmental instance must be qualitatively assessed for fitness. Example: you are hungry, you go to the fridge, pick up a food item, it has an awful smell : you don't eat it because you are suddenly overwhelmed by a sensation of nauseum. Was it your "decision" not to eat it?

Summarily, no. It did not pass the valuation of fitness for comsumption because genetically we are inclined to test our environment, just as a caution, as it aids our ability to survive for ensuring procreation. The food item in the example, has a negative valuation, as the smell is associated with something in historical information from genetics signaling danger.

Although in the hominid sphere, the inclusion of linguistics appears to cloud the issue, it only adds complexity. The end result is the same. We valuate for fitness, not as a choice, but as a matter of genetic history and survivability. Hence, you do not ingest the food item, as your body recalls that nauseum prevents anything from going into the piehole.
Why bang a football when it would be assessed a negative valuation, considering there is no hole to put your junk in?  Unless, of course, you had a choice in the matter.  
Also, regarding Masty's immense linguistic ability, the usage of nauseum is wrong.  It should be nausea.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on January 31, 2007, 10:58:54 PM
Writing stuff in Latin doesn't make you seem like a unique intellectual. You are still posting here after talking about leaving. The door (the cyber one) is right over there, don't hit your ass on the way out. We'd prefer if you ran into a knife instead.
Title:
Post by: BGMA on February 07, 2007, 04:57:16 AM
Quote from: "Sir_Nuttingham"
Quote from: "BGMA"Here's a rough view of "scientific" determinism vs. free will that I heard somewhere on the net:

Picture a worm in the dirt near a sidewalk.  Pour a lot of water around.  The worm will crawl to the sidewalk.  Let it dry.  The worm will crawl back toward the dirt.  All worms will likely do the same, with very little variation.  A worm has almost no free will.

Picture a squirrel.  Pen the squirrel in a yard with a tree and some food and a dog on a leash.  The squirrel will take the food or climb the tree or test the limits of the dog.  There might be a little variation, but not much, from squirrel to squirrel.  A squirrel's brain is more complex than that of a worm, and the squirrel has many more options of action to choose from, but still not many.  A squirrel only has a little free will.

Picture a person, confronted with another person.  Now you have someone with hundreds of options of how to react to every single situation.  Some of those options are very unpredictable.  The threshhold necessary for a person to change from one choice of action to another is very small, possibly in some cases so small that quantum differences in the actions of atoms in the brain could push a person from one decision to another.

Additionally, a person is extremely sensitive to their surroundings, such that infinitesimally small differences in the surroundings can lead to major changes in course of action.  Finally, much of a person's actions happen after hundreds of complicated feedback loops within the brain, all of which can give rise to many different courses of action.  If I hit your knee in the right spot, you will kick, a non-free-will action.  But if I call you a jerk, you can laugh or call me a name or grimace or walk away or hit me or act confused or quietly seethe, and all of those actions can happen in a hundred different ways.  People have a lot of free will.


I don't think this proves that humans have a higher level of free will than worms and squirrels nor that it proves that humans have free will at all. It just shows that in contrary to worms, humans have experience and memory to define their most logical next act. Worms don't have memory, therefor they will only act using instinct and their senses, where as I stated, humans have experience and memory as cumulative factors. A squirrel problaby has a little more reliability on experience and memory, but not the wide range that humans have.

Well, what it does show is that human reactions are *extremely* sensitive to initial starting conditions.  So sensitive, in fact, that I would posit that quantum effects in the brain can ultimately have macro-level effects on human actions, unlike with worms or squirrels.