Peter Weyland and David

Started by bambi_burster, Mar 23, 2012, 09:38:56 AM

Author
Peter Weyland and David (Read 10,690 times)

aliennaire

aliennaire

#30
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:28:31 PM
Really? So you refute the various peer reviewed experiments carried out by well respected neuroscientists that have found, using MRI technology, that a subject's decisions can be predicted up to seven seconds before they have consciously decided to make a 'choice?' Upon what basis does your refutation lie? Please, enlighten us.
It's substantiated by my own experience, mostly.

Probably we are talking about different things, because taking up to 7 seconds to make up your mind it's a great deal of time. For instance, you are asked to help someone, would you ponder for 7 secs to give your consent?

Need to read about those tests, what was their aim, or what they were trying to prove, though.

Despicable Dugong

Despicable Dugong

#31
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 24, 2012, 09:44:09 PM
DMT is so bourgeois.

Is youse calling my pineal gland somefink French butty boy?  >:( :P ;D

Cvalda

Cvalda

#32
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:53:02 PM
Is youse calling my pineal gland somefink French butty boy?  >:( :P ;D
Do dugongs even have pineal glands? Your race can't be too enlightened if the number one threat to their existence is boat propellers. ;D

Despicable Dugong

Despicable Dugong

#33
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:46:37 PM
It's substantiated by my own experience, mostly.

Probably we are talking about different things, because taking up to 7 seconds to make up your mind it's a great deal of time. For instance, you are asked to help someone, would you ponder for 7 secs to give your consent?

Need to read about those tests, what was their aim, or what they were trying to prove, though.

I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html


Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 24, 2012, 09:55:42 PM
Do dugongs even have pineal glands? Your race can't be too enlightened if the number one threat to their existence is boat propellers. ;D

Such cheek from a balding monkey with opposable thumbs!

Oh the HugeManatee!

http://www.cetaceanrights.org/

;D :D

deepelemblues

deepelemblues

#34
I wasn't aware that the brain and the mind could be separated in such an arbitrary fashion in order to serve a preconceived conclusion.

Despicable Dugong

Despicable Dugong

#35
Quote from: deepelemblues on Mar 24, 2012, 10:10:14 PM
I wasn't aware that the brain and the mind could be separated in such an arbitrary fashion in order to serve a preconceived conclusion.

Who's separating brain and mind?  ??? What is a 'mind' anyway? Can't have one without t'other, well I suppose that in certain circumstances you can but it depends on the offal on offer and how the chef prepares them.  :laugh: 

Cvalda

Cvalda

#36
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
Such cheek from a balding monkey with opposable thumbs!

Oh the HugeManatee!

http://www.cetaceanrights.org/

;D :D
Not a monkey, an ape! And while we're on proper taxonomy, dugongs ain't no cetaceans, either! :P

Despicable Dugong

Despicable Dugong

#37
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 24, 2012, 10:17:27 PM
Not a monkey, an ape! And while we're on proper taxonomy, dugongs ain't no cetaceans, either! :P

Touché! On that note im off to put Mr Johnny Walker back in the drinks cabinet and roll all my clocks forward an hour before I hit the waterbed. See what I did there?  :laugh:

Seriously though... Bonging? Don't do it!  :-\

aliennaire

aliennaire

#38
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:46:37 PM
It's substantiated by my own experience, mostly.

Probably we are talking about different things, because taking up to 7 seconds to make up your mind it's a great deal of time. For instance, you are asked to help someone, would you ponder for 7 secs to give your consent?

Need to read about those tests, what was their aim, or what they were trying to prove, though.

I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html
I see, we both mean different things, you are talking about decisions, while my post was about will. Will is much simplier aspect of our perception, and, as a binary code, has only two variants of answer - you will do it, or you won't. Decisions are more complicated stuff, and probably could be programmed beforehead, 'cause they rely on conditions what they are taken upon. Will is unconditional.

Despicable Dugong

Despicable Dugong

#39
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 10:20:50 PM
I see, we both mean different things, you are takling about decisions, while my post was about will. Will is much simplier aspect of our perception, and, as a binary code, has only two variants of answer - you will do it, or you won't. Decisions are more complecated stuff, and probably could be programmed beforehead, 'cause they rely on conditions what they are taken upon. Will is unconditional.

Errrr nope!

I'd suggest that you review what the meaning of 'free will' is.

Anywhooo im half cut and need to alter my time pieces before bed. Adios.

Cvalda

Cvalda

#40
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 10:19:57 PM
Seriously though... Bonging? Don't do it!  :-\
Tell that to Charlize. She bongs so hard she makes hers out of apples.
Spoiler
[close]

Ballzanya

Ballzanya

#41
Quote from: aliennaire on Mar 24, 2012, 09:19:33 PM
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 07:50:54 PM
Why would a corporation develop a synthetic life form that has 'free will?' There would be little profit in it, especially if the creation decided one day that it didn't want to do what it's creators wished it to any more, a la Frankenstein.

'Free will' is an illusion anyway.
It's no way an illusion, free will enables you with the power to choose and agree or oppose, depending on your choice. I'm not talking about situations when you are obliged to act in certain manner due to laws, conventions, habits, etc, I mean you true reaction, which you always have inside yourself.

Far be it from me to join in with the current direction this thread is taking and argue over free will and other philosophical positions, rather than about Prometheus, but this statement you made is not informed by neuroscience or even modern philosphy in which most philosophers at best, are forced to adopt a stance midway between a sense of "libertarian" free will(in the the philosophical sense not the political one) and no free will, stating that free will and a deterministic universe, governed by physical laws can be compatible. The statement you made that it is in no way an illusion is pretty bold, and flies in the face of at least some data to the contrary and at the very least is not obvious. It has been highly contested in philosophical and scientific circles ever since the late 1600's or so.
   Philosphically speaking, once again, it can also be technically argued that 100% accurate and reliable knowledge of the universe in its pure, objective, unfiltered, unprocessed reality, is not possible and not available to us as a limitation of our cognitive capablities(the way our brains are wired, how our thought process works, etc.) So, it logically follows that a person cannot simply trust their own subjective, personal experience of the world to such a degree that they think they could not be mistaken. Strong convictions, senses of identity etc. are not immune to this potential uncertainty.
   So what I'm arguing, or at least one of the things I'm arguing is that, neither you nor anyone else is in any position to claim that you know that you make decisions based on free will, unrestrained by subconscious factors,  biases, prejudices, genetic predispositions, past experiences, and so on, just because you have a "sense" of making choices and being in control of your actions. Which now leads to a sci-fi related question: If artificial intelligence were possible to engineer, who's to say we couldn't make robots that had the sense of being in control of their own actions, although they were ultimately programmed on some level?

Deuterium

Deuterium

#42
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html

Despicable Dugong, as you are probably are aware, the premise that Free Will is an "illusion" has been around for quite some time.  The neuro-scientific studies that have been conducted in the recent past, and cited in scientific journals, pose interesting scientific questions as to how the brain operates, but shed little light on the properties of our mind.

A fundamental difficultly is the definition of "conscious" and "sub-concious" decisions...and especially as it relates to why one should assign a priority to one at the expense of the other.  Putting aside the problems regarding the accuracy in both determining AND timing when a a Free Will event occurs...it also becomes an issue of "definition".  Even if one were to concede that a decision event may occur "sub-consciously", why should the agent behind the "sub-conscious" decision be of a different kind then what we ascribe to our alert, conscious state.  The very process of studying these issues requires introspection upon the part of the investigator, which raises another level of questions.

In case it isn't obvious, I completely reject the conclusion that Free Will is an "illusion".

Ballzanya

Ballzanya

#43
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 24, 2012, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Mar 24, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
I'd suggest you start with some Spinoza and work from there. Alternatively you could pay for the journal and read all about the experiment and its findings: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html

Despicable Dugong, as you are probably are aware, the premise that Free Will is an "illusion" has been around for quite some time.  The neuro-scientific studies that have been conducted in the recent past, and cited in scientific journals, pose interesting scientific questions as to how the brain operates, but shed little light on the properties of our mind.

A fundamental difficultly is the definition of "conscious" and "sub-concious" decisions...and especially as it relates to why one should assign a priority to one at the expense of the other.  Putting aside the problems regarding the accuracy in both determining AND timing when a a Free Will event occurs...it also becomes an issue of "definition".  Even if one were to concede that a decision event may occur "sub-consciously", why should the agent behind the "sub-conscious" decision be of a different kind then what we ascribe to our alert, conscious state.  The very process of studying these issues requires introspection upon the part of the investigator, which raises another level of questions.

In case it isn't obvious, I completely reject the conclusion that Free Will is an "illusion".

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting here that decisions made by our brains subconsciously count as us being in control and thus making a choice, just as much as conscious decision making? To me that seems crazy. It's not just semantics and how you define the concept of free will.
  As far as I'm concerned, if I don't consciously decide something, based on the immediate awareness of the possible options and their potential outcomes, then I haven't made a choice. If as one of these famous studies suggests, that the brain already starts sending a signal to start doing something before the person has any sense of desire to do that particular thing, then they have not chosen to do that particular thing.
  Also, think of things this way. You'd agree that ultimately, everything reduces to physics, which are governed by natural laws, self-contained and explicable by scientific means, right? The brain is matter. Matter is made up of sub-atomic particles, at a scale in which quantum mechanics is involved and so on. Thoughts do not occur in some incorporeal void. Conscioussness requires both time and space in order to exist. It also needs the physical brain and nervous system as well. Therefore, the brain, producing thoughts, only happens in ways that are dictated by the physical laws that govern all particles. So given this, the choices are either some kind of complicated, and very, very limited sense of free will or strict determinism. But for all intents and purposes, what most people mean by "free will" is certaintly an illusion.

Deuterium

Deuterium

#44
Quote from: Ballzanya on Mar 24, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting here that decisions made by our brains subconsciously count as us being in control and thus making a choice, just as much as conscious decision making? To me that seems crazy. It's not just semantics and how you define the concept of free will.
  As far as I'm concerned, if I don't consciously decide something, based on the immediate awareness of the possible options and their potential outcomes, then I haven't made a choice. If as one of these famous studies suggests, that the brain already starts sending a signal to start doing something before the person has any sense of desire to do that particular thing, then they have not chosen to do that particular thing.

I think it become both a question of definition, as well as identification/classification.  I ask you to consider your dreams.  Now, if we don't think too carefully, we tend to dismiss our dreams as more or less random and many times incoherent.  But if you really think deeply about some of your dreams, you realize that often there is a narrative.  Events often occur in your dreams that surprise you, but are still consistent within that particular dream.  What part of your mind is planning how the dream unfolds?  I am not talking about when your dreams fragment, or go of the rails.  But rather the physical continuity of a relatively lucid dream, itself.  If, in your dream, you are being chased by a monster, and suddenly come upon a weapon...it was your subconscious that "thought" to include the weapon.  If you choose to pick up the weapon, and fire back at the monster...that is all occuring at a "sub-conscious" level.  When dreams are vivid, there is a definite sense that some narrative is being planned and played out.  Who is writing that narrative?

Evidently, there is a very real agent that resides deep within our mind, that operates on a sub-conscious level.  You certainly are making "decisions" within your dreams...and these occur at the "sub-conscious" level...so how exactly does that differ from a decision you make in an awake, "conscious" state?

A brief word on the previously referenced neuro-studies on Free Will.  A major difficulty lies in the fact that the subject must identify (by looking at a clock), when they were first aware that they had made a conscious decision to, say, lift their wrist, or push a button.  This requires introspection on the part of the subject, and identification of intentionality.  The subject does not give the researcher direct access to the moment they were first aware of their "intention"...but must tell them afterwards.  They have to recall the position of the clock.

Another problem is determining if the "readiness potential" (identified by neural signature) is always followed by an action.  The subject may show definite neural signs/brain waves indicated they have a readiness potential, but no action results.  There is no way for the researcher to discriminate between the measurement of a given readiness potential, and the subjects intentionality to act or not to act.

Finally, as I emphasized previously, it is not at all apparent or evident that "willful" actions and influences on our behavior operate exclusively on a conscious level.  The aforementioned studies, however, are based specifically on this assumption.  The whole thing falls apart if one allows that the "will" can also operate on unconscious processes...or that our mind may also function with "pre-conscious" intentions.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News