http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node12.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128285.900-quantum-minds-why-we-think-like-quarks.html
How could Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox still be considered such when we have the answer right here. If you think neuron interaction is a paradox you're also probably one of those people that lend credence to the explanation that they're also emergent phenomenon... Decision theory is algorithmic in nature. Ergo, I can find step by step where all these divergent ideas come from within that framework.
The short answer is rapid firing of neurons. The longer answer is I have no idea. I don't really care what the thought is "made of" WHAT EVER THAT'S SUPPOSED TO MEAN but I do care about the thought's informational content.
No, but it makes a sound wave. You need something to render the wave to produce sound... Just because nothing is there to render the sound wave; doesn't mean the wave didn't exist. There is more to freewill, than what you do, act, and think. You are bounded by laws such as Physics and Biology, so you can't just flap your arms and fly. On top of that, you can't choose where you are born or to what parents. You can't choose your genetic makeup, or how your immune system will react to a specific disease. You can't choose to not have cancer, or not catch the flu. Some things in life you just got to go with, and do damage control when you get there. There's no real plan for life that everyone can just follow... There is more proof that freewill doesn't exist, than existing. In the end, how could you really know that you were making your own choices. This could all be a dream, and you would never know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument MIT is trying to end the argument of Freewill... http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/closing-the-free-will-loophole-0220.html A Logic Breakdown: I kill 2 people I don't want to go to Prison Cops take me to jail Judge hands out 25 to life I'm in Prison or 2 people have two copies of a specific genetic disorder. The baby doesn't want a genetic disorder. They have a baby who gets the genetic disorder. No one chooses to be stupid... They just are! "As Stephen Hawking explains, the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_realm A third party control is you can't choose anything else, but the choices that are given to you by determined probability. Physics is always right, but our interpretation of Physics can be wrong. Wouldn't neurons just be the transport of information from one node to another in the brain? As in, the neurons aren't thought itself, or at least we haven't found thought matter in neurons yet. Which then creates a paradox of where thought actually exists. It really comes back down to the stuff I linked about a quantum mind that you didn't care to understand.... Class Dismissed... : D P.S. Found an extended version...
If that was to deep for everyone I have no issues talking about how gravity is working as intended, and where we can only go from here! I've watched this at least 100 times, so I figure I have a good grasp on things. : D Maybe we can come up with some charts of what went wrong.
While the latter is something that's determined by nature, the prior is determined by intelligence. If you kill two people, you better have a plan of how to get rid of the evidence or disappear off the map before you can be caught. If you did it anyway and have no way of getting away without consequences, then you're an idiot. As for Sek: Do I have free will? -> Plausible. However answering the question may or may not be possible, depending on your definition of free will. Why do I think I have free will? -> Same as yours. Why do I not perceive third party control of my thought processes? --> Either because there isn't any or because my perception isn't enough to perceive it. I don't think that basing our entire knowledge on something set in stone and believing that our minds aren't set in stone is contradictory. There is no evidence pointing to that randomness or semi-randomness can't be achieved through something that isn't random. There is also no evidence pointing to that self-controlling systems, that are (at least partially) exempt from outside influence, can't be made in a world where every thing normally influences the other. A hundred humans have two hundred eyes that look at the same thing with four hundred viewpoints. Our whole understanding of the world hinges on the fact that our perceptions are correct and most of our perceptions differ. There are some things which we came to agree on, such as the color of grass, but then there are other things which we can't agree on and that isn't always because neither side has the right answer, but an issue of perception.
Don't see the point of even saying this... It really doesn't say shit about Freewill. What if I take a shit in your Cheerios, are you going to finish the bowl with a 10 point smile just to say you had a choice, or are you going to dump it the fuck out like everyone else and make a new bowl. Between those 2 choices to either eat the turd or not, is it really choice...?
You make no bloody sense, man. It's like you don't understand what free will means. There are numerous things I could do about the shitty Cheerios, including smashing the whole bowl into your face and making you eat your own bloody shitty Cheerios. Don't limit me to two options. The reason why that quote makes no sense though, is because I'm not omnipotent or omniscient -- I can't know what you did with the Cheerios until I find out or do anything about it before I find out, that has nothing to do with my free will, as I have no way to choose anything about something that I don't know about or have a hand in. Yet once I do find out, I have an uncountable number of options to take, choosing any which one means that I have free will.
I know, because you can't think on my level. -_- It doesn't matter how many options there is to choose. It doesn't, there is no proof either way... You want to limit freewill to just thought, but there is more to freewill than just thought. If you don't get it, there is nothing I can do about that... I'm not getting paid to teach a class.
When you get right down to it, decisions are based upon desired outcomes or a conflict between multiple desires. Since you can't choose your desires, it follows that decisions are just your brain working towards what it believes to be a most desired outcome. I am not a believer in "free-will," though the perception of free-will is probably helpful to human thought as far as decisions are concerned. While your decisions are pre-determined, the belief that you are consciously determining a decision at all is likely helpful to the process.
Pretty much. All I'm seeing here is Gankfest supporting his opinion with other opinions and discounting anyone else's thoughts as bullshit.
You mean the part where I already linked sources, and neither of you have done shit to prove your argument. What? Actually Dag the only thing you said in the thread was... Should probably make sure you have all your ducks in a row before talking shit... right? Sounds like a noob losing an argument. *cough
My first post was a joke, like the rest of this thread. I honestly don't see how you can think anyone here will take you seriously, as you seem to have a habit of trolling any thread in these forums into locked status.