Originally posted by apathistI don't know who kellyanne is.
You sound like kellyanne. My comment wasn't about my view, but about yours. Asked for clarification, you call strawman. That is pretty funny!
What exactly is it you want clarification on? I'll give you one last chance.
Last time you asked for clarification, I gave it, and rather than read the clarification you called it 'bull' and skipped over it.
What I call 'strawman' is your usual habit of attributing to me things I have not said. I consider such behaviour dishonest. In fact, your suggestion above that I called your request for clarification a strawman is an example of such dishonesty given that I did no such thing.
13 edits
Originally posted by apathistWhat studies at university or higher education have you done on computers and genetic algorithms? Are you an expert in this? if not, how can you form a complex opinion (like above) on something you are ignorant of? You opinion is worth nothing as it is based on just ignorance.
When it comes to computers and decision-making, I tend to think of them as glorified stoplights or thermostats. But I know about genetic algorithms, and about how circuitry can evolve - and not just computer simulations of them. .
From you above comment, I bet you don't even know what a "genetic algorithm" is without looking it up; let me help you with that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
Try studying the subject PROPERLY before commenting about it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks for taking the time to dig deep into the meaning of this conclusion.
So:
1. They note that 'free will' is subjective and not a known fact - contrary to your definition which assumes it is a fact.
2. They are, as I suggested earlier, investigating the mechanisms behind higher order concepts such as self, will, intention etc. There is nothing whatsoever stopping us from discussing higher order concepts without knowing the ...[text shortened]... that decisions are made by the conscious (some of the time) what implications does that have?
1. I think the understood meaning in the first sentence was that the "report" of free will was subjective, not that free will itself was subjective. Again, I think free will is a well-appreciated physiological function.
2. We can philosophize all day long, but the requisite knowledge is important to understand the how the decision making process works.
3. They linked their findings in rat to similar brain activities observed in human and primate frontal cortex (mammals), which allowed for speculation as to evolutionary conservation of the mechanism.
4. Yes, you are right. Scientists are studying free will. Answering the unanswerable question about determinism is boring.
To answer your questions, I think the models emerging in the last 10 years on free will have absolutely changed the way we understand how brains make decisions. I swear I didn't read this before posting earlier about Robert Frost, but this article in Nature Neuroscience discusses the implications of fledgling studies on an integration-to-bound model [1], which have been expanded upon in recent years [2,3]. (hopefully posting links that can actually be read.)
It's incredible how little is known about this. Where are the inputs coming from? Why, how and what do they consist of? How are they integrated? Why is the required threshold for freely willed decisions higher when more options are available, and how is that controlled? Is the threshold level for "spontaneous" action correlated with personality traits like addiction? What are the mechanisms that shift the "bound" barrier up or down, essentially altering the required threshold towards decision making? Is this what separates strong vs. weak will? Can it be manipulated? What are the implications for addiction, or people who generally just make really bad decisions? (like me. I should be working)
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0608-623.epdf?
[2] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/12/rats-free-will/
[3] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will
Originally posted by twhiteheadComputers mimic our decision making behavior. We designed them. We endowed them with the ability to make decisions. The mechanisms of action are distinct. If you're making a free will machine of your own free will, it completely shifts the paradigm. Of course, if you're studying biological or computational systems, different terminology and definitions are required. I am sure the philosophers have a lot more to say about this.
I still think you need to explain in full why you object to the claim that computers can make decisions. It would help to clarify your definition if you gave that explanation.
To attempt to analogize (I'm sure moonbus could do much better): Is a submarine swimming? Can a rock run? We wouldn't call it that as it distorts the intended meaning.
Originally posted by wildgrassAnd I disagree. That is not what they are saying. They are saying that there is a hypothetical phenomenon called free will that people subjectively believe they experience. They are investigating whether or not people (or rather mice) do actually experience it. ie they don't know if free will is a real phenomena and they are investigating whether or not it is. Their definition is clearly different from yours.
Thanks for taking the time to dig deep into the meaning of this conclusion.
1. I think the understood meaning in the first sentence was that the "report" of free will was subjective, not that free will itself was subjective. Again, I think free will is a well-appreciated physiological function.
2. We can philosophize all day long, but the requisite knowledge is important to understand the how the decision making process works.
Of course. But philosophy can rule out certain things before we even get to experiment.
3. They linked their findings in rat to similar brain activities observed in human and primate frontal cortex (mammals), which allowed for speculation as to evolutionary conservation of the mechanism.
Sure, but I still find the restriction to mammals suspect. There is no good reason to think similar processes do not occur in duck billed platypus brains or even octopus brains.
To answer your questions, I think the models emerging in the last 10 years on free will have absolutely changed the way we understand how brains make decisions.
Speak for yourself. I have understood the basics for more than 10 years.
I swear I didn't read this before posting earlier about Robert Frost, but this article in Nature Neuroscience discusses the implications of fledgling studies on an integration-to-bound model [1], which have been expanded upon in recent years [2,3]. (hopefully posting links that can actually be read.)
They want money again 🙁
But I think I got the gist of it from the bit they let me read. Again, I say the exact details are not particularly interesting to me. It remains the case that the brain is a computer, computing a decision based on a variety of inputs. This seems to contradict your earlier claims that a computer could not be built with free will. This leaves you with the challenge of explaining why you made such a claim.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI think your last sentence is wrong-headed. I have higher education in computers, so maybe I process the popular science articles on the subject better than average. I have no training in medicine, and updates on that subject leave me with more questions than I started with. That was for comparison.
What studies at university or higher education have you done on computers and genetic algorithms? Are you an expert in this? if not, how can you form a complex opinion (like above) on something you are ignorant of? You opinion is worth nothing as it is based on just ignorance. ...
Try studying the subject PROPERLY before commenting about it.
I do routinely have to research even about subjects I know. Details don't stick if I'm not routinely using them. But I'm good at the big picture. Autism, seriously. Well, minor case, actually, but for example my roommates have two boys, not one or three, and I know the names, but have trouble lining those two facts up. I set up visual cues, but then mix those up too. But show me the boy and I can list their personality traits. This is frustrating. I'm being too honest and exposing myself.
I guess I'm saying we don't need college degrees to share knowledge and understanding. Degrees mark the experts, potentially. But they are not in ivory towers.
There's a phrase in the book I'm working on, used repeatedly. "Lies to children." They are necessary to build a foundation for deeper understanding. I know this is true, despite my lack of a sociology degree.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadConway, counsel to our president but mainly she runs interference with the press. She is expert at what she does.
I don't know who kellyanne is.
I don't know if she's aware of how dishonest she is. Maybe she just has another way of honestly looking at things. Maybe that's the case with you too.
What exactly is it you want clarification on? I'll give you one last chance.
No, you used up the last chance. There can be a new chance, though I need you to stop using insult as your main weapon. Govern your thoughts and your expression of them. Have enough confidence in your position so that punching people isn't your main argument. There are so many views of everything, it's the meshing that is interesting.
Originally posted by apathist... There can be a new chance, though I need you to stop using insult as your main weapon. Govern your thoughts and your expression of them. Have enough confidence in your position so that punching people isn't your main argument. There are so many views of everything, it's the meshing that is interesting.To be fair, you offer your view as your main weapon. If that doesn't work, boom!
Originally posted by apathistI feel the same way about you.
I don't know if she's aware of how dishonest she is. Maybe she just has another way of honestly looking at things. Maybe that's the case with you too.
The difference is that I can prove that you have repeatedly made false statements about me whereas you had to make a false statement to try and claim I was being dishonest.
No, you used up the last chance.
Drunk again?
There can be a new chance, though I need you to stop using insult as your main weapon.
When you stop using misrepresentation as your main weapon.
Govern your thoughts and your expression of them. Have enough confidence in your position so that punching people isn't your main argument.
Listen to your own words, and apply them.
Then ask, in clear, plain English, what you want clarification on.
And if you call the response 'bull' because you can't be bothered to read it, then don't be surprised if I am less willing to explain next time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe might be drunk, but I think he's asking for clarification regarding your position that the mechanics of human thought isn't relevant to this discussion. It seems there is a lot science hasn't explained here yet. Can anything be learned scientifically that adds to discussion about the concept of free will?
I feel the same way about you.
The difference is that I can prove that you have repeatedly made false statements about me whereas you had to make a false statement to try and claim I was being dishonest.
[b]No, you used up the last chance.
Drunk again?
There can be a new chance, though I need you to stop using insult as your main weapon.[ ...[text shortened]... can't be bothered to read it, then don't be surprised if I am less willing to explain next time.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have rephrased their statements to sound more philosophical than scientific, but the actual language discusses real, measurable "mechanisms underlying concepts such as self, will.." and "resolving contradictions..." rather than introducing new ethereal hypotheses. They're not measuring whether or not it exists (like a philosopher), rather, they are modeling how it works to drive mammalian behaviors.
And I disagree. That is not what they are saying. They are saying that there is a hypothetical phenomenon called free will that people subjectively believe they experience. They are investigating whether or not people (or rather mice) do actually experience it. ie they don't know if free will is a real phenomena and they are investigating whether or not it is. Their definition is clearly different from yours.
If what you are suggesting were the correct interpretation, I don't know why the authors would conclude their high-impact study by talking about hypothetical phenomena. It wouldn't make sense. Furthermore, how would you go about measuring whether or not a rat experiences free will?
Originally posted by wildgrassWell if that is what he is asking, then he should ask it rather than beating about the bush. I also need to know exactly what is not clear.
He might be drunk, but I think he's asking for clarification regarding your position that the mechanics of human thought isn't relevant to this discussion.
It seems there is a lot science hasn't explained here yet. Can anything be learned scientifically that adds to discussion about the concept of free will?
I am tempted to say that the only relevant thing that can be learned scientifically is to what extent consciousness plays a role in decision making. There are basically three possibilities:
1. It plays no role and acts as an observer.
2. It plays a partial role giving feedback to the unconscious brain and in conjunction decisions are made.
3. It is the primary decision maker.
But the reality is we already know that 2 is the most accurate description for what we typically call free will decisions with 1 being the case for a surprisingly large number of actions that we may or may not choose to call 'decisions'.
I don't see any scientific discoveries changing that.
The exact mechanics of the brain, though interesting, are not relevant any more than the exact mechanics of synapses or chemical bonding or electrons is.
Originally posted by wildgrassNo, it is you that has tried to show them in a scientific light when what they said was clearly philosophical.
You have rephrased their statements to sound more philosophical than scientific,
but the actual language discusses real, measurable "mechanisms underlying concepts such as self, will.
The scientific paper discusses real measurable things. The speculation about free will, does not.
They're not measuring whether or not it exists (like a philosopher), rather, they are modeling how it works to drive mammalian behaviors.
You are mistaken. I suggest you read it again more carefully.
They are quite clearly measuring some phenomena, which they believe will prove useful in determining (at some later date) whether or not free will exists.
If what you are suggesting were the correct interpretation, I don't know why the authors would conclude their high-impact study by talking about hypothetical phenomena.
I believe you said you were a biologist. Surely you are well aware that scientists in general are fond of wild speculation about the possible uses of their findings? And that such speculation is typically found in the conclusions?
Furthermore, how would you go about measuring whether or not a rat experiences free will?
To do it scientifically you would first need a meaningful definition of 'free will'. Yours is useless in this regard because you have stated that it is what humans have but have not stated whether it is what rats have. So as it stands it is to vague to make any further progress. I strongly suspect given your lack of further clarity that you want it to remain vague for some quasi-religious reason.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMost of the biologists I know are equally anathema to philosophy, especially when writing up their work. Some geezer long ago decided that free will doesn't exist without any evidence, and now we all have to constantly question it? Does this keyboard I'm typing on even exist? I dunno. Pssh.
No, it is you that has tried to show them in a scientific light when what they said was clearly philosophical.
[b]but the actual language discusses real, measurable "mechanisms underlying concepts such as self, will.
The scientific paper discusses real measurable things. The speculation about free will, does not.
They're not measuring whethe ...[text shortened]... n your lack of further clarity that you want it to remain vague for some quasi-religious reason.
Discussion points in manuscripts tend to focus on the implications, limitations and caveats of the findings, and broadening the scope to relevant fields, but without over interpreting or speculating on any of your actual data. This is really really important if you know what you're doing, because you do not want a reviewer rejecting your paper after years of work and months of revisions because of a wildly speculative over interpretation of your data at the very end of your manuscript.
It just doesn't make sense that a group of neuroscientists would seek to test whether or not free will exists. It's too speculative. Would a meteorologist check to make sure the wind exists before he measures its speed? No. You can feel the wind. You can see the trees moving. You can measure its speed. That it doesn't exist is still formally possible from a philosophical standpoint, but it's functionally useless if you want to study it.
The terminology isn't vague. it isn't religious either. You've applied your own interpretation of what free will is and have asserted that it's vague, but I think that's because you're applying the term to broad systems outside the biological sciences. This is true of lots of words and concepts in science.