Originally posted by humyThen we're golden!
if you define "measured" loosely enough so you can sometimes equate it with merely "detected", yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
More in depth:
The Volitional Brain
Towards the Neuroscience of Free Will
Libet, Freeman, Sutherland
Google the volitional brain towards a neuroscience of free will
for lots of articles and even a 200 page overview pdf from amazon.
Originally posted by apathistIt's odd that you first agree with me and then dispute what I am saying.
Can everything in science be measured?
[b]The only thing we can measure are events, and when event A is typically followed by event B we can say that event A caused event B.
Correlation does not equal causation. That's actually a well-known fallacy called 'false cause' (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).
But such an inference is only that - an infere ...[text shortened]... sing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.
I'm not sure how useful all that is, though.
Correlation does not imply causation, and the only thing we can measure are correlations. Of course, in many cases the assumption that one event caused the other may be well-justified. Suppose you throw a rock at a window and it breaks. It would be reasonable to say that the throwing of the rock caused the window to break. But such a conclusion is an interpretation of events, not something we can measure.
14 edits
Originally posted by apathistSorry to break this to you but so-called "neuroscience of free will" isn't a science but just a load of vague pseudo-scientific claptrap. In fact, your very own link above clearly hints of this with this quote;
[b]Then we're golden!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
/b]
"...The field remains highly controversial. There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. The precise role of consciousness in decision making therefore remains unclear. ..."
What kind of real valid science is such that it is unclear "what conclusions may be drawn" (as said above) from its said "findings"? Surely there is NO such valid science! -an indicator that it is nonsense.
This above kind of huge lack of clarity in a given said science is the hallmark of it being pseudo-science nonsense. If you try and read literature on almost any other pseudo-science, you will find exactly the same kind lack of clarity ( I will give you specific examples of that lack of clarity in other pseudo-sciences on request )
"free will" isn't a scientific term (and probably never will be given how vague its meaning is) let alone something that has ever been studied rationally i.e. scientifically.
Thus science has never 'measured' nor merely 'detected' so-called 'free will'.
Originally posted by humyApparently this landmark 1983 paper, documenting the "unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act", has been cited over 1,700 times in academic journals [1]. This is the original study that spurred doubts regarding the concept of free will.
Sorry to break this to you but so-called "neuroscience of free will" isn't a science but just a value load of pseudo-scientific claptrap. In fact, your very own link clearly hints of this with this quote;
"...The field remains highly controversial. There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions ...[text shortened]... how vague it is) let alone something that has ever been studied rationally i.e. scientifically.
A recent review article in a mid-impact scientific journal on the concept of "free will" in scientific research [2] suggests that the Libet et al. results remain controversial. I wish I had access to the full article, but at least I learned a new vocab word reading the abstract: eliminativist - judging the concept of behaviour and experience by how well they reduce to the biological level.
Credit goes to you, humy, for shifting this thread away from "what an uncaused event is" to "what is free will, does it exist, can it be measured." Much more interesting!
[1] Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(Pt 3), 623–642.
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28567025
Originally posted by humyThis is a frontier of science, humy. You cherry-pick the up-front disclaimer (show me a psuedo-science that offers such) in order to avoid looking at the material.
Sorry to break this to you but so-called "neuroscience of free will" isn't a science but just a load of vague pseudo-scientific claptrap. In fact, your very own link above clearly hints of this with this quote;
"...The field remains highly controversial. There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusio ...[text shortened]... s may be drawn. The precise role of consciousness in decision making therefore remains unclear. ..."
Notice the disclaimer does NOT say that there are no findings; or that the findings have no meaning; or that no conclusions should be drawn. I'd say a reasonable thinker would actually study the methodology and findings and consider what meaningful conclusions may be drawn.
Are you an ideological fundamentalist, humy?
Originally posted by humy...Free will is volition, which is studied by science (multi-discipline). So of course science can detect it.
"free will" isn't a scientific term (and probably never will be given how vague its meaning is) let alone something that has ever been studied rationally i.e. scientifically.
Thus science has never 'measured' nor merely 'detected' so-called 'free will'.
Volition is part of the human condition, and learning what to look for makes it fun and interesting to detect it within ourselves through introspection. Will is a type of power! It should be nurtured, not dismissed.
It's easy for an individual to recognize the difference between a person with strong will and a person with weak will, for example.