Lets get this strait. You believe Self Awareness isn't the originator of decision making? You believe its something completely independent from the brain? Ok If that is what you want to argue for then you are pretty much saying you don't make decisions, self awareness is just that, to be aware of "yourself", and if "you" are not included in your decision making because the choice (was made outside of the brain then was fed into it) then you are simply an observer of someone elses behavior, ie you are just a puppet on strings and you have no choice or free will. See how the loop feeds itself? Do you honestly not realize how nutty you sound? I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously.

No it wasnt fractions of a second. It was ten full seconds. Did you even read the article?

Secondly your idea that the will exist outside of the brain is fine, cause if we can map the persons decision before there even aware of it, (and awareness is what consciousness is), then your simply labeling your immaterial deity as being subject to the deterministic nature of the universe, and not actually a cause of any of the persons actions. For example if we can still map/determine a persons will (even if it goes outside our universe/space-time and then comes back to play a role in our universe) its still determinable in these experiments! You STILL lose! Even if the will is completely immaterial! Get over it already.

Your still not making any sense man. How about this. You perform an action for me that isn't dominated by any process going on within this forum or dominated by any past event in your life, that way you can prove to me that you can create an action that isn't the product of the surrounding situations your in (ie this forum). Post a picture of someone nude, I'll just say you posted it because your trying to make a point that you can be random. Type a bunch of random "Z's" same reason. Do an action that is of this "different book" you speak of. Show us your not a "pawn" or a part of chess. You cannot escape it and the sooner you come to accept it the better.

You define "will" as "your self" then you define "your self" as your "will". And ants are black therefore black is ants. Start making some sense.

This is either one of three things I think.

A) Your trying too hard to sound deep/intelligent.
B) Your drunk/high.
C) Your crazy (brain defect).

;-)

Are you trying to turn this into a comedy routine? Lol. Do you like circular arguments? Do you really just want me to repeat that the point of view (or piece of art) in respect to the "terrorist" would just be again all defined by whoevers point of view your looking at it from? That he wouldn't see himself as someone whos just trying to terrorize but rather one whos a warrior in a war? Why do you want to go in a circle? I don't understand. I don't want/need a comedy partner/duo type routine for the posters of mingle2.

Your way off. I woke up about three hours after noon. I think my points already been stated. Its known more as Hume's Fork. Science has recently delved into the point that decisions are actually made in the brain before you are even aware of them (or your "immaterial mind").

See this article



The idea of free will was dead before it was even started. Itd be like arguing the animal racizcosis can fly. Not only is it silly that your arguing such a thing could fly, but its even more so hilarious because the thing doesn't even exist.

So you quote two relatively recent articles (2008). Blah, Lame (I'll admit I haven't kept up to date on the visibility of atoms, but not exactly because it was actually relevant to my point as ill now argue). Seen or not recently was kinda besides the point anyway, the point was more concerned with whether or not they could be identified/seen when they were originally being theorized about. And no it is ok to talk about they're existence in the same breath because I'm doing in a way that is about how to go about hypothesizing they're existence, how far apart they are from each other (or size) in the sense of being 'viewable' is then irrelevant and really just besides the point. I am not arguing they can't exist because of the actions of an atom, I am arguing they don't exist because of how their existence is coming about (bringing along the friends of mutliverse and extra dimensions), so size is again, irrelevant.

As far as your other arguments after this the poster before me here did a pretty good job at refuting them I think. Your predictions take into account other assumptions (extra universes and dimensions) so if they're fulfilled, I could really care less. They use each other to prove each other, all the while neither of them are independently 'testable' (like the weird behavior of quantum mechanics) by any means whatsoever. Its completely pointless "science".

"The will is just the will" hah. I think your getting frustrated. Whether you admit/realize it or not. Not to mention you also just said preferences are what a person likes, and what a person likes are their preferences, another sentence that proves nothing and says nothing. Experiences are all memory and can be confounded to brain structure, more determinable things. "Self-Direction" and what causes self direction to make the choices it does? It does go in a 'direction' but why? You can say "whatever IT wants, and it'll appear random" all you want, but like it or not it makes a decision. And these decisions in every instance are constrained or dominated by the things surrounding them and a knowledge of certain things.

For example when people are asked "Are you six-feet tall?" People dont answer "Apple". Thats the kinda randomness your asking/arguing for, and not only is it illogical, it doesn't even happen in reality unless a person has a brain defect. You've taken your argument so far away from reality to protect something that doesn't even inherently make sense.

Ugh instead of hitting "Quote" I hit "Report" then wrote in my reply and hit submit like an idiot. So if you get a report or anything just report this post and it should clear it up. But anyway...

No I couldn't disagree more. Thats kind of ridiculous logic. The whole idea is the terrorist isn't a terrorist anymore because of how we would define him in society in one sense (heartless martyr whatever), and how he would define himself in another (being a warrior in a war). So "Whores" aren't "Whores", I mean cmon. Lets go back to 1800's, Slaves are black, therefore blacks are slaves. See how such logic isn't just wrong but can also become insulting to a whore nother era? Nothing is simply what it is because society says so. Society does not dominate what is reality, you need to learn where to draw the line.

No see I don't care. Ill even give that for arguments sake. Lets pretend immaterial souls exist. Lets pretend they can even have a cause on the deterministic cause and effect laws of the universe. How does this soul make decisions? What does it base them off of? If its not based on anything like intelligence memory or past, then its technically free like you want it to be, but its also random. You lose either way.

Well then, since your "will" is free from all constraints, and isn't governed or dominated by any past, then its not really free, its actually 'random' and if its random, its not really a 'will' is it? IE if what governs it is indeterminable, then isn't it random? Why not? Hopefully people are catching along.

Really? I think thats kinda subjective. For example a movie about a terrorist bombing army subjects just trying to create peace in a land may be blatantly seen as immoral. But say then the movie takes you on a ride to discover how the person came to do this, and you find maybe he was subject to various pains caused from the US, does this justify his action in killing, no, probably not, but do you understand it more so? Was it simply just immoral?

Ok then same question just in a different sense. How does the director come to make a decision? What causes him to make the ones he does? Personality? History? Memory? If so doesn't that make it determinable? IE knowing the persons past allows you to determine their decisions? Rendering them subject to the events that happened around them as they grew and genes they were born with?

So your defining will as an action then? What defines what action was taken? Personality? History? Memory? What is driving the will down the route it takes then? And why are those choices or routes taken? Does the will have a will?

ah o God! Lets leave creationism vs evolution out of this please. Thats another subject.

Its always funny to see how people draw upon societies views of whats supposed to be the norm in attempts to make a title and mirror themselves (rather than make a statement about me you've simply just shown me a side of yourself instead) off of a writing as if it displays any personal connection to me in anyway other way than the simple fact that I wrote it and considered it slightly artistic. Would a piece about murder make me a plausible murderer? Would it make me a plausible saint? Try again buddy. ;-)

Most people don't know that we haven't ever actually "seen" an atom in any real sense like you see your hand, rather its size and physical design/shape it takes is believed to be what it is simply because it fits a mathematical mold. Fortunately we've even had a chance at testing this design/shape in many instances (ie see the atom bomb).

Any string theorist will tell you there technically is no evidence for string theory. There is no proof that strings exist. Rather its much like that of early "proofs" of the atom - it fits a mathematical mold that makes a bunch of physicist and mathematicians happy cause they feel like they're getting/cutting at the edge of knowledge. The idea that there doing this all the while implicating 'science' in their field to me is rather questionable.

Consider the difference between hypothesizing atoms vs strings.

In order for the string theory to work we have to accept new dimensions. Something like 10-13 they're at now, does anything then 3 (excluding time as a plausible fourth) even make logical sense? Nope, but it helps the math!

Mutliverse, now we have more then one Universe on our hands which completely laughs at the idea of any one day being "testable"

String theory sucks because it doesn't just cause us to accept strings as existant alone in their own right, no in order to even get there we have to invite its friends, unlike the atom of the past it forces us to accept other abstract ideas as well, such as 13 dimensions and other universes, why? Simply so the math can fit. String theory sucks, and it isn't Science.

How about this. If anyone can come up with a definition of "free will" (I guarantee you all your assuming you do simply because its what you want to believe and not any conclusion you've come to vie logic - the two words together or the thought of it as a concept is a paradox) that makes logical sense, I'll believe it exist. Now go ahead shoot for it, and when I get back I'll promptly tell you why your wrong

Its quite simple really.

Science = How?
Philosophy = Why?

If you regard one question more so important then the other then theres your answer.

You regard the idea of being 'seen as sane' as if it has some stake on the nature of what reality is. But unfortunately for that argument while that view was still "sane" all the same as it is viewed "insane" in todays world the reality of the sun and the earths relationship has never flipped flopped or changed on the account of anyones beliefs (both sides would agree here). And if you don't understand the difference in attaining this answer from the Bible/religion vs attaining it from science then you really dont know what your talking about anyway.