Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

New study strongly suggests that even invertebrates have a capacity for freewill

This article has far-reaching ethical implications in that it further undermines the traditional anthropocentric conception of freewill.
http://bjoern.brembs.net/e107_files/downloads/brembs_rspb_2010.pdf

"Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept,
debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits
and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is
rightfully rejected."
I stopped reading right then and there. I value philosophy and I cannot stand the pure ignorance (arrogance?) of modern scientists. Neuroscientists seem to be especially narrowminded.

"We can almost come up with physical reasons for these things, so there can't be any non-physical reasons.  I mean, there's always only one reason for everything."

Science is dumb.

I haven't read the article yet, but I'll try to give it a perusal sometime tomorrow as it's probably interesting, if only because philosophy and then neuroscience have both proven that the will is not free and that free will is an illusion (albeit one that people need in order to function properly), i.e. a necessary untruth.

Related, I'm not sure why there's such anti-science bias here, particularly because (lol) philosophy is a science. The great philosophers of the world approached their studies in a scientific fashion, carefully observing nature, society, themselves, their girlfriends, etc... and then drawing conclusions based on their observations. The bad philosophers take a concept and then try to shoehorn the world into it, a most unscientific method indeed! My niggas.

I haven't read the article yet, but I'll try to give it a perusal sometime tomorrow as it's probably interesting, if only because philosophy and then neuroscience have both proven that the will is not free and that free will is an illusion (albeit one that people need in order to function properly), i.e. a necessary untruth.
This is the way I see it as well, although without the "proven" bit - I simply don't see how a universe that operates on ordered functions, unknown though many of them might be, could create an incidence of true randomness.

But get ready to have your taxes go toward cuttlefish welfare checks.

There is no anti-Science bias here.  "Science" is simply "knowledge".  However, when distinguishing between Philosophy, Religion, and the combination of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology which is nowadays called "science", it is important to note that those who advocate any one above the other two are missing a portion of the whole picture.  I support empiricism, but I also recognise that there are some areas of knowledge which rely more on (or entirely on) rationalism than on empiricism.

The users here have different perspectives and similarly different views when it comes to many things.  We are, however, generally united in purpose.

"Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept,
debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits
and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is
rightfully rejected."
I stopped reading right then and there. I value philosophy and I cannot stand the pure ignorance (arrogance?) of modern scientists. Neuroscientists seem to be especially narrowminded.

Because there's nothing less narrowminded than immediately rejecting and refusing to attempt to understand something presented to you because it conflicts with your values.

"Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept,
debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits
and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is
rightfully rejected."
I stopped reading right then and there. I value philosophy and I cannot stand the pure ignorance (arrogance?) of modern scientists. Neuroscientists seem to be especially narrowminded.

Because there's nothing less narrowminded than immediately rejecting and refusing to attempt to understand something presented to you because it conflicts with your values.

Oh, the irony.

Because there's nothing less narrowminded than immediately rejecting and refusing to attempt to understand something presented to you because it conflicts with your values.

If pointing out a principal error seems narrowminded to you...sure. But isn't that a bit narrowminded, too?

Tolerance can become a nuisance.

It's extremely clear to me that we have free will.

I'm sure some will use theirs to disagree.

"Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept,
debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits
and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is
rightfully rejected."
I stopped reading right then and there. I value philosophy and I cannot stand the pure ignorance (arrogance?) of modern scientists. Neuroscientists seem to be especially narrowminded.

Because there's nothing less narrowminded than immediately rejecting and refusing to attempt to understand something presented to you because it conflicts with your values.

Oh, the irony.
Because there's nothing less narrowminded than immediately rejecting and refusing to attempt to understand something presented to you because it conflicts with your values.

If pointing out a principal error seems narrowminded to you...sure. But isn't that a bit narrowminded, too?

Tolerance can become a nuisance.

If there's any irony in this situation I fail to recognize it. You'll notice I took no side on the issue. I presented no values of my own and there's no need to project them onto me.

My point was this: If you haven't read the article, then what's the point of even commenting on it? "I haven't read anything but the first sentence, but this is what I think and that's that." is a safe position that you're fine to go with, but it doesn't add much of anything to the thread. If you did read the article you may have been presented with information that might challenge what you think, which might lead you to reexamine what you think, which could lead you to either find flaws or become better grounded in what you believe. Or it might be full of trash and you could move on with life. If you're not interested at all; ignore it. Don't get offended, don't worry yourself over it, and find something else to do.

this is so ridiculous.

Science can only find a mechanism, or, when not, dismiss the issue as pure hazard (scientific law or no laws at all). To even imagine that could be an explication to freewill by the means of science exposes one as a, well, retard.  And as in freewill problem, so in all the rest that derive from it, like morals, values etc.... but "scientists" (when are not retarded) need financing, so they....do stuff, cool stuff... yey.


i see they quote Hawkins...big fail.

There is an organized conspiracy to impose materialism.

If the ruling people decided that religion was beneficial to them, scientists would magically conduct experiments wich would indicate that spirituality/religion is the rational way, and a lot of people who don't believe in them would.

Consciousness grants us the illusion of absolute "free will" but in the grand scheme of things, it is the universe that imposes its own free will onto us. In the material world, it's all about action -> reaction and causality.

Besides, who cares to distinguish whether will is "free" or not or whether it resides within the individual? Will is will.

The question of free will depends.

It depends on the criteria.

If you want to create wings and fly right now, you don't have the free will to do that. Or maybe if you want to perform outstandingly in a difficult problem, you can do a lot worse than you want.

But can you say my question right now: Would you choose a blue, red, yellow or green car, is, by the nature of reality, imposing some choice upon you, or do you think you can use your free will to choose?