Do we have Free Will (my video)

a reply to: darkorange

Scripted?

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: darkorange

Scripted?

"Just like you didn't freely choose to find this information correct, you also didn't "freely" choose to over look the fact that the human mind can be altered, swayed and changed based on information added to the system." Quote MM

...which precludes research...added to the system...but only if non-free Units take the insane step to point to the research performed by Units who came to that conclusion through the magical auspices of not having chosen...

Makes a lot of sense...and appears to be a highly convenient argument...

Å99

a reply to: andy06shake

I think it's funny so many think it's an either or thing.
Then again, I think it's funny so many people think everything is a either or thing.

Shows a rather large limitation not in humanity, just the prevailing viewpoint.

originally posted by: akushla99


I'd love to be a fly on a wall to see what inane excuse non-free Units have for cheating on thier wives, shooting up a shopping mall, gunning down J.Lennon...well obviously, it wasn't 'me'...it was the voice in my head that makes choices for me (according to the studies)...case dismissed...have a cheery day son...

Actually, criminal "justice" is the biggest reason this info is important to mankind. We punish people who have zero choice in what they have become. Whatever any man or woman ends up doing- you would also do if you were atom for atom that person.

They are victims of the machine. The idea of some magical free entity inside the human mind is not only silly, it has zero evidence to exist- while almost the entire field of neuroscience is now gearing to shake the world with the truth. Humans have no free will.

As said by Harris in one of his lectures- "This scientific truth will have more impact on humanity than the theory of evolution ever had".

And if this theory is true (and it most likely is)- then people like you are going to be monsters demanding victims be punished for choices they did not freely have the choice not to make.

The sick desire for revenge and punishment is so strong in most humans that the truth is too hard for them to accept rationally.

MM

originally posted by: darkorange

Hi there.
I did not watch the video. Question, what is an opposite definition of free will?

Forced inevitable outcomes.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

As said by Harris in one of his lectures- "This scientific truth will have more impact on humanity than the theory of evolution ever had".

*ahem*

3. It's not a process that seeks the truth or facts.
The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

Teaching the Nature of [email protected]

Which really is the problem with Harris and his ilk.
They forward scientism.

Scientism is a topic of major contention in the philosophy of science and philosophy in general.[3] While often used as a term of abuse, it is also used in a descriptive sense to refer to any philosophy that treats science as the only means of acquiring knowledge (for various definitions of "knowledge"). For this reason, scientism is often associated with logical positivism, which attempted to do away with metaphysics entirely.[7] The role of scientism in modernity is also a point of debate in social theory.[8] Postmodernism in particular sought to critique scientism.

Scientism or implicit scientistic attitudes are often characterized by a conflation of moral and scientific progress, an overzealous application of simplistic reductionist methodology and, especially in the social sciences, the logical fallacy of reification, in which an abstract metric is treated as something "real."

Surely sounds like them:

Analytic philosopher Susan Haack lists what she considers six signs of scientism:
1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumably to explain how the sciences have been so successful.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.

Scientism@ Rationalwiki

a reply to: akushla99

I think it more or less the perception of it, does the mind have the power to make such quick decisions before it already made? I've seen a thread on ats stating that the mind can somehow see itself 15 seconds forward in time from a moment. If that's so this, continuously happening as we speak as every second passes. It happens so fast, that it almost hard to believe to have occurred at all, that our other functions for our sense are just to slow to notice.

Then you could look at reflexes or instinct, where they are just gut feelings to go with, being written by the brain as its happening. Then wouldn't every brain try to calculate it next move or moment to avoid injury, or does it confuse, stunned before it happens? Where it trying to recognize a moment?

Then there is meditation which attempts to hone motor skills, or cognitive-ness where only the more effective meditations are meant to slow the frequencies in the brain, allowing it to be more receptive. Thats more or less my opinion on it.

As far the brain concerned, it just trying to make its mind up however it wants to perceive, or be perceived. Also, this mechanism is too fast for our slower functions in this realm to even notice.

So ignorance is bliss on this one.

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: akushla99


I'd love to be a fly on a wall to see what inane excuse non-free Units have for cheating on thier wives, shooting up a shopping mall, gunning down J.Lennon...well obviously, it wasn't 'me'...it was the voice in my head that makes choices for me (according to the studies)...case dismissed...have a cheery day son...

Actually, criminal "justice" is the biggest reason this info is important to mankind. We punish people who have zero choice in what they have become. Whatever any man or woman ends up doing- you would also do if you were atom for atom that person.

They are victims of the machine. The idea of some magical free entity inside the human mind is not only silly, it has zero evidence to exist- while almost the entire field of neuroscience is now gearing to shake the world with the truth. Humans have no free will.

As said by Harris in one of his lectures- "This scientific truth will have more impact on humanity than the theory of evolution ever had".

And if this theory is true (and it most likely is)- then people like you are going to be monsters demanding victims be punished for choices they did not freely have the choice not to make.

The sick desire for revenge and punishment is so strong in most humans that the truth is too hard for them to accept rationally.

MM

If I had a robotised vaccuum cleaner that began chewing my carpet, I would relegate it to the scrap heap...
Given that your analogy jumped into criminal 'justice' and the human 'machine'...I have other solutions for the unfortunates you mention where the aberrance of their 'machinery' could chew carpet at their leisure...

The question actually remains...and you haven't addressed its implication...and I know you did not conduct the research, but the researchers did not post their video on utube and ATS - you did - perhaps why you are taking all this so personally - adjunct to this, you aver the veracity of the 'suggested' results and are doing a good job of championing the cause of said research...which is why (given your extensive reading of it)...I'd like it explained in the best words you can come up with...

How does the interpretation of research stand outside its own 'suggestion'?

The other guff has nought to do with anything...

A99

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: akushla99

I think it more or less the perception of it, does the mind have the power to make such quick decisions before it already made? I've seen a thread on ats stating that the mind can somehow see itself 15 seconds forward in time from a moment. If that's so this, continuously happening as we speak as every second passes. It happens so fast, that it almost hard to believe to have occurred at all, that our other functions for our sense are just to slow to notice.

Then you could look at reflexes or instinct, where they are just gut feelings to go with, being written by the brain as its happening. Then wouldn't every brain try to calculate it next move or moment to avoid injury, or does it confuse, stunned before it happens? Where it trying to recognize a moment?

Then there is meditation which attempts to hone motor skills, or cognitive-ness where only the more effective meditations are meant to slow the frequencies in the brain, allowing it to be more receptive. Thats more or less my opinion on it.

As far the brain concerned, it just trying to make its mind up however it wants to perceive, or be perceived. Also, this mechanism is too fast for our slower functions in this realm to even notice.

So ignorance is bliss on this one.

Apologies...I used your reply to add to my own.

I would have to agree with what you have written.

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

How does the interpretation of research stand outside its own 'suggestion'?

The other guff has nought to do with anything...

A99

Sigh...as a "writer" you should be aware how trite and tiresome it becomes for an audience to read 2 dollar words overly used in each sentence that would roll better off the tongue and down the mind with simple 20 cent words instead.

Flowery talk is not impressive and the sign of a terrible writer. Not an insult, just a heads up on your technique. This is often discussed in workshops that you must have attended before.

Anyways...since you asked that question in such a way that it again made ill sense, I can't figure exactly what you are asking of me. Try talking like an adult and not some out of work "theater major" looking to sell his first script.

Now, if you are trying to ask how this research matters, or why I care so much. I (like many neuroscientists and humanitarians alike) feel that countless people are being punished and caused unwarranted suffering due to the fact that cave-people are still whipping the faulty machines that are not in charge of their own personalities, desires, actions and crimes.

There are entire books written on this subject. Showing how people are savage animals screaming for blood and punishment on people who are simply products of their biological wiring.

This is well described by many neuroscientists in books. lectures and published journals. nowhere do they suggest allowing criminals to run amok, yet most people jump to this panicked conclusion as if science is saying "we should be allowed to cause harm because we are not free to chose not to".

Not so.

What it is saying is that criminals should be treated as victims as much as any victim. Sure, keep them apart from society or places they may cause harm. Of course. But to punish them in ways that cause harm further to the faulty criminal is inhumane and torturous. In effect, it is torturing a poor victim who had no choice but to be what he or she ultimately became.

There are better ways to treat our broken fellow humans. Locking them in cages of violence, rape, drugs and abuse...is animalistic.

Seeking to punish or cause discomfort to these individuals is sick and very dark minded.

They are victims. Treat them like victims. Not like monsters who decided to "freely become monsters".

Until the world's populace learns the truth, we will be surrounded by brutal mongers of pain seeking to torture and cage victims.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Sigh...as an answer to the question I asked, that was a very poor attempt at diversion...and insult...

How does the interpretation of research stand outside its own 'suggestion'?

A99

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Mr Mask

Sigh...as an answer to the question I asked, that was a very poor attempt at diversion...and insult...

How does the interpretation of research stand outside its own 'suggestion'?

A99

Again sir...I can not answer your question because you are too busy using pretentious words. Here, read this advice from all the great minds who have communicated this advice better than I ever could.

www.4syllables.com.au...

Like i said...I can't understand you if you are going to use words as if you are being paid by the letter.

This is writing 101. Maybe you are not used to communicating with large audiences or "simple people" like myself. I am.

“I never write ‘metropolis’ for seven cents when I can write ‘city’ and get paid the same.” Mark Twain

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

You are able to navigate the intricacies of Research papers, but you cannot understand an 11 word question?

Truly amazing!

A99

a reply to: akushla99

I didn't understand you.
Can you ask again, more simple like?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Precisement!

How 'nuts & bolts' can you go?

A99

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Mr Mask

You are able to navigate the intricacies of Research papers, but you cannot understand an 11 word question?

Truly amazing!

A99

Because research papers do not try to impress people with flowery words strung in run-on sentences of overly wasteful size.

They say "a lot" not "a veritable cornucopia of".

I'm telling you...as someone who spent his life speaking and writing to the public to pay his bills and inform/sway/entertain the masses...you are doing a bad job of being understood. You are throwing the importance of speech under the bus for a frolic through verbal-woods best kept reserved for self-worshiping diary entries of teenagers feeling clever.

Again, I do not mean this rude. It is one of the first rules in writing and communicating any idea.

“Use familiar words—words that your readers will understand, and not words they will have to look up. No advice is more elementary, and no advice is more difficult to accept. When we feel an impulse to use a marvelously exotic word, let us lie down until the impulse goes away.” James J. Kilpatrick

The reason I can understand (or even stomach) research papers- is because they do not attempt to dazzle the reader with unessarly wasteful words that inflate the writer's ego while infuriating and boring the reader.

Again...this is taught in high school creative writing classes for decades now. I seriously am not being mean. I am telling you- the way you write panders only to your inner need to sound bright.

What I may ask in return is- why do you not understand the research since it was plainly explained in the video, litters the entire internet and is easily found in schools across the world as a basic concept?

MM

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: akushla99

I didn't understand you.
Can you ask again, more simple like?

I seriously do not understand the dude. Like really. Its like a river of fancy words with no point I can find. I sense he disagrees with my video and the research within neuroscience today that the video talks about.

But I really can't understand what he is asking of me. He wants something explained. No clue what.

Wish i did.

Awww HIIII ZAZZZZZ!!!

MM

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Mr Mask

You are able to navigate the intricacies of Research papers, but you cannot understand an 11 word question?

Truly amazing!

A99

Because research papers do not try to impress people with flowery words strung in run-on sentences of overly wasteful size.

They say "a lot" not "a veritable cornucopia of".

I'm telling you...as someone who spent his life speaking and writing to the public to pay his bills and inform/sway/entertain the masses...you are doing a bad job of being understood. You are throwing the importance of speech under the bus for a frolic through verbal-woods best kept reserved for self-worshiping diary entries of teenagers feeling clever.

Again, I do not mean this rude. It is one of the first rules in writing and communicating any idea.

“Use familiar words—words that your readers will understand, and not words they will have to look up. No advice is more elementary, and no advice is more difficult to accept. When we feel an impulse to use a marvelously exotic word, let us lie down until the impulse goes away.” James J. Kilpatrick

The reason I can understand (or even stomach) research papers- is because they do not attempt to dazzle the reader with unessarly wasteful words that inflate the writer's ego while infuriating and boring the reader.

Again...this is taught in high school creative writing classes for decades now. I seriously am not being mean. I am telling you- the way you write panders only to your inner need to sound bright.

What I may ask in return is- why do you not understand the research since it was plainly explained in the video, litters the entire internet and is easily found in schools across the world as a basic concept.

MM

I've been writing long enough, and am old enough, to take your advice...

Will not watch video...have read enough on the subject to still have the question I've asked you to answer...

Diverting to writing style is a cop-out akin to personal insults (while not answering the question)...you should know better, you're the OP...

Answer?

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

Will not watch video...have read enough on the subject to still have the question I've asked you to answer...

Diverting to writing style is a cop-out akin to personal insults (while not answering the question)...you should know better, you're the OP...

Answer?

A99

Ohhhh! You didn't watch the video that took me about 40 hours to make (while making me about 3 dollars). I see. How wonderful. So, not only do you waste my time- you also waste my attention by writing badly.

I shared with you why your writing style is considered unpolished by virtually all writers. Its the greatest sin of writing to over use flowery words pointlessly.

And I am not diverting to writing style to dodge or insult. I'm telling you...your writing style is a form of writing that is widely known and discouraged as overzealous and unnecessary.

BUT since you have come here to debate a video that you have not even watched...I shall refuse to waste time reading what I already know is pompous and over inflated.

Good day sir. Again, I tried. But you want to sound like what you think good writers sound like...instead of writing like someone who seriously wants to discuss anything.

We are done. Enjoy your "writing career".

“Never use a long word when a short one will do.” George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

“Hard writing is easy reading; easy writing is hard reading.” EB White

“It behooves us to avoid archaisms. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.” William Safire

“The trouble with so many of us is that we underestimate the power of simplicity.” Robert Stuberg

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Is how long you took to make it supposed to mean something?
Except that you think this is worthy enough to sink nearly a hour into that is.