Re: study: believing there's no free will makes brain less free
- --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...>
>of posted refuted trash?
> On May 31, 2011, at 2:27 PM, hibbsa wrote:
> > http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/free-will/
> BoI criticizes this sort of scientism.
> Do you have any criticism of BoI's position? If not, what's the point
>In what sense is the study scientism? Is it the whole thing, or one of
the parts? Something in way the experiment was arranged? Or is it
deeper... the part about linking certain brain activity to certain
functions? Or is it the way the findings are reported? Can you explain
why this work is 'scientism'?
- --- On Sun, 6/5/11, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
>>>> Assuming BoI/DD hasn't explicitly said this about Free Will, I see noI now believe after a lifetime of decision making that "free will" is nothing but an emotional illusion based on regret for things not turning out as one would have liked. We make decisions based on often inadequate information.
>>>> conflict there at this stage.
>>> If you are making this case about Free Will...that it is something
>>> completely separate from the physical world, then my response would be
>>> that science has an even greater future role in making it into a
>>> question that does sit in the physical world, because as you say there
>>> are far reaching moral and philosophical questions.
>>> If you aren't making that case about Free Will, then the question is
>>> what argument you've made against this specific experiment. I've seen
>>> none to answer.
>> As I said, it's in BoI and you simply haven't addressed BoI's arguments.
>> You seem to be skeptical that what I say is in BoI is actually there. Why?
> I'm not skeptical I just strongly doubted BoI - or you - would make such
> claim that science will never have anything to say about free will.
> Given it all comes directly from the phyiscal brain. But fine...you make
> the claim and so does BoI.
>> That's not even a position since it doesn't say what you think free
>> will is. And whatever you think it is, you also fail to state how
>> science can possibly support your position on that.
> I don't think it's important to say what free will is. Philosophers have
> been arguing about that for millennia. What is interesting is to be able
>to say what isn't, or can't be, or what constaints are on it...and this
> can increasingly now be done via science in a definitive way that
> philosophy will never be able to match. However, philosophy will still
> its place, maybe a leading place in the ongoing and apparently never
> progressing debate.