Kanye West on Alex Jones

[Irreligious Atheist]

There is nothing in physics that refutes free will and nothing in cause and effect that rules out free choices as has been argued by several physicists(John Conway, Simon Kochen, George Ellis,) and the conclusion of Neuroscience experiments on intent have had several interpretations some of which are totally compatible with free will. As Chomsky pointed out.

In the last couple of years ago, there were experiments showing that, when people make decisions, for example when I decide to pick up this cup, milliseconds before I make the decision, there is activity in the brain in the areas where you are going to act, i.e., milliseconds before I make the decision, the motor areas of the brain are already organized to pick the cup up. That evidence was used widely to conclude that this shows that we don’t have free will. But this doesn’t show anything of this sort. This just shows that decisions are unconscious. We all know that, if we think for a minute: of course decisions are unconscious. Some of them reach the level of consciousness, some of them we can’t even act on, but there is a lot there going on unconsciously, probably everything of interest, and we don’t know how to deal with it.

Neuroscience experiments will not solve the issue of free will and physics won't either. We are not rocks we are thinking entities.

Like I've posted in the past, unless you are willing to define your terms and tell me what you mean by free will, then we're not going to be able to truly debate the topic, because I don't even know what your actual stance is. Chomsky agrees that decisions are unconscious, which to me, rules out "free will". Thump and you mean very different things by free will, I imagine. I think Thump has fully bought into the Christian, classical version of free will, but you have confirmed to me in the past that this is not what you mean by free will, but thanks for the names you provided. I will look into what they say on the subject.

Edit- I'm watching a John Conway lecture, and he's saying that even atoms have free will. Somehow, I don't think this is what Thump had in mind when he decided to jump in and talk about free, conscious decisions. I would maybe call myself a soft determinist, because there does appear to be a degree of randomness added in on the quantum level, but that does not help the case for free will. I'll get back to watching the Conway lecture now, and then I'll check out those other names.

And you provided a Hitch quote about free will, but out of the two of the four horsemen who defended Bush and Cheney, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, while such was a bit outside of Hichens expertise, so I'm not necessarily going to go to Hitchens to get my neuroscience. I love Hitch though and don't like that I'm matched up against him here because Hitch was my guy. RIP Hitch.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think Thump has fully bought into the Christian, classical version of free will, [...]

Yet another swing and a miss.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. No I'm not going to engage in a pointless game semantics with you IA 


2.No unconscious decision does not rule out free will in any way shape or form as Chomsky points out.


3. I have no idea why you're bringing up John Conway...


4. Hitchens's political positions are irrelevant to this subject and Harris has defended both America's Surveillance state and American Imperialism  


5. Sam Harris may be a neuroscientist but that doesn't alter the fact he's wrong and has been widely criticized for his terrible understanding of the freewill debate and his own relationship to it. So I'll go with Hitchens on this one 


Epic fail on all points  IA 

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think Thump has fully bought into the Christian, classical version of free will, [...]

Yet another swing and a miss.

Indeed

[Irreligious Atheist]

1. No I'm not going to engage in a pointless game semantics with you IA 


2.No unconscious decision does not rule out free will in any way shape or form as Chomsky points out.


3. I have no idea why you're bringing up John Conway...


4. Hitchens's political positions are irrelevant to this subject and Harris has defended both America's Surveillance state and American Imperialism  


5. Sam Harris may be a neuroscientist but that doesn't alter the fact he's wrong and has been widely criticized for his terrible understanding of the freewill debate and his own relationship to it. So I'll go with Hitchens on this one 


Epic fail on all points  IA 

What do you mean you have no idea why I'm bringing up John Conway? You brought up John Conway. I thanked you for his name and took the time to watch a lecture by him. Free will as he defines it, apparently applies to atoms as well, so yeah, that's not what I was led to believe Thump was discussing. If even atoms can be defined as having free will, then the term free will becomes pretty useless in any discussion imo if you're defining it that way. Conscious decision making ability was Thump's claim, which he provided zero evidence for.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh yeah I did Conway and no his idea doesn't render free will meaningless and it provides serious issues for determinism. Thump has more than made his case you by contrast have not. Freewill exist period.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So let's sum up. 

1. Freewill exists and Bigots can help being racist and can be held accountable for being Bigots

2. Freewill is more than demonstrated and the contrary has not. There is nothing in science that rules out free will.

3. Sam Harris has no clue what he's talking about and his work has been rightly lambasted who do.

4. IA doesn't know what he's talking about 

5. IA lost this discussion and anyone who isn't him will see that.

6. IA refuted himself by simply engaging in this argument (it's hilarious he still hasn't figured out why)

Now I fully expect him to whine. I don't care.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Conscious decision making ability was Thump's claim, which he provided zero evidence for.

Because both your stance and mine are axiomatic, as I've already pointed out. The difference between you and me is that I'm honest enough to admit this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatic

"Taken for granted".

[LinuxGal]

Also, Hitchens believed in free will and believed theistic theories of free will were nonsense.

Theists fall back on free will to solve intractable problems in theodicy.  But like anything theists believe in, their source material bats both ways.

[LinuxGal]

2. Freewill is more than demonstrated and the contrary has not. There is nothing in science that rules out free will.

People are made of fundamental particles that either evolve deterministically according to the appropriate Hamiltonian, or resolve to a mixed state, at unpredictable intervals, in a process called the wavefunction update, or wavefunction collapse.

The deterministic phase rules out the freedom part of free will.  Can you control dice after you throw them?

The stochastic phase rules out the will part of free will. Can you truly control dice as you throw them?