| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SergioCQH
United States143 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:35 nbaker wrote: That's completely ridiculous. This is a philosophical issue. It's only a philosophical issue right now because science hasn't progressed enough to make philosophers obsolete when it comes to this discussion. | ||
|
Kishin2
United States7534 Posts
So yes. | ||
|
casuistry
56 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:33 coverpunch wrote: Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity. That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:36 SergioCQH wrote: It's not a separate issue. If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist. But brain activity is not absolutely deterministic. It's stochastic. Could you explain why it's stochastic? So far the only factor making it non-deterministic that I've encountered is quantum mechanics. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10347 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
I don't know - ask an intro to philosophy professor. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:37 SergioCQH wrote: It's only a philosophical issue right now because science hasn't progressed enough to make philosophers obsolete when it comes to this discussion. No, it will always remain a philosophical issue. Science will never prove either determinism or free will, nor will it "prove" anything in fact. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:36 SergioCQH wrote: It's not a separate issue. If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist. But brain activity is not absolutely deterministic. It's stochastic. That is a philosophical statement... lol | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:41 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Magic No, it's all science!! The electronic voyeur says so! | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:37 SergioCQH wrote: It's only a philosophical issue right now because science hasn't progressed enough to make philosophers obsolete when it comes to this discussion. If only people would have thought like this originally there would have been no need for pythagoras, plato and aristotle and all that nonsense. | ||
|
EthanOz
12 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:24 TheBigO wrote: I feel like this question is impossible to answer. You're wrong. We can examine brains and see what's in there. If OP or any other person has any doubts is becouse they find reality too complicated to understand and gave up on science but still need an answer. The answer is obviously no, but if that doesn't make you happy or satisfied you can make up something like a soul or whatever you can think of. The problem with this is that the initial stupidity has not disappeared and it will manifest itself again by acusing gingers of not having a soul ( genetics too hard for me >.< god may have punished you haha! ) or burning alive women becouse they are "witches". Don't get out of touch with reality OP, or we'll be killing ourselves becouse that guy said that he knew a guy who saw a guy who said there's a reason for everything and is too complicated for you to understand so you must do just what he tells you. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:13 SergioCQH wrote: Why? Why does one need anything more when what we have is already so wonderful? Well, if it is strictly chemical and physical reactions, it means predetermination is extremely likely. | ||
|
SergioCQH
United States143 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:40 kwizach wrote: Could you explain why it's stochastic? So far the only factor making it non-deterministic that I've encountered is quantum mechanics. Brownian motion, the mechanism through which neurotransmitters diffuse through the synaptic cleft is a stochastic process. Since neurotransmitter binding controls the ratio of excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, whether or not EPSPs and IPSPs sum up to generate action potentials, and the timing and frequency of action potentials all depend on stochastic processes. The difference between pulling the trigger or putting down the gun can be the difference between whether one neuron's neurotransmitters got there first or not. | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:38 casuistry wrote: That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions. You are aware that we know laughably little about how the brain works and how it influences thought and behavior, yes? It is incredibly pretentious and arrogant to reach such a far-reaching conclusion from so little evidence. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:45 SergioCQH wrote: Brownian motion, the mechanism through which neurotransmitters diffuse through the synaptic cleft is a stochastic process. Since neurotransmitter binding controls the ratio of excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, whether or not EPSPs and IPSPs sum up to generate action potentials, and the timing and frequency of action potentials all depend on stochastic processes. The difference between pulling the trigger or putting down the gun can be the difference between whether one neuron's neurotransmitters got there first or not. Realize how important this lack of surety is, it lies at the base of the reason why interpretation of diagnostics of any kind are fundamentally limited. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
| ||
|
Orangered
289 Posts
| ||
|
SergioCQH
United States143 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:47 farvacola wrote: Realize how important this lack of surety is, it lies at the base of the reason why interpretation of diagnostics of any kind are fundamentally limited. Surety? No scientist uses terms of certainty when discussing random processes. That would be stupid. That doesn't mean that the processes that science describe are not correct. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:45 aksfjh wrote: Well, if it is strictly chemical and physical reactions, it means predetermination is extremely likely. Why is that? I would agree that a certain, perhaps large, amount of it is deterministic, but there can be wide variation. I would use reproduction as a parallel, given that is entirely a chemical process. We have laws of inheritance and can make broad predictions about a child from its parents, but end results are not necessarily inevitable and there are plenty of things where things may be unpredictably different. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
