c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
.
.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a supporter of rodgertutt but bobx is simply mistaken about the physics.
You are wrong on two accounts here.
First of all, no decision we make is "spontaneous" (this is an empirical fact). The landmark experiments Libet conducted in 1983 proved that our unconscious mind makes the decisions, and our conscious mind just becomes aware of it. Miller and Trevena tried to argue against these with their recent experiments, but they were critiqued on the grounds that they "changed the paradigm" by adding factors which negated their results. In 2008 experiments were conducted which confirmed Libet's original results:
Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
Free will; is our understanding wrong? - life - 01 August 2007 - New Scientist
Is Free Will an Illusion? | Wired Science | Wired.com
Secondly, you talk about a "complete" knowledge of the influences behind our decisions. This will never be possible (and this is also an empirical fact) which is how chaos comes into the picture. -But- remember that chaos is completely deterministic. Now you are probably thinking that quantum uncertainty cancels out chaos (right?) But that view is also being challenged. Quantum Chaos (or "chaology") is a new area of study in physics, and I suggest you look into it, because we are now discovering features of classical chaos in the quantum world.
You should also remember that out of the 14 most common interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, four are deterministic. A minority view for sure, but this does not make it invalid. My favorite is a fifth (unofficial) interpretation, which is: superdeterminism. According to this view (discussed by Bell himself on BBC Radio) all the contradictions and mysteries of QM can be solved if we do away with our concepts of "free will" entirely. In other words, the only reason why QM is so "mysterious" is because we keep assuming that the experimenters conducting the experiments have free will.
btw, I gave a link to Thomas recently of a video talk about something
which relates to this, but I can't find the thread. It was a TED talk by
a behavioral economist. If I come across it, i'll post it.
.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a supporter of rodgertutt but bobx is simply mistaken about the physics.
I repeat: the "influences" (that is, the sum total of the history and current distribution of all the material forces) do not determine what we will decide to be "most desirable"; that decision may, in a spontaneous manner utterly unpredictable on the basis of even a complete knowledge of all influences, go in the direction contrary to the strongest influence. This is a matter of empirical fact
You are wrong on two accounts here.
First of all, no decision we make is "spontaneous" (this is an empirical fact). The landmark experiments Libet conducted in 1983 proved that our unconscious mind makes the decisions, and our conscious mind just becomes aware of it. Miller and Trevena tried to argue against these with their recent experiments, but they were critiqued on the grounds that they "changed the paradigm" by adding factors which negated their results. In 2008 experiments were conducted which confirmed Libet's original results:
Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
Free will; is our understanding wrong? - life - 01 August 2007 - New Scientist
Is Free Will an Illusion? | Wired Science | Wired.com
Secondly, you talk about a "complete" knowledge of the influences behind our decisions. This will never be possible (and this is also an empirical fact) which is how chaos comes into the picture. -But- remember that chaos is completely deterministic. Now you are probably thinking that quantum uncertainty cancels out chaos (right?) But that view is also being challenged. Quantum Chaos (or "chaology") is a new area of study in physics, and I suggest you look into it, because we are now discovering features of classical chaos in the quantum world.
You should also remember that out of the 14 most common interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, four are deterministic. A minority view for sure, but this does not make it invalid. My favorite is a fifth (unofficial) interpretation, which is: superdeterminism. According to this view (discussed by Bell himself on BBC Radio) all the contradictions and mysteries of QM can be solved if we do away with our concepts of "free will" entirely. In other words, the only reason why QM is so "mysterious" is because we keep assuming that the experimenters conducting the experiments have free will.
btw, I gave a link to Thomas recently of a video talk about something
which relates to this, but I can't find the thread. It was a TED talk by
a behavioral economist. If I come across it, i'll post it.