There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[untermensche]

Appeals to authority are claims without any proof that "The experts all agree with me".

 

[Kharakov]

Correction, as an authority on the matter, I can tell you that appeals to me are not proof that I agree with you.

 

[Val]

Heh!!

 

[DBT]

Appeals to authority are claims without any proof that "The experts all agree with me".

It's the ''without proof'' where you go terribly wrong. That is the point where you ignore, disregard or dismiss all evidence that supports brain agency but not your dumb brain/smart autonomous consciousness running the brain. You fixate upon 'experts' trying to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy, at the expense of considering the actual evidence...evidence that does not support your assertions.

 

[untermensche]

Appeals to authority are claims without any proof that "The experts all agree with me".

It's the ''without proof'' where you go terribly wrong. That is the point where you ignore, disregard or dismiss all evidence that supports brain agency but not your dumb brain/smart autonomous consciousness running the brain. You fixate upon 'experts' trying to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy, at the expense of considering the actual evidence...evidence that does not support your assertions.

You don't give proof.

You give some opinions. Some very biased opinions especially in the people doing the studies.

You must understand the difference between opinion and fact to understand.

 

[DBT]

Appeals to authority are claims without any proof that "The experts all agree with me".

It's the ''without proof'' where you go terribly wrong. That is the point where you ignore, disregard or dismiss all evidence that supports brain agency but not your dumb brain/smart autonomous consciousness running the brain. You fixate upon 'experts' trying to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy, at the expense of considering the actual evidence...evidence that does not support your assertions.

You don't give proof.

Proof is composed of a body of evidence. Sufficient evidence to support brain agency has been provided for you. You either reject this evidence, dismiss this evidence or interpret this evidence to suit your own belief, something that is neither supported by the evidence or researchers who work in the field doing the experiments and studies that provides the evidence.....which you simply brush aside because you feel that you know better.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You don't give proof.

Proof is composed of a body of evidence. Sufficient evidence to support brain agency has been provided for you. You either reject this evidence, dismiss this evidence or interpret this evidence to suit your own belief, something that is neither supported by the evidence or researchers who work in the field doing the experiments and studies that provides the evidence.....which you simply brush aside because you feel that you know better.

Much as I haven’t found much to agree with UM on anything so far, I’m not sure that the current scientific methodology involves building up a body of evidence. This model fell out of favour around the middle of the twentieth century and was replaced by falsificationist models, which are very well described elsewhere. Nowadays the falsificationist approach looks to be in the process of displacement by coherence based models that focus on the statistical likelihood of something fitting into the preexisting network of theories and understanding. The two approaches seem to work well together and so I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with a mix of the two.

However, very little of what goes on on forums is science. Most of it is informal argument which tends to jump across domains rather freely. The fact is that the criteria for something being true tends to vary between disciplines and that tends to make establishing truth difficult on forums- not only are people overtly disagreeing on matters of fact, we are also covertly disagreeing on how what is a fact is established. While most people are sincere and trying to make sense of the world, this does tend to make forums a bullshitters paradise...

 

[DBT]

You don't give proof.

Proof is composed of a body of evidence. Sufficient evidence to support brain agency has been provided for you. You either reject this evidence, dismiss this evidence or interpret this evidence to suit your own belief, something that is neither supported by the evidence or researchers who work in the field doing the experiments and studies that provides the evidence.....which you simply brush aside because you feel that you know better.

Much as I haven’t found much to agree with UM on anything so far, I’m not sure that the current scientific methodology involves building up a body of evidence. This model fell out of favour around the middle of the twentieth century and was replaced by falsificationist models, which are very well described elsewhere. Nowadays the falsificationist approach looks to be in the process of displacement by coherence based models that focus on the statistical likelihood of something fitting into the preexisting network of theories and understanding. The two approaches seem to work well together and so I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with a mix of the two.

However, very little of what goes on on forums is science. Most of it is informal argument which tends to jump across domains rather freely. The fact is that the criteria for something being true tends to vary between disciplines and that tends to make establishing truth difficult on forums- not only are people overtly disagreeing on matters of fact, we are also covertly disagreeing on how what is a fact is established. While most people are sincere and trying to make sense of the world, this does tend to make forums a bullshitters paradise...

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I am bullshitting by claiming that there is evidence to support brain agency over autonomy of consciousness (time constraint for reading). If so, is it not the purpose of research in neuroscience to better understand the brain and its functions, abilities and attributes, pathologies and their consequences? Does this body of research not yield results? If so, cannot the result of this body of research be referred to as a body of evidence, albeit loosely?

 

[untermensche]

You don't give proof.

Proof is composed of a body of evidence. Sufficient evidence to support brain agency has been provided for you. You either reject this evidence, dismiss this evidence or interpret this evidence to suit your own belief, something that is neither supported by the evidence or researchers who work in the field doing the experiments and studies that provides the evidence.....which you simply brush aside because you feel that you know better.

Much as I haven’t found much to agree with UM on anything so far, I’m not sure that the current scientific methodology involves building up a body of evidence. This model fell out of favour around the middle of the twentieth century and was replaced by falsificationist models, which are very well described elsewhere. Nowadays the falsificationist approach looks to be in the process of displacement by coherence based models that focus on the statistical likelihood of something fitting into the preexisting network of theories and understanding. The two approaches seem to work well together and so I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with a mix of the two.

However, very little of what goes on on forums is science. Most of it is informal argument which tends to jump across domains rather freely. The fact is that the criteria for something being true tends to vary between disciplines and that tends to make establishing truth difficult on forums- not only are people overtly disagreeing on matters of fact, we are also covertly disagreeing on how what is a fact is established. While most people are sincere and trying to make sense of the world, this does tend to make forums a bullshitters paradise...

You only find things to disagree with because that is the nature of many people.

It is through the disagreements that we can possibly learn.

Head patting and gentle agreement is not the reason I am here.

DBT takes the pronouncements from researchers about THEIR research as holy gospel.

The whole "Libet delusion" is based on the timing of human guesses.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Much as I haven’t found much to agree with UM on anything so far, I’m not sure that the current scientific methodology involves building up a body of evidence. This model fell out of favour around the middle of the twentieth century and was replaced by falsificationist models, which are very well described elsewhere. Nowadays the falsificationist approach looks to be in the process of displacement by coherence based models that focus on the statistical likelihood of something fitting into the preexisting network of theories and understanding. The two approaches seem to work well together and so I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with a mix of the two.

However, very little of what goes on on forums is science. Most of it is informal argument which tends to jump across domains rather freely. The fact is that the criteria for something being true tends to vary between disciplines and that tends to make establishing truth difficult on forums- not only are people overtly disagreeing on matters of fact, we are also covertly disagreeing on how what is a fact is established. While most people are sincere and trying to make sense of the world, this does tend to make forums a bullshitters paradise...

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I am bullshitting by claiming that there is evidence to support brain agency over autonomy of consciousness (time constraint for reading). If so, is it not the purpose of research in neuroscience to better understand the brain and its functions, abilities and attributes, pathologies and their consequences? Does this body of research not yield results? If so, cannot the result of this body of research be referred to as a body of evidence, albeit loosely?

No, I'm not remotely suggesting you are a bullshitter. However, I'm sure that you can appreciate that this is an immensely technical field that integrates several disciplines, not least, biology, computation, philosophy, psychology and linguistics. Each have their own unique methodologies, ontologies, technical vocabularies, and epistemologies. Most specialists in this field have a robust technical training in one or two and an acute awareness of the difference in the others. In the absence of an extended technical training, it's painfully easy to fool yourself and, if one doesn't care much about getting to the bottom of stuff it is equally easy to fool others.

One of the many bees in my bonnet is simply how much absolute bollocks survives from previous centuries to lure the unwary into thinking about stuff in precisely the wrong way, to ask the wrong questions, to assume that the deeply contentious is intuitively obvious and to remain dogmatically committed to things that were disproven decades ago. I'm pretty certain that we have a rolling five years or so in which it is true to say that we have learned more about how brains work, discriminate and give rise to the mental in the last five years than in the rest of time. That makes keeping up to speed bloody hard, especially if, as Newton put it, you don't start off standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Much as I haven’t found much to agree with UM on anything so far, I’m not sure that the current scientific methodology involves building up a body of evidence. This model fell out of favour around the middle of the twentieth century and was replaced by falsificationist models, which are very well described elsewhere. Nowadays the falsificationist approach looks to be in the process of displacement by coherence based models that focus on the statistical likelihood of something fitting into the preexisting network of theories and understanding. The two approaches seem to work well together and so I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with a mix of the two.

However, very little of what goes on on forums is science. Most of it is informal argument which tends to jump across domains rather freely. The fact is that the criteria for something being true tends to vary between disciplines and that tends to make establishing truth difficult on forums- not only are people overtly disagreeing on matters of fact, we are also covertly disagreeing on how what is a fact is established. While most people are sincere and trying to make sense of the world, this does tend to make forums a bullshitters paradise...

You only find things to disagree with because that is the nature of many people.

Or perhaps I disagree when it's clearly wrong. I've not disagreed with Emily Lake or Copernicus much. You on the other hand...

It is through the disagreements that we can possibly learn.

I found formal education in the domain slightly more helpful.

Head patting and gentle agreement is not the reason I am here.

And it's quite clear you are not going to get any, because Karma can be pretty damned direct.

DBT takes the pronouncements from researchers about THEIR research as holy gospel.

The whole "Libet delusion" is based on the timing of human guesses.

And what is wrong with timing human guesses? I agree that Ben Libet's work doesn't quite achieve the ends he claims for it. There are methodological, neurobiological and metaphysical reasons for that, but calling it 'the Libet Delusion' and sneering doesn't actually work as a counter argument. So, what's wrong (and right) with Libet's experiments?

 

[untermensche]

You think all that "knowledge" you picked up in school magically appeared whole?

It only came about through struggle with many disagreements.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You think all that "knowledge" you picked up in school magically appeared whole?

It only came about through struggle with many disagreements.

Actually, the knowledge that I picked up in school, college and University and shared in schools, colleges and universities largely came from cooperation, studying, and most especially practical activities, from programming to writing. Maybe that isn't how lessons are structured in the school of hard knocks and the university of life, but them's the breaks.

 

[untermensche]

You think all that "knowledge" you picked up in school magically appeared whole?

It only came about through struggle with many disagreements.

Actually, the knowledge that I picked up in school, college and University and shared in schools, colleges and universities largely came from cooperation, studying, and most especially practical activities, from programming to writing. Maybe that isn't how lessons are structured in the school of hard knocks and the university of life, but them's the breaks.

Pettiness and politics is what you find in the Universities. People that place reputation over knowledge.

Cooperation?

What a joke!

You should do a little reading. Start with the "discovery" of DNA.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You think all that "knowledge" you picked up in school magically appeared whole?

It only came about through struggle with many disagreements.

Actually, the knowledge that I picked up in school, college and University and shared in schools, colleges and universities largely came from cooperation, studying, and most especially practical activities, from programming to writing. Maybe that isn't how lessons are structured in the school of hard knocks and the university of life, but them's the breaks.

Pettiness and politics is what you find in the Universities. People that place reputation over knowledge.

Cooperation?

What a joke!

You should do a little reading. Start with the "discovery" of DNA.

And yet Universities, and those educated in universities, are where most of the interesting stuff happens. I wonder how...

Sure, I'll work with your cherrypicked example: Rosalind Franklin was working steadily and carefully to a conclusion with a small team of supportive colleagues, when her work was ram raided by a couple of less than talented chaps with the connivance of a sexist prig who couldn't face a woman succeeding. . There was a rather good play about it in the West End a year or two back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPCjY2-zLCI

Mind you, that wasn't disagreements, that was just theft. or is it all about the will to power and a bit of sturm und... Oh I forgot, you can't speak German. Sorry.

Oh, and you might want to check the insides of your tyres for the scrubbing and excessive wear which should be starting to become visible by now - when you don't set your toe out correctly, the car will drive in a straight line but wears the tyres and inside bearings rapidly...

 

[untermensche]

People that share delusions cooperate very well. The Pope and his minions do a lot of good work.

Cooperation is not any evidence of truth.

 

[Subsymbolic]

People that share delusions cooperate very well. The Pope and his minions do a lot of good work.

Cooperation is not any evidence of truth.

Possibly not, but given the central role of intersubjective verification in some of our more successful truth gathering activities, I'd say that conflict is evidence of falsity. However, you were arguing something like: 'knowledge only comes about through struggle with many disagreements'. Trying to imply I'm deluded is just a weaselly way of trying to worm around the TOU. You want to argue your case, argue it, you want to shower me with lightly disguised ad hominems please carry on. It supports your argument so well.

 

[untermensche]

You are struggling to convince me of something and I am not buying it.

That is how we arrive at our approximations of truth. Struggle and conflict.

Not through head patting.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You are struggling to convince me of something and I am not buying it.

That is how we arrive at our approximations of truth. Struggle and conflict.

Not through head patting.

I'm not struggling to convince you of anything. The last thing I asked you to do is this.

And what is wrong with timing human guesses? I agree that Ben Libet's work doesn't quite achieve the ends he claims for it. There are methodological, neurobiological and metaphysical reasons for that, but calling it 'the Libet Delusion' and sneering doesn't actually work as a counter argument. So, what's wrong (and right) with Libet's experiments?

But hey, why bother with reality?

 

[untermensche]

You are struggling to admit you are struggling.

Near blind to what you doing.

And there is nothing objective about the timing of human guesses.

It is not science.