There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Subsymbolic]

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.

Is that a counter argument to Ben Libet's work? Really?

 

[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.

Is that a counter argument to Ben Libet's work? Really?

Libet never made the claims people make today.

He had some understanding of the limitations of human guessing.

 

[Subsymbolic]

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.

Is that a counter argument to Ben Libet's work? Really?

Libet never made the claims people make today.

He had some understanding of the limitations of human guessing.

I really don't think this is a counter argument to Ben Libet's work? You are aware he did more than one experiment in this area? Perhaps if you explained the relevance of Dennett's work on the Phi phenomenon? Or talked about the effects of variations of priming on the finger flick subjects? Or perhaps about tracking the binding relationships of different perceptual modalities and the effect varying the input through each of the modalities effected results. You could even explain how retrospectively tracing results is an odd methodology. Hell you could even talk about falsification with reference to this project Alternatively, just drop down one board and the two of you can argue about who is the cleverest...

 

[untermensche]

Libet never made the claims people make today.

He had some understanding of the limitations of human guessing.

I really don't think this is a counter argument to Ben Libet's work? You are aware he did more than one experiment in this area? Perhaps if you explained the relevance of Dennett's work on the Phi phenomenon? Or talked about the effects of variations of priming on the finger flick subjects? Or perhaps about tracking the binding relationships of different perceptual modalities and the effect varying the input through each of the modalities effected results. You could even explain how retrospectively tracing results is an odd methodology. Hell you could even talk about falsification with reference to this project Alternatively, just drop down one board and the two of you can argue about who is the cleverest...

In the Libet experiments what is the objective testable model of consciousness in play?

Making conclusions from data connected to no testable model is not science. It is religion.

 

[untermensche]

The woman made an argument.

If she has free will she made the argument freely.

If she does not have free will the universe had planned to make that argument, and this one, at it's inception.

Which is more likely?

 

[bilby]

The woman made an argument.

If she has free will she made the argument freely.

If she does not have free will the universe had planned to make that argument, and this one, at it's inception.

Which is more likely?

That you have presented a false dichotomy.

It is perfectly possible that she does not have free will, AND that the universe had not planned to make that argument, AND that the argument was made.

The cyclone blew the roof of a house. If it has free will, it chose that house freely. If it does not have free will, the universe had planned for the cyclone to destroy that particular roof, at its inception.

Do you believe that cyclones have free will?

Your argument fails - when an identical argument can be applied to achieve a demonstrably false conclusion, that is proof that the argument is flawed.

Your argument, IF it proves the existence of free will for the woman, can ALSO be used to prove the existence of free will for ANY unpredictable phenomenon. Either you have to extend freedom of will to all manner of inanimate systems - weather, tides, solar flares, etc., etc., OR you have to accept that your argument is a total crock of shit.

Do you extend freedom of will to solar flares? Do such things choose willingly which satellites to fry?

 

[untermensche]

The cyclone blew the roof of a house. If it has free will, it chose that house freely. If it does not have free will, the universe had planned for the cyclone to destroy that particular roof, at its inception.

How would a cyclone have free will?

A human is something that could have free will. That is why we are discussing it.

An argument is not ripping off a roof.

Building a house shows planning. Destroying one does not.

 

[bilby]

The cyclone blew the roof of a house. If it has free will, it chose that house freely. If it does not have free will, the universe had planned for the cyclone to destroy that particular roof, at its inception.

How would a cyclone have free will?

It wouldn't. That's central to my point, and your failure to grasp that rather suggests that you have made only the most cursory effort to read and understand my post. Perhaps you could try again?

A human is something that could have free will. That is why we are discussing it.

According to your argument, which you applied to a woman, and I applied (in EXACTLY the same way) to a cyclone, a cyclone must also be something that could have free will.

An argument is not ripping off a roof.

No. But it IS directly analogous to deciding which roof to remove, and which ones to leave intact.

Building a house shows planning. Destroying one does not.

It does if you are a demolition contractor. And (if we use YOUR argument), it also must if you are a cyclone.

So your argument MUST be flawed, as it can be used to demonstrate something that we both agree to be false.

You really need to learn how logic works, before attempting to use it.

 

[untermensche]

How would a cyclone have free will?

It wouldn't....

Your claim of "an identical argument" is a lie.

In my argument we can imagine the woman could have free will.

 

[bilby]

How would a cyclone have free will?

It wouldn't....

Your claim of "an identical argument" is a lie.

In my argument we can imagine the woman could have free will.

Your lack of imagination isn't a rebuttal.

We can equally well IMAGINE that the cyclone could have free will.

Or are you making a circular argument?

Your argument is of the form:

X did something with the appearance of choice.

If X has free will, X did that thing freely.

If X does not have free will the universe had planned to do that thing, at it's inception.

Which is more likely?​

You chose 'a woman' for X; I chose 'a cyclone'. In all other respects, the arguments are identical - so IF your argument was proof that 'a woman' has free will, THEN my argument is equal proof that 'a cyclone' has free will.

We agree that 'a cyclone' does NOT have free will; Therefore your argument FAILS to demonstrate that 'a woman' has free will.

And that's leaving aside the false dichotomy - there are, of course, other possibilities than the two you presented.

This 'argument' is exactly the kind of sloppy thinking and deeply flawed nonsense that arises when people with a weak grasp of logic present their arguments in public without adequately criticizing them themselves first, to test for obvious and embarrassing fallacies.

 

[DBT]

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

That is your defense. The only option you have open to you is an attempt to dismiss the evidence, the researchers and whoever happens to be pointing out your fallacy of autonomous consciousness (me in this instance), a claim for which there is no evidence, research or case studies that offers support

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

Well, no....that there is a definite sequence of cognitive events leading to conscious report and that this a matter of physics is indisputable, which I have pointed out numerous times only to have it ignored each and every time.....information - light, airborne molecules, pressure waves, etc, do not become sight, smell,sound until transmitted to the related lobes, processed, propagated, achieving readiness potential and represented in conscious form....then the subject reports whatever they have experienced.

This is what dismantles your assertions of autonomy of consciousness. A belief that is unfounded.

 

[Val]

Women don't have free will, they do what I tell them to do. Or else.

 

[untermensche]

...We can equally well IMAGINE that the cyclone could have free will...

No we can't. Not rationally.

- - - Updated - - -

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

That is your defense. The only option you have open to you is an attempt to dismiss the evidence, the researchers and whoever happens to be pointing out your fallacy of autonomous consciousness (me in this instance), a claim for which there is no evidence, research or case studies that offers support

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

Well, no....that there is a definite sequence of cognitive events leading to conscious report and that this a matter of physics is indisputable, which I have pointed out numerous times only to have it ignored each and every time.....information - light, airborne molecules, pressure waves, etc, do not become sight, smell,sound until transmitted to the related lobes, processed, propagated, achieving readiness potential and represented in conscious form....then the subject reports whatever they have experienced.

This is what dismantles your assertions of autonomy of consciousness. A belief that is unfounded.

I'll ask you the same questions.

In the Libet experiments what is the objective testable model of consciousness in play?

Making conclusions from data connected to no testable model is not science. It is religion.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Libet never made the claims people make today.

He had some understanding of the limitations of human guessing.

I really don't think this is a counter argument to Ben Libet's work? You are aware he did more than one experiment in this area? Perhaps if you explained the relevance of Dennett's work on the Phi phenomenon? Or talked about the effects of variations of priming on the finger flick subjects? Or perhaps about tracking the binding relationships of different perceptual modalities and the effect varying the input through each of the modalities effected results. You could even explain how retrospectively tracing results is an odd methodology. Hell you could even talk about falsification with reference to this project Alternatively, just drop down one board and the two of you can argue about who is the cleverest...

In the Libet experiments what is the objective testable model of consciousness in play?

Making conclusions from data connected to no testable model is not science. It is religion.

All I can say is that you are dramatically misunderstanding Libet's methodology. He's taking a heterophenomenological approach, not a phenomenological one. In other words, He is taking the subjects verbal reports as the data. Feel free to explain what is not objectively testable about a subject's actions and verbal reports of both their intentions and how things seem to them. To use Chalmers' terminology, he is working with the easy problem, with Block's terminology, he's working with access consciousness and Dennett's terminology he's talking about reports, not qualia - publication not draft.

So was that your only objection? Because it's merely a misunderstanding.

- - - Updated - - -

Women don't have free will, they do what I tell them to do. Or else.

That's the problem with misogynists, they never grasp the difference between freewill and freedom.

 

[Val]

That's the problem with misogynists, they never grasp the difference between freewill and freedom.

Not when HARD determinism is the only game in towne!

 

[untermensche]

In the Libet experiments what is the objective testable model of consciousness in play?

Making conclusions from data connected to no testable model is not science. It is religion.

All I can say is that you are dramatically misunderstanding Libet's methodology. He's taking a heterophenomenological approach, not a phenomenological one. In other words, He is taking the subjects verbal reports as the data. Feel free to explain what is not objectively testable about a subject's actions and verbal reports of both their intentions and how things seem to them. To use Chalmers' terminology, he is working with the easy problem, with Block's terminology, he's working with access consciousness and Dennett's terminology he's talking about reports, not qualia - publication not draft.

So was that your only objection? Because it's merely a misunderstanding...

Handwaving. You personify my criticisms.

Subjective reports are not objective data about brain function. No conclusions about brain function can be made by them. And we are talking about milliseconds.

Their timing is absolutely meaningless.

It is data though and statistics can be applied to it.

Random data has a mean and a standard deviation.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Handwaving. You personify my criticisms.

JUst calling something handwaving is not a rebuttal, it's just an insult. the next clause just doesn't make sense. I Personify the claim that 'Subjective reports are not objective data about brain function'? Really?

Subjective reports are not objective data about brain function.

No one at all (apart from you) is claiming that they are. They are however objective data about subjective reports and the point at which they are made is an objective fact as are how it seems to the subject.

No conclusions about brain function can be made by them.

Of course they can - from the most obvious, that the subject is awake, through to some quite tricky ones about when it felt to the subject that they became aware. YOu just have to be really careful about your methodology. As yet you haven't raised a single objection that Libet isn't on top of. His errors are much cleverer.

And we are talking about milliseconds.

So what? You need to demonstrate that is problematic, not merely assume it.

Their timing is absolutely meaningless.

So you say, but I can't see the supporting argument.

It is data though and statistics can be applied to it.

Make your mind up...

Random data has a mean and a standard deviation.

But this isn't random data. Or at least I don't see the argument that it is. In fact As yet it isn't clear which of Libet's many experiments you are objecting to.

 

[untermensche]

To know what consciousness can and cannot do requires a testable model.

Subjective reports are not a model of anything.

To use them as an objective representation of consciousness or a conscious decision is not science.

It is not even religion.

It is foolishness.

 

[Subsymbolic]

To know what consciousness can and cannot do requires a testable model.

Subjective reports are not a model of anything.

To use them as an objective representation of consciousness or a conscious decision is not science.

It is not even religion.

It is foolishness.

Subjective reports are exactly what it says on the tin. They are entirely objective statements of a subject's judgement of how things seem to them. It is the very tension between how things seem and the biology that gives Libet's experiments their force. You are simply objecting to the wrong thing.

There are problems with Libet's account, but this isn't them.

I'm sorry, but you are just bogged down in your own dogmatic certainty. In fact, it's an interesting observation that since I have arrived, you haven't given a single inch to anyone on anything (at least that I have seen) Are you quite so sure you are quite so right about everything?

 

[untermensche]

My certainty is in knowing how we can make statements about understandings of natural phenomena.

We make them within models.

And not without them.

You cannot make any objective statements about consciousness based only on subjective reports. Less yet on guessing about the timing of decisions. They are random and there are too many variables that cannot be accounted for. Some feel pain when you push so hard and others don't feel much at all.

You need a testable model to make objective statements.

And with consciousness you need a physiological model not subjective statements or guesses.

Progress in producing a working model to explain how some activity results in conscious animal experience has not progressed very far.

There is no working model that comes close to explaining the phenomena.

So we are left with researchers who must do something. So they time subjective guesses to the millisecond to mark time.