Jump to content

Villain

Senior Members
  • Posts

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Villain

  1. Another typical approach, when confronted that you are incorrect you pull the same lame 'fallicies' out of your armour. From your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will This is all from the link you gave in support of free will as a fallacy. Stop wasting my time.
  2. Look guy, I mention philosophy in the very post that you quote, philosophy is not a science. In my last post I also point out that the critiques are on the very wiki page that iNow linked. I wouldn't put instinctive reactions at the head of list of free will attributes, if you feel that that is a make-or-break criteria then perhaps you should look into the study. I certainly don't correlate flicking my wrist with any meaningful free will type decision, if you do then good for you.
  3. Was there an argument to poison? I have mentioned general problems with neuroscience, I really didn't think it necessary to go further since they are on the wiki page that you linked and I presumed that you'd read it. Secondly I don't find any studies convincing enough to even warrant debunking in the first place, even the broadest definition of free-will is not going to include instinctive reactions.
  4. The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science. There is always going to be a subjective/philosophical element and our preconceived ideas are going to influence the outcomes. The Benjamin Libet experiments for one have a number of points that can be attacked and I don't see someone coming up with a conclusive answer to something as ill defined as free will, ever .
  5. There are always going to be huge assumptions for a statement like 'decisions....before entering concious awareness' to be made. How do they measure concious awareness for one?
  6. If you're not going to bother answering my question then why reply at all? On second thoughts don't bother answering this, it is clearly a waste of both our time.
  7. In what way is this not purely Empiricism?
  8. Ok, I think you mean Empiricist http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
  9. People are free to dismiss things regardless of evidence or not, btw what is an empirical rationalist, I'm guessing you're more empirical than rationalist from the above?
  10. If by 'reveled' you mean a religious revealed truth then no they are not the same. Metaphysical truth as I used it, means the true metaphysical position, which is unknown. We don't have access to metaphysical truth, so it can't be verified, but there are numerous suggestions at what can be the case. The part you quoted was in reference to the scientific method and logical deduction of what is possible through it, I don't understand why you mention demonstrable evidence or what you find as 'mumbo jumbo'. This makes no sense, I'm sorry that you are not following but I don't know how to simplify it any further.
  11. There is what you're calling reality, this world that we're engaging in, which is accessible for experimentation etc. regardless of the metaphysical truth. Through induction and falsification we can say things about it, we can say what is not the case and what might be the case, but we can't say whether this world, that we're interacting in, is all that there is (ultimate reality) or whether it is a product of something else. Since we (or at least me) are minds, the state in which we find ourselves and the medium through which we interact, we can be a product of this world arising from a physical entity, which produces this mind or the world itself could arise from our mind or it might be somewhere in between. You can certainly ignore the above but that doesn't make it any less real, it just means that you choosing to be ignorant.
  12. Your assertion that reality or what you think of as reality be testable is itself an non-empirically testable claim. There is no getting around it, so best get used to it.
  13. I didn't bring it up, I merely corrected what I thought was an incorrect understanding of Solipsism, I'm not asserting that it is the truth. I think it is however important for people to understand all possible worlds and by that I mean all possible metaphysical positions that could describe our 'reality'. It's not going to hinder your interaction of what 'reality' is, if you change your metaphysical perspective, it will however change your thought as to what ultimate reality is.
  14. The OP seems to be talking about a first cause which doesn't equate to dead man IMO.
  15. By 'scientifically' do you mean - use of scientific method or something else more akin to reason?
  16. Is the dead man made of straw like this analogy?
  17. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with religion. I think you're a little confused as to the order of things, philosophy lead to science and not the other way round. It's not meant to stand on it's own, it is a comment about solipsism
  18. Pure science has no place making theories about the mind, at best you could say with a combination of science and philosophy.... destroy the brain..... If you're going to get your head around idealism (and solipsism) then you will have to forget what you think you know about the mind/body problem and try and understand what is meant by 'outside the mind' (although it is probably better serve by saying inside the mind).
  19. Except your brain is also outside of your mind and therefore is also questionable.
  20. No, I'm talking about a mind, as it is. I see no point in assuming that there is only a material world in order for that material world to be the cause of the mind that exists regardless.
  21. It's really not that simple, you're making unfounded pleadings with a statement like 'just a neural network machine'. The mind for one doesn't automatically correlate to a physical entity just because you/we can't imagine/understand otherwise.
  22. You haven't validated why it should be considered beyond belief, you seem to be overrating falsification.
  23. Since theories don't becomes truths, I don't see how they can move beyond belief.
  24. What evidence is there that I have a mind?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.