... an internal modeling capacity, which requires a level of computing sophistication simple organisms just don't have. — gurugeorge
You suggest that consensus, where we all agree, but we could all be wrong, is the same as objective, which offers a sort of guarantee that something is correct, and accurately reflects reality? — Pattern-chaser
If so, this would be the first time in the history of the earth, that human caused the earth to warm. — wellwisher
However, a single person cannot and will not ever be able to be objective, but we can be objective as a group, if members of that group has the intention of individually being objective through the process. — Christoffer
I dunno, I think the "I" is more of a complex thing than you can get at that level ... — gurugeorge
From the angle of "determinism," it's quite unproblematic to conceive of a deterministic robot having free will in a deterministic universe. — gurugeorge
The Libet experiments only pose a problem if you believe that the "I" is something like this "soul," this "ghost in the machine... " — gurugeorge
In all 4 scenarios, the boundary of the "I" is the total physical animal; its own awareness of itself, its internal modeling of itself, is secondary, and it doesn't matter if that happens some time after the brain machinery has worked to produce whatever action it produces. — gurugeorge
The Libet experiments only pose a problem if you believe that the "I" is something like this "soul," this "ghost in the machine" — gurugeorge
I think you might mean something quite mild when you say "objective", maybe "unbiased"? Even then, there is a difference between that and consensus. — Pattern-chaser
... the first part seems similar to the argument that consciousness is epiphenomenal... — JupiterJess
However in the context of the free will argument couldn't the person say the "I" was a useful fiction existing only for sociological reasons until a better one is found. — JupiterJess
That may be the case with dark matter. It only exists to fill a current gap and may just be a useful fiction for that. The difference between them though is our intentions are experienced by us directly. — JupiterJess
Aren't these the two essential aspects of free will... — Metaphysician Undercover
That's will power. — Metaphysician Undercover
The "I" that's choosing is the entire rational animal — gurugeorge
... it takes Buddhists, for example, several years of serious meditation :) — gurugeorge
It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension. — Watts729
However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behaviour, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos. — Watts729
And people like Libet, aren't they just trying to understand free will rather than to prove that there is no such thing? — Metaphysician Undercover
... infinite sample size ... — Pattern-chaser
I'm anxious to discover other answers to life's questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me. — Sylar
Quantum theory in fact relies on the indistinguishability, or identicality, of particles to explain their "weird" statistics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles — apokrisis
So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. Both are circular. — TheMadFool
... is not something that could ever be demonstrated, — Janus
But I think that more than a couple or even a few subjects would be required to agree about a belief based on the same evidence for it to be counted as objective. — Janus
Now we can then imagine the more objective view of the world. — apokrisis
The world is no longer infinitely divisible. It has a finite definite information content. Only so much difference can be actual. — apokrisis
But oh well. It takes more that actual facts about nature to shake people out of a formal classical conception of reality. — apokrisis
does spot the difference achieve the same results? — JupiterJess
Is there actually any proof for either side? — Thehoneyman
Possibly, but my point was just that a finite mind, which relies on abstraction, cannot see things as absolute singularities. — Janus
OK, but this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was the difference between finite, and an infinite, mind. — Janus
Is that an order? — Janus
A simple question - what is the neurological basis for the subconscious or unconscious mind? — EnPassant
What is external to the mind? — Anthony
OK, I'm ready. Now where's the joke? The anticipation's killing me. — Metaphysician Undercover
“Since Libet’s finding started to filter out,
there were speculations about our free will.
What, my free will is useless – I’ll give it up!
take it my friend and tell me what to do.
Now, how could I – give up something I did/do not have.” — Damir Ibrisimovic
Yes, only God, being an infinite intelligence, can handle that. — Janus
But it is our great similarity that enables us to understand each other. — Bitter Crank