On Apr 4, 6:16 am, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 3, 5:20 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 5:27 am, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > But the experiment didn't show there was more or less free will. It > > > > > didn't even show > > > > > there was any free will. It just showed that inducing a belief in > > > > > free will changed > > > > > performance. > > > > > Performance in what though? Readiness to execute personal will. > > > > Nothing in the experiment indicates the will was free in a > > > philosophical > > > sense, just the usual scientific sense of volition, ie conscious > > > control > > > or control by higher brain centres. > > > Right. I don't even look at the philosophy of how free is free - any > > experience of will is unexplainable in a deterministic universe. > > So you keep saying, but "deterministic" doens't mean "qualia-less".
Qualia doesn't really make sense in a deterministic universe, but that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that in a deterministic universe, the idea of will is a non-sequitur. If you can imagine a deterministic universe where the idea of will is possible, then you aren't really considering the ramifications of universal determinism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It might have also shown that belief in alien abductions changed > > > > > performance. > > > > > No, they did controls to eliminate that. There may be other beliefs > > > > that change people's ability to take action as well, but this study > > > > suggests that this specific idea that we should doubt the existence of > > > > our own free will has a negative impact on the very thing that is > > > > being considered. > > > > > > Either one is perfectly consistent with determinism. > > > > > No, determinism would not allow a mention of a deterministic function > > > > of the brain to affect the performance of that function, because then > > > > it wouldn't be deterministic - it would be open to suggestion by > > > > others and by ourselves. > > > > One deterministic process can affect another. Think of dropping a > > > clock > > > of a tall building. > > > That's a straw man of the findings. What the experiment shows would be > > like dropping a clock off of a tall building and seeing that it falls > > faster than 32ft/sec/sec if you tell it that it's doomed to fall, > > slower than 32ft/sec/sec if you tell it that it can control the speed > > of its fall, and exactly 32ft/sec/sec if you tell it unrelated things. > > I wasn;t talking about the psychology experiment at all. I meant > that the falling and the ticking are both deterministic processes, > and the one is bound to impact the other: "One deterministic process > can affect another." But I am talking about the psychology experiment. I am relating it to you in your own terms so you can see the logic of why the fact that accepting a belief about free will has measurable consequences related to free will cannot be explained deterministically. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
