Faith Freedom International

We oppose Islam, not Muslims. We are against hate, not faith

Skip to content


Advanced search
  • Board index ‹ Miscellaneous ‹ God & Religion
  • Change font size
  • Print view
  • FAQ
  • Register
  • Login

God, Free Will & Contingency

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
Post a reply
956 posts • Page 44 of 48 • 1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:44 am

It is funny to find how two experiments following “Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology” arrive at two different conclusions.

http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=233
.......
However, Libet’s conclusions rested on the use of Readiness Potentials (RPs). Earlier research had shown that the occurence of an RP in the brain reliably indicated that a movement was coming along just afterwards, and they were therefore seen as a neurological sign that the decision to move had been taken (Libet himself found that the movement could sometimes be suppressed after the RP had appeared, but this possibility, which he referred to as ‘free won’t ‘, seemed only to provide an interesting footnote). The new research, by Trevena and Miller at Otago, undermines the idea that RPs indicate a decision.

.......
There were two interesting results. One was that the same kind of RP appeared whether the subject pressed a key or not. Trevena and Miller say this shows that the RP was not, after all, an indication of a decision to move, and was presumably instead associated with some more general kind of sustained attention or preparing for a decision. Second, they found that a different kind of RP, the Lateralised Readiness Potential or LRP, which provides an indication of readiness to move a particular hand, did provide an indication of a decision, appearing only where a movement followed; but the LRP did not appear until just after the tone. This suggests, in contradiction to Libet, that the early stages of action followed the conscious experience of deciding, rather than preceding it.


One sure sign of a theistic mind is its certainty about what it believes to be true about reality or truth; it hardly matters whether the object of belief is a scripture or some experiment following “Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology”.

I hope Abdul will now start believing in "free will" as the latest experiment debunks the conclusions drawn by Libet's experiment.

Some of the comments following the article are also quite interesting.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:53 pm

Charles,

you haven't responded to the following post addressed to you yet.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=840#p116150
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=840#p116151


charleslemartel wrote:It is funny to find how two experiments following “Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology” arrive at two different conclusions.


Of course, it happens all the time. Different people will come up with different conclusion. That is why the term "Statistical Methodllogy" is there. We do the experiment and interpretation from it many times. We might not get to the truth in the first attempt, that is why "Successive Approximation" term is there. Some people could be biased with their theistic mind, that is why "Double Blind Test" is there, and so on.
This only shows there is no perfect method to find the truth. But this is the best available method.
Do you have a better method, Charles?
We, scientist will take it.

I hope Abdul will now start believing in "free will" as the latest experiment debunks the conclusions drawn by Libet's experiment.

Nop. So far, the evidence and the logic shows there is no Free Will.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:06 pm

AbdulRahman wrote:Charles,

you haven't responded to the following post addressed to you yet.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=840#p116150
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=840#p116151


Those posts were addressed to me after I had already said that I am tired of this discussion. So I decided to simply concentrate on the core issue of free will. However, I may respond to those posts a bit later.

charleslemartel wrote:It is funny to find how two experiments following “Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology” arrive at two different conclusions.


Of course, it happens all the time. Different people will come up with different conclusion. That is why the term "Statistical Methodllogy" is there. We do the experiment and interpretation from it many times. We might not get to the truth in the first attempt, that is why "Successive Approximation" term is there. Some people could be biased with their theistic mind, that is why "Double Blind Test" is there, and so on.
This only shows there is no perfect method to find the truth. But this is the best available method.
Do you have a better method, Charles?
We, scientist will take it.


You still go on missing the point. The fact remains that when the same methodology can lead to different conclusions, one should keep one's fingers crossed unless and until the evidence is really conclusive. In other words, one shouldn't jump the gun prematurely.

I hope Abdul will now start believing in "free will" as the latest experiment debunks the conclusions drawn by Libet's experiment.

Nop. So far, the evidence and the logic shows there is no Free Will.


Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the evidence is not yet conclusive either way? Libet's experiment was conducted way back in the eighties. I have quoted the latest experimental results. Why should you not change your opinion in the face of this latest finding?

Just to remind you, I am still agnostic about the issue. Even though I find the arguments in favor of "no free will" weightier, I realize that they are not conclusive yet. I haven't been really arguing for or against free will. That is why I had to take up the cudgels against both Fathom and yourself at the same time. I have been just trying to point out the holes in the arguments from the both sides.
Last edited by charleslemartel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby The Cat » Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:06 am

I find the following somehow contradictory
charleslemartel wrote:I hope Abdul will now start believing in "free will" as the latest experiment debunks the conclusions drawn by Libet's experiment..... Why should you not change your opinion in the face of this latest finding?
and
I am still agnostic about the issue. Even though I find the arguments in favor of "no free will" weightier, I realize that they are not conclusive yet.

ALL arguments in favor of NO Free Will are from a hard crushing determinism which are debunked both internally (ECR are but reactions, the Laws of Nature aren't dictating) and externally (QM). So what's left of these arguments, except for the absurd: inertia commands you to act? Determined is the past but undetermined is the future and, in-between, stands the -determining- consciousness of the NOW. In this actualization Free Will (being free to will) transforms options and potentiality into ACTS, which spontaneously shape the future, doing so interactively.

The Software & Hardware analogy.
Consciousness is just like Internet: existing without a material location, yet connected to the server/captor (the Self). Then we have the non-material software performing on the physical hardware, or PC, which we can alter simply by touching it. Without the immaterial software, the PC would be an inert entity, a meaningless mass. The software, going to the non-local Internet, or consciousness, can update itself so to correct and modify its informations which will then tells the hardware how to behave accordingly. It simply cannot be the other way around!

Likewise, the perceptive mind tells the brain and its ECR how to react, updating informations stored in consciousness. The more advanced and sophisticated the software-mind is (both through knowledge and self-knowledge) the more accurately it will tells the physical brain how to react; the wider these two knowledges are, the more taskful it gets in using our free will.

Consciousness (perception) --> mind (cognition, intention) --> brain (physical reaction, ECR) --> free will (transforming act).
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby The Cat » Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:32 am

AbdulRahman wrote:So far, the evidence and the logic shows there is no Free Will.

That you're not self-logical is the only evidence you came up with so far: You cannot rely on something as immaterial as logic to ascertain that ONLY matter makes sense. So, then, even rationality CANNOT be part of Naturalism and should be dismissed by any truthful naturalist. Naturalism requires blind FAITH to sustains itself: You aren't free to will or to act... no more than let's say a crater is free to erupt.

Let us see your two fold arguments:
AbdulRahman wrote:My claim is that, case against Free Will is two fold.
1) logical: In the absense of HUP Ut2 is computable from UT1 and Laws of Nature. AND we have no control over HUP.
2) Emperical: Libet's lab. emperical data and other similar experimental data speaks volume agaisnt Free Will.

Your 'logical' statement is as silly as can be because (1) the HUP is inescapable and (2) destroys all forms of determinism, (3) except through the Observer's measurement, underlining the primacy of conscience in the determination of particles, which seems aware of it all!

Now, on your empirical 'evidence' you ended up by utterly contracting yourself:
viewtopic.php?p=112236#p112236
Libet's following paragraphs clearly shows it is coming from a weak mind who is
looking for a way out to maintain his cognitive consonance of faith on Free Will.
and
viewtopic.php?p=112906#p112906
AbdulRahman wrote:You are correct, that Libet did not interpret his findings as No Free Will. But to show his weak mind,
his wishes, his desires for Free Will I posted his last 3 paragraphs earlier..... I can't add or subtract HUP...

Which ALSO contradicts your 'logical' above statement: ''in the absence of HUP...'' :D

As mentioned by clm, the Libet experiment was unscientific: The students knew -well in advance- what was to be and how it was to be done. Those informations were recorded in their subconscious when they tested, so they were already programmed. Thus it was neither spontaneous or truly scientific. You never argued anything but through logical fallacies and pontificating absurdities...

My own refutation
viewtopic.php?p=112904#p112904
http://tribes.tribe.net/cognitivescienc ... 7101c58fb6
http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readi ... libet.html

Fathom on Libet's experiment
viewtopic.php?p=114449#p114449
Then of charlesmartel's
viewtopic.php?p=114599#p114599
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention.

So, what's left of your 'evidences' apart from gonging over a ton of absurdities?
Image
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby yeezevee » Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:27 am

Studying Islam has made me an atheist ......Douglas Murray

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3 ... eist.thtml

Just over a year ago I told a lie. In print. In this magazine. I was one of those asked by The Spectator last Christmas whether I believed in the virgin birth. Since it had always seemed to me that if you believed in God a ‘pick and mix’ approach to the central tenets of the faith was pointless, I said ‘yes’. But in fact I felt ‘no’. It wasn’t that I had been wrestling over the doctrine of the incarnation, I simply felt that if I didn’t believe in the virgin birth, I would not believe in God. The truth is I didn’t and don’t. The guilt has been lingering since. This is my atheist mea culpa.

Many people hold on to belief as an unquestioned part of their make-up. They never have to confront the source of their belief, and as long as nothing actively pushes them into addressing it, they keep it as something which rarely does much harm and might actually do some good. I have been an Anglican since birth — and not just a cultural Anglican but at times (rarest of things) a real, worshipping, believing Anglican. Like a lot of believers, I knew that there were parts of my belief that wouldn’t stand up to analysis. But that was fine. I didn’t need to analyse them. I only lost faith when I was forced to.

read it all at the link...
yeezevee
 
Posts: 6714
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby CuteCoot » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:25 am

yeezevee wrote:Studying Islam has made me an atheist ......Douglas Murray

Nice article, though it's a bit old now (2008). Not sure how it connects to free will.

Studying Islam will have different effects on different people. For me, it served more to bring me back to religious values. Wondering why I don't like Islam but still see some value in Christianity, all this didn't turn me away from religion altogether. I was an atheist at the start. I'm not a regular church-going theist now. However, God has more reality for me now than before.
User avatar
CuteCoot
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:09 am
Gender: Female
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby yeezevee » Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:45 am

CuteCoot wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Studying Islam has made me an atheist ......Douglas Murray

Nice article, though it's a bit old now (2008). Not sure how it connects to free will.
That is FREE WILL... lol.. You mean to say I don't have freewill to put that link here in this thread dear CuteCoot ...lol....
Studying Islam will have different effects on different people. For me, it served more to bring me back to religious values. Wondering why I don't like Islam but still see some value in Christianity, all this didn't turn me away from religion altogether. I was an atheist at the start. I'm not a regular church-going theist now. However, God has more reality for me now than before.
I wonder whether it is free will Or it is directed/pre-programmed will that made you to bring you back to your religious values?

Well studying Islam in depth Quran/Sunnah/Hadith and Islamic history made me to come to the conclusion that "Human being looses "Free Will" and makes one to be a slave to foolish cultish poltical ideology that has no value to human race" And what ever little good/sayings you find in it you will find in every so-called religions that you see on this earth...
yeezevee
 
Posts: 6714
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby CuteCoot » Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:55 am

yeezevee wrote:I wonder whether it is free will Or it is directed/pre-programmed will that made you to bring you back to your religious values?

I wouldn't know ... lol
User avatar
CuteCoot
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:09 am
Gender: Female
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:56 am

Charles wrote:You still go on missing the point. The fact remains that when the same methodology can lead to different conclusions, one should keep one's fingers crossed unless and until the evidence is really conclusive. In other words, one shouldn't jump the gun prematurely.


There is nothing in science is 100% conclusive. It is a matter of probability. Hence, "successive approximation"
So, don't try to look for conclusiveness. Don't insert your word in my argument. You can search through entire 43 pages of this thread and you will not find crutch word "conclusive" in my argument to support No Free Will.
Only, people ask for conclusive proof are the one who are trapped in their own flawed logic.

I am re-reading Del Mello book. I am 75% done. Now when I read it more critically I find it is full of irrationality, stupidity.
Of course, there are few sentences are true here and there but overwhelming of it is plain insanity, contradictory.

I request you to re-read it with critical mind. Do not swallow everything what he says but think critically. Bring in arguments from opposite point of view.
MBL and you have been reciting some of his wording as is like repeater. This time be critical of it.
You might change your mind about meditation and mysticism.

If you are interested I can high light irrationality by citing page numbers. Dell Mello book that I am reading he 2nd time is "Awareness"
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:58 am

The Cat wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:So far, the evidence and the logic shows there is no Free Will.

That you're not self-logical is the only evidence you came up with so far: You cannot rely on something as immaterial as logic to ascertain that ONLY matter makes sense. So, then, even rationality CANNOT be part of Naturalism and should be dismissed by any truthful naturalist. Naturalism requires blind FAITH to sustains itself: You aren't free to will or to act... no more than let's say a crater is free to erupt.

Let us see your two fold arguments:
AbdulRahman wrote:My claim is that, case against Free Will is two fold.
1) logical: In the absense of HUP Ut2 is computable from UT1 and Laws of Nature. AND we have no control over HUP.
2) Emperical: Libet's lab. emperical data and other similar experimental data speaks volume agaisnt Free Will.

Your 'logical' statement is as silly as can be because (1) the HUP is inescapable and (2) destroys all forms of determinism, (3) except through the Observer's measurement, underlining the primacy of conscience in the determination of particles, which seems aware of it all!

Now, on your empirical 'evidence' you ended up by utterly contracting yourself:
viewtopic.php?p=112236#p112236
Libet's following paragraphs clearly shows it is coming from a weak mind who is
looking for a way out to maintain his cognitive consonance of faith on Free Will.
and
viewtopic.php?p=112906#p112906
AbdulRahman wrote:You are correct, that Libet did not interpret his findings as No Free Will. But to show his weak mind,
his wishes, his desires for Free Will I posted his last 3 paragraphs earlier..... I can't add or subtract HUP...

Which ALSO contradicts your 'logical' above statement: ''in the absence of HUP...'' :D

As mentioned by clm, the Libet experiment was unscientific: The students knew -well in advance- what was to be and how it was to be done. Those informations were recorded in their subconscious when they tested, so they were already programmed. Thus it was neither spontaneous or truly scientific. You never argued anything but through logical fallacies and pontificating absurdities...

My own refutation
viewtopic.php?p=112904#p112904
http://tribes.tribe.net/cognitivescienc ... 7101c58fb6
http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readi ... libet.html

Fathom on Libet's experiment
viewtopic.php?p=114449#p114449
Then of charlesmartel's
viewtopic.php?p=114599#p114599
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention.

So, what's left of your 'evidences' apart from gonging over a ton of absurdities?
Image



AbdulRahman wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Hey Hindu Cat,

What do you think happens to us after we die?
Do you believe in some kind of god?
Tell me more about your belief system.
I am not asking you to prove your claims at this time, just state it.




Hey Hindu Cat,

Hinduis is the oldest religion, if I am not wrong. No wonder many of its ideas are most primitive, irrational, and sometime outright insane. Now, in the 21st century people wants to twist its original idea to justify their stupid Hindu faith by misusing, abusing QM. There is no shortage of Maharashi University or Deepak Chopra's mumbo jumbo new age peseudo science and faith healing etc. You can sell these ideas to dummy but you irrationality is crystal clear to the people who understand naturalism.

Give up your Hinduism and join the club of humanity and rationality.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:11 am

INCEPTION

I just watched the new movie "Inception". Of course, it is just a move. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
But it will trigger, invoke interesting thoughts in your mind.
It talks about, Conscious, subconscious mind, guilt, speed of subconscious mind, rationality, amazing power of brain to create the dream universe and then we act in it. It is like brain playing two roles, one the creator and another one as creature. It brought in a new concept of "mutual or common dream" with the help of technology. It also talk about being able to chose (free will) in the real world but not in the dream (subconscious mind).

It is an interesting thought proving movie.
Watch the trailer.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810099246/info
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 29050.html

Now go watch the whole movie in I-Max 3D, $15.00/seat...man, expensive.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:20 am

AbdulRahman wrote:There is nothing in science is 100% conclusive. It is a matter of probability.


I know that much already. So, did your post do anything to establish Libet's conclusions as more probable than the conclusions drawn by the latest experiments I linked you to? viewtopic.php?p=116655#p116655
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:23 am

charleslemartel wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:There is nothing in science is 100% conclusive. It is a matter of probability.


I know that much already. So, did your post do anything to establish Libet's conclusions as more probable than the conclusions drawn by the latest experiments I linked you to? viewtopic.php?p=116655#p116655


Charles,


I know you knew that.
I pointed out that you shouldn't have brought up "conclusiveness" in support of your argument. that was an intellectual dishonesty.
Why you bring up an argument that you know won't stand up?

I am re-reading Del Mello book. I am 75% done. Now when I read it more critically I find it is full of irrationality, stupidity.
Of course, there are few sentences are true here and there but overwhelming of it is plain insanity, contradictory.

I request you to re-read it with critical mind. Do not swallow everything what he says but think critically. Bring in arguments from opposite point of view.
MBL and you have been reciting some of his wording as is like repeater. This time be critical of it.
You might change your mind about meditation and mysticism.

If you are interested I can high light irrationality by citing page numbers. Dell Mello book that I am reading he 2nd time is "Awareness"

Because of lack of scientific background of Mr. Dell Mello he failed to go deep enough. He stopped at a level higher than what I am talking about.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:06 am

charleslemartel wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:There is nothing in science is 100% conclusive. It is a matter of probability.


I know that much already. So, did your post do anything to establish Libet's conclusions as more probable than the conclusions drawn by the latest experiments I linked you to? viewtopic.php?p=116655#p116655



I read the link. There is nothing in the link that contradict the conclusion of No Free Will.
The point you are missing is that, no scientific evidence can break the iron clad logical argument of CAE, ECR, and that HUP is not controlled by us.
The only thing lab result can do is confirm the No Free Will conclusion.
It is just the opposite of the logic: Looking for life in the universe, no experimental data can conclusively say that there is no life (until we exhaustively finish searching the whole universe) but when we find the life we will have proof that there exist other life in the universe.

This is due to the fact that Materialist s' conclusion about our conscious' "decision/free will/choice" itself is the result of matter that are responsible for the creation of consciousness itself in the first place. This conclusion is independent of time delay between subconscious and conscious mind. This conclusion is independent of RP or LRP or any other crutch (false intermediary) that you would introduce to muddy the water.
Time delay was just confirming the logical conclusion.

5. Alex says:

Some of you seem like you’ve been waiting for a good reason to talk about why people who look at Libet’s results and claim that they make a good case against free will are going about it all wrong. Let’s not forget that if you’re convinced that we have free will, you must be holding out for some pretty major revolutions in the physical sciences. You’re counting on some kind of data to be generated that can only be dealt with by a major reworking of some of the most basic(and experimentally successful in the sense that they can be used to make accurate predictions) principles of modern science. I think for the most part people who accept Libet’s results do so because free will doesn’t really make sense under current scientific paradigms, and because of that it’s easier to accept that free will is an illusion than it is to be certain that a major scientific revolution is on its way that will account for free will and make everyone confortable about being in control of their own lives again.

It’s not about “trying to be trendy, in an academically needy, carelessly hipster sort way,” its about accepting the view of the world that actual working theories and data provide. Being so certain that free will can be proven seems to be based more on faith and motivated by your discomfort with the alternative than by any actual evidence.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:53 am

AbdulRahman wrote:Charles,[/b][/color]

I know you knew that.
I pointed out that you shouldn't have brought up "conclusiveness" in support of your argument. that was an intellectual dishonesty.
Why you bring up an argument that you know won't stand up?


That was a figure of speech of course. I could have added "reasonably" before "conclusive", and my statement would still stand. I note that you haven't said anything so far about the latest experiments. I pointed out the problems regarding Libet's experiments earlier, but you didn't say anything about that too. I think you have invested too much in the concept of "no free will" to let it go or question it even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I was expecting you to admit that science is still hovering somewhere around 50% on the question of free/no free will.

I am re-reading Del Mello book. I am 75% done. Now when I read it more critically I find it is full of irrationality, stupidity.
Of course, there are few sentences are true here and there but overwhelming of it is plain insanity, contradictory.


Spare yourself the effort. Had I been swallowing anything someone said, I would have been damn sure of many things.

You might change your mind about meditation and mysticism.


I am sorry but you haven't really understood what I have been saying about meditation and mysticism. They don't give you any dogma, so you don't form theories by reading/practicing them. All a mystic does is express his own experience in his own words. It is up to you to "experience" and then verify for yourself what is said. If you don't agree, a mystic doesn't promise you hell in the hereafter. His message is short and simple, "Live in the present". All the articles, discourse and books by a mystic is only to convey this simple message.

You earlier talk about living in the past 80% of the time was stupid. Even when you are driving, you must be in this very moment fully attentive to the act of driving and not mentally scheming in your office; most of the accidents happen because we leave the act of driving to the subconscious almost completely, while our conscious mind is clouded by thoughts and fails to process/register visible/audible inputs from other vehicles/entities properly which in turn delays the response from our subconscious mind. While surfing the internet or reading something, if your mind is somewhere else then you will miss and misunderstand many things. The words on the screen or the page or from the lips of a speaker happen in this very moment, and you should read/listen with your total being without the incessant chattering of your mind going on in the background. Meditation has two forms; the easier one is to focus on something with your total being, and the difficult one is when you become fully aware of everything that happens around you. So while driving/reading/listening/doing anything, you should "be" totally in the act which is nothing but "living in the moment".

If you are interested I can high light irrationality by citing page numbers. Dell Mello book that I am reading he 2nd time is "Awareness". Because of lack of scientific background of Mr. Dell Mello he failed to go deep enough. He stopped at a level higher than what I am talking about.


I don't have the book so giving page numbers won't help. You could search those passages on the internet, and then quote/reproduce them in another thread named "Teachings of De Mello" if you wish to discuss them. But even before that you should ask yourself if you are satisfied with the way you have been living. If you are, you shouldn't waste your time on the teachings of the mystics; you are already a buddha (a common noun with small 'b'). They come in the picture only when one is not satisfied with the way he/she has been living.

But let us focus presently on the issue of free will, and discuss the two experiments with contradictory conclusions.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:19 am

AbdulRahman wrote:The point you are missing is that, no scientific evidence can break the iron clad logical argument of CAE, ECR, and that HUP is not controlled by us.


Abdul, I really think we should stop arguing with each other. I don't want the theists to use my arguments in favor of their irrationality :lol:

Bye.
Last edited by charleslemartel on Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:30 am

Charles wrote:You earlier talk about living in the past 80% of the time was stupid. Even when you are driving, you must be in this very moment fully attentive to the act of driving and not mentally scheming in your office; most of the accidents happen because we leave the act of driving to the subconscious almost completely, while our conscious mind is clouded by thoughts and fails to process/register visible/audible inputs from other vehicles/entities properly which in turn delays the response from our subconscious mind. While surfing the internet or reading something, if your mind is somewhere else then you will miss and misunderstand many things. The words on the screen or the page or from the lips of a speaker happen in this very moment, and you should read/listen with your total being without the incessant chattering of your mind going on in the background. Meditation has two forms; the easier one is to focus on something with your total being, and the difficult one is when you become fully aware of everything that happens around you. So while driving/reading/listening/doing anything, you should "be" totally in the act which is nothing but "living in the moment".


Charles,

My 80% number was not about the driving only but for overall time spend, years after years.
I said, and stand behind my statement that 80% of our time is NOT and shouldn't be spent on the present/locally.
Let's qualify this....
When Buddha and Mystics says stay at "present" that implies living "locally" as well. This mean stay focused at present, being able to sense the local environment, vision, temperature, noise, smell, taste, and people around you. I already have given you the example of this before, here it is again. When I want to enjoy a beautiful evening at the sea shore, I want to hear the ocean wave, smell the flower, focus on the sight of beautiful sun set, feel the water and sand under my bare foot, etc. At this time I shouldn't be thinking about a physics problem or about the vacation I took 5 years ago or about world politics. That is what living in the present and locally means. Do you disagree with this explanation of living at present?

Now when I am reading an article my mind is in the article, in the story of it. Druing this time I won't be able to tell if there is small fluctuation in the temperature, or sound, or if someone walked by. This mean I am not living in the present nor locally as much if I were not reading that interesting article. When we watch movie, our mind is very much in the movie, inside the movie's story. We feel, we laugh, we cry with the characters and the story. Obviously, those are not reality. We live in an imaginary world while engross in a movie. During that time we are not living at present nor locally.

Even when we drive car, (assuming you have been driving for few years), our mind does very rapid time slice (Multi-tasking). It pays a little bit of attention on the road then wander, solve some real world problem, then comes back to present etc. For most of the time our mind is not at present/local even when driving. Basically, very small percentage of neural network is processing current data while driving. Of course, that is not the case for the new driver. it varies.
Even for an experienced driver if our brain fail to "context switch" with the urgency then accident will occur. Therefore, I did not say 0% living at present when driving.
Human brain can and does multi-tasking. An optimum percentage is desirable. Mystics, Del Mello, who are really, scientifically morons have no clue of these.
In your Mystic and Buddha teachings all you got is personal experience, living at present/locally. This is neither practical, nor desirable nor happens.

Our scientific view point is that 1 hours of our life experience takes months to process, understand, form new connection in the brain. These new connection will be used later by the subconscious mind for much rapid conclusions when similar situation arises later.

While living at present/locally we gather data, feeling, information. Of course, some processed are happens on real time as we are experience by living at present/locally. But to extract any deeper meaning, conclusion, these experiences need to be analyzed much more vigorously. This can be done by time slicing at present and more extensively later. So,m 80% of time our conscious mind doesn't live at present/locally.

Now, do the accounting for 80% of the time.
When fully focused enjoying the current moment locally we are almost 100% at the present.
How often does that happen? May be 10 minutes/day.
Sleeping, 8 hrs. 0% at present/locally
Reading books, news paper, on the internet, 6 to 8 hrs./day, May be 5% at present/locally
Watching movie, news, TV, 5% at present.
At work, doing accounting, Engineering work, solving physics problem, may be 10% of the time at present/locally.

So, over all we spend less than 20% of the time fully focused at present and locally. This is the way it should be because it take a lot longer to make sense of all of our experiences than just experience it.


Charles wrote:I note that you haven't said anything so far about the latest experiments.

yes, I have. Here is the link
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&p=116903#p116896
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby CuteCoot » Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:41 am

AbdulRahman wrote:Give up your Hinduism and join the club of humanity and rationality.

Yikes! Is that a club with YOU in it? <running in the other direction as fast as I can>
User avatar
CuteCoot
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:09 am
Gender: Female
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:38 am

CuteCoot wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Give up your Hinduism and join the club of humanity and rationality.

Yikes! Is that a club with YOU in it? <running in the other direction as fast as I can>


Instead of trying to mock and ridicule him, you should have attempted to refute his arguments as others are doing in this thread.
Last edited by charleslemartel on Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male
Top

PreviousNext

Post a reply
956 posts • Page 44 of 48 • 1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

Return to God & Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group