Morality or Obedience?

[element771]

If the studies I mentioned, like the Libet and Haynes studies hold, then the physical brain drives it all, the decision is made before we are conscious of it. Our thoughts become epiphenomenal, we no causal effect on the decision making process.

What statement is more likely to be correct....

Your interpretation is correct and our free will is an illusion that requires the brain to actually post-dictate decision making in order to fool us into thinking we have free will.

OR

Your interpretation of the Libet experiment is wrong.

You still haven't read the PNAS paper?

It lays out that the bump seen could be a readiness action potential that is priming the brain before we make the decision. Sounds perfectly plausible to me and it doesn't need to explain the evolution of a brain that tricks itself into thinking it has free will.

[carpedm9587]

If the studies I mentioned, like the Libet and Haynes studies hold, then the physical brain drives it all, the decision is made before we are conscious of it. Our thoughts become epiphenomenal, we no causal effect on the decision making process.

If they hold - which we do not know they will. It is one line of research and there are others. As I noted, we are in the very early stages of all of this. We know the brain is the hardware. We know that thinking/deciding is compromised if the hardware is compromised. What we do not know is how "thought" and "consciousness" emerge from this hardware, and are related to its synaptic pathways, etc. We can see the effects of thought on the hardware, and we can see the effect of hardware on thought. We can see the timing disparity between brain activity and the "sensation of decision." But there is much we do not know.

Aren't you precious...

Yes, but my point with Tass was that this cannot be demonstrated scientifically, it is not a theory that can be falsified.

I still think you do not know what the concept of "falsifiability" is about. The experiments I described would tell us whether or not "religious belief" or "having a moral compass" has survival value, and we know that nature selects for things that have survival value. Ergo, the statement has a means for falsification. The experiment is extremely difficult to actually do - but the difficulty of the experiment does not make a concept falsifiable or non-falsifiable. A scientific premise is not falsifiable when no experiment can be concieved that could falsify the claim.

But you are assuming that you actually have free will, but as one of the links I posted said, this may simply be a trick of the brain.

I am not making an assumption that is any different than many others I make each day. I assume that the information I gain through my eyes is accurate - and I am actually "seeing" the world. I assume that the information I gain through my ears is accurate - and I am actually hearing the world. The same is true for touch, smell, and taste. So it does not seem to me odd to accept my experience of "free will" as most likely true, until I have cause not to. If you have proof that my senses cannot be trusted, and my experience of free will is an illusion, by all means procvide it and I will review it. Until then, I will make this (informed) assumption.

[seer]

Your interpretation of the Libet experiment is wrong.

It is not just my interpretation, my other link quotes Haynes and his study, he doesn't seem to think there is much room for freedom of the will... Start at 8 minutes:

You still haven't read the PNAS paper?

Above my pay grade...

It lays out that the bump seen could be a readiness action potential that is priming the brain before we make the decision. Sounds perfectly plausible to me and it doesn't need to explain the evolution of a brain that tricks itself into thinking it has free will.

Ok, but even Libet believed there was a possible veto ability after the brain ramped up, but maybe not. But since I'm not a materialist it does not make a difference in my worldview.

[seer]

I still think you do not know what the concept of "falsifiability" is about. The experiments I described would tell us whether or not "religious belief" or "having a moral compass" has survival value, and we know that nature selects for things that have survival value. Ergo, the statement has a means for falsification. The experiment is extremely difficult to actually do - but the difficulty of the experiment does not make a concept falsifiable or non-falsifiable. A scientific premise is not falsifiable when no experiment can be concieved that could falsify the claim.

That is not what I'm asking Carp, again, I'm asking Tass to scientifically demonstrate that our nearly universal belief in the divine is ONLY the result of the evolutionary process? Even if religion has survival value, that does not prove the point. And how would you falsify Tass' claim that evolution alone is responsible for faith.

[element771]

It is not just my interpretation, my other link quotes Haynes and his study, he doesn't seem to think there is much room for freedom of the will...

I watched....he didn't say anything about room for free will. He also didn't provide his success rate which if I remember is 60%.

I asked you to choose one or the other...I didn't say that it was wrong.

Above my pay grade...

That is the problem.

You are listening to one person's interpretation and not reading the evidence for yourself. And I will let you in on a little secret...scientists are not completely rational and objective...no one is. We are human with prejudices. I am not saying that they will falsify data or anything but if they favor one interpretation that fits the data ...they will stick with it until they don't have any choice.

Also you have to realize that it is sexier to say something that overthrows conventional wisdom. The PNAS paper suggested that the bump before the decision was readiness potential...not a pre-decision that you are not aware of. BUT...saying that your brain gets ready for a decision or to push the button does not get you a TED talk. Again, this is not saying that anyone is dishonest...no free will also fits the data. But as Haynes says in the video, there are a very limited number of experiments that say this. To draw any certain conclusion, it will require a lot more research.

Another thing is this...as soon as you are informed that you have to decide which finger you are going to push, I always have an intuition or subtle background thought of which one I am going to use. Even if I try to make it completely random. Once again this is readiness potential and if they can discern the readiness potential for each finger (which they can)...of course they are going to predict it.

[carpedm9587]

That is not what I'm asking Carp, again, I'm asking Tass to scientifically demonstrate that our nearly universal belief in the divine is ONLY the result of the evolutionary process? Even if religion has survival value, that does not prove the point. And how would you falsify Tass' claim that evolution alone is responsible for faith.

Absolute claims (i.e., all, every, none, etc.) are not claims that a scientist should make lightly. They are often difficult (if not impossible) to falsify. Claiming that religious belief is selected for (or against) by natural selection is falsifiable. Claiming it is the ONLY reason we have religious belief requires falsifying each other possible source of that religious belief. Only the scientific claims about that can be falsified. So if someone claims that "eating rhubarb causes religious belief," that claim can be falsified. Claims like "god did it" cannot be falsified because it is not a scientific claim. It also cannot be scientifically proven either.

[Tassman]

That is not what I'm asking Carp, again, I'm asking Tass to scientifically demonstrate that our nearly universal belief in the divine is ONLY the result of the evolutionary process? Even if religion has survival value, that does not prove the point. And how would you falsify Tass' claim that evolution alone is responsible for faith.

The existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis that can be either verified or falsified. What can be verified is that religion offers a survival advantage in that it organises cooperative behaviour and reinforces existing morals, thus facilitating the survival of the human species. OTOH, a world of violently competing religious is harmful to the survival of the species in that it is destructive of cooperation and social cohesion. Either way, all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality.

[Tassman]

I have to think about this - but at first glance I would agree, though I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "devise."

Perhaps swap “devise” for “develop a working morality”.

Yes - to a degree. But you just reversed yourself, didn't you?

I don’t think so. The community values, in which we are inculcated by our family and community, evolved as instinctive qualities of mutual reciprocity and cooperation essential for the maintenance of an evolved social species like us humans.

Indeed - an AI sentience, if fears about the so-called "singularity" are valid, way well displace biological sentience completely.

The likes of Ray Kurzweil argue that humans will transcend biology and merge with artificial intelligence as a logical progression of our existing sentience. Why fear the Singularity?

[seer]

Either way, all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality.

See there you go again, making a metaphysical claim that can not be demonstrated scientifically or otherwise.

[seer]

I don’t think so. The community values, in which we are inculcated by our family and community, evolved as instinctive qualities of mutual reciprocity and cooperation essential for the maintenance of an evolved social species like us humans.

Of course you flat out contradicted yourself, you said:

To devise a working morality I think that it has to closely align with our natural instincts, if it does not, it won't work. I don't believe a society can be forced to behave against its natural urges and instincts. And, from infancy onward, we are inculcated in community values by family and the society at large. These values include mutual reciprocity and the importance of overriding our selfish instincts in favour of community cohesion.



So no, morality can't align with many of our natural instincts like selfishness or cruelty. So one wonders why the evolutionary process selected for such behaviors that are antithetical to social cohesion.

[seer]

What can be verified is that religion offers a survival advantage in that it organises cooperative behaviour and reinforces existing morals, thus facilitating the survival of the human species. OTOH, a world of violently competing religious is harmful to the survival of the species in that it is destructive of cooperation and social cohesion. Either way, all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality.

So religion both helps social cohesion and is destructive of social cohesion. One wonders what the survival value is then...

[seer]

I watched....he didn't say anything about room for free will. He also didn't provide his success rate which if I remember is 60%.

I was quoting my first link to the Haynes' study

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080....2008.751.html

What might this mean, then, for the nebulous concept of free will? If choices really are being made several seconds ahead of awareness, “there’s not much space for free will to operate”, Haynes says.

You are listening to one person's interpretation and not reading the evidence for yourself. And I will let you in on a little secret...scientists are not completely rational and objective...no one is. We are human with prejudices. I am not saying that they will falsify data or anything but if they favor one interpretation that fits the data ...they will stick with it until they don't have any choice.

Also you have to realize that it is sexier to say something that overthrows conventional wisdom. The PNAS paper suggested that the bump before the decision was readiness potential...not a pre-decision that you are not aware of. BUT...saying that your brain gets ready for a decision or to push the button does not get you a TED talk. Again, this is not saying that anyone is dishonest...no free will also fits the data. But as Haynes says in the video, there are a very limited number of experiments that say this. To draw any certain conclusion, it will require a lot more research.

Another thing is this...as soon as you are informed that you have to decide which finger you are going to push, I always have an intuition or subtle background thought of which one I am going to use. Even if I try to make it completely random. Once again this is readiness potential and if they can discern the readiness potential for each finger (which they can)...of course they are going to predict it.

OK, but this is in context of my larger point - how can free will exist if materialism is true...

[element771]

OK, but this is in context of my larger point - how can free will exist if materialism is true...

I am a Christian physicalist just FYI...I could be wrong but to me this is what the Bible teaches but that is a different topic.

Materialism does not require strict determinism. Check out top down causation and emergence. Basically, there are times in complex systems that certain behaviors of the system overall "macro system" that can affect the constituent fundamental parts of the "micro system".

[shunyadragon]

I still don't see any freedom in software. Like we have a choice on how we process or react to experience.

I believe the reference to hardware/software was one of an analogy. In contemporary computers you will not see freedom in the outcome of hardware/software outcomes. The current direction is developing hardware for computers based on the brain neural network.

It is still turtles all the way down...

Solution: Make turtle soup!

Designed to make that kind of belief more likely? Bingo!

There is no objective verifiable evidence for Intelligent Design, beyond the obvious result of human intellect, creativity and ingenuity.

And where do machines have freedom of the will?

Humans likely only have a degree of free will from the compatibilist view. Machines of course, do not at present. Future computers based on the brain neural network may. There are currently primitive neural network hardware developed.

[seer]

I am a Christian physicalist just FYI...I could be wrong but to me this is what the Bible teaches but that is a different topic.

What do you do with the human spirit/soul?

Materialism does not require strict determinism. Check out top down causation and emergence. Basically, there are times in complex systems that certain behaviors of the system overall "macro system" that can affect the constituent fundamental parts of the "micro system".

I'm not sure where freedom comes in here...