Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve

[chaz wyman]

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

What science says is true.

The contention that "what science says is true", is extremely dubious, if not outright false. If you take the position that observations are accurately described by true statements, then I suggest that you ensure that the distinction is clear. For example; "what is observed by scientists, is true", would be much easier to support. The major point is that any observation is independent of science. What characterises science is the construction of theoretical models, and to talk about the truth of such models, if such talk makes sense at all, is to talk about something that appears to be very different from the truth one talks about concerning observations.
In any case, the claim that neuroscientists have shown that "decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered", is false.

Stating a contrary is not an argument.
How do you account for the experimental evidence of their findings.?
Or, is it true, that you are basically ignorant of the recent work done with scanning technology in this respect?

[chaz wyman]

Either you post your own or fuck off!

My own what?
As things stand, the state of play is this; you claim that realism about determinism has been supported, by you, on this thread. That claim is false. You have exactly one remaining chance to support your claim.

Stating the contrary is not an argument.
What you are doing is acting like a gainsaying little baby.
Take your one chance and shove it!
I've already proven my case, and you have done nothing to refute it or argue against it; nor have you offered anything yourself.

[ughaibu]

the claim that neuroscientists have shown that "decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered", is false.

How do you account for the experimental evidence of their findings.?

1) Libet type experiments include the instruction not to choose consciously but to wait for a feeling of having decided.
2) nevertheless, the only thing recorded before the decision is announced is the so-called action potential.
3) as recent work has demonstrated that the "action potential" also occurs without any intention to move or any subsequent movement, the claim that the AP demonstrates that movement has been initiated before the conscious awareness of choice, has been refuted.

Or, is it true, that you are basically ignorant of the recent work done with scanning technology in this respect?

Presumably you mean Haynes. Haynes' work allows a successful prediction, about a question of left or right, about 63% of the time. Similar results can be obtained by tracking eye movements. Such experiments do not even suggest, never mind demonstrate, that decisions are completed pre-consciously.

[ughaibu]

You have exactly one remaining chance to support your claim.

I've already proven my case, and you have done nothing to refute it or argue against it; nor have you offered anything yourself.

You have offered no argument, and you have avoided the question of this thread. You have failed to support your claim and the opportunity has now gone.

[chaz wyman]

You have exactly one remaining chance to support your claim.

I've already proven my case, and you have done nothing to refute it or argue against it; nor have you offered anything yourself.

You have offered no argument, and you have avoided the question of this thread. You have failed to support your claim and the opportunity has now gone.

Put up or shut up!

[ntadepalli]

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

What science says is true.

The contention that "what science says is true", is extremely dubious, if not outright false. If you take the position that observations are accurately described by true statements, then I suggest that you ensure that the distinction is clear. For example; "what is observed by scientists, is true", would be much easier to support. The major point is that any observation is independent of science. What characterises science is the construction of theoretical models, and to talk about the truth of such models, if such talk makes sense at all, is to talk about something that appears to be very different from the truth one talks about concerning observations.
In any case, the claim that neuroscientists have shown that "decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered", is false.

We believe scientists study evidence better than others and hence prefer to

accept their conclusions,unless contradicted by other scientists.

IMO,the brain activity corresponding to decision,itself initiates

registration of the decision.( implying decision and initiation of its

registration are simultaneous )
I agree that fresh evidence can upset established theories.

[AMod]

chaz wyman,

Puto, I don't give a rat's arse for your crit.

Please don't accuse members of using multiple identities when there is no evidence for the claim.

AMod.

[chaz wyman]

chaz wyman,

Puto, I don't give a rat's arse for your crit.

Please don't accuse members of using multiple identities when there is no evidence for the claim.

AMod.

I have not accused anyone.
His approach to the Forum is similar - I made a genuine mistake.
Puto also keeps asking me to state a case or explain something, but never says anything himself.

[attofishpi]

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

Up to 6 seconds in advance in fact.

[ughaibu]

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

Up to 6 seconds in advance in fact.

This claim remains false. Nevertheless, are you going to attempt to support it?

[chaz wyman]

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

Up to 6 seconds in advance in fact.

This claim remains false. Nevertheless, are you going to attempt to support it?

Perhaps you would like to refute it?

[ughaibu]

Up to 6 seconds in advance in fact.

This claim remains false. Nevertheless, are you going to attempt to support it?

Perhaps you would like to refute it?

What is there to refute?
1) this claim has not been made by Haynes
2) the predictions achieved about 63% accuracy
3) it is blindingly obvious that actions need to be taken in less than six seconds, after a decision is made, on many occasions
4) not only is the claim, on the face of it, obviously false, but its proponents have given no reason to take it seriously.

[chaz wyman]

This claim remains false. Nevertheless, are you going to attempt to support it?

Perhaps you would like to refute it?

What is there to refute?
1) this claim has not been made by Haynes
2) the predictions achieved about 63% accuracy

please cite

3) it is blindingly obvious that actions need to be taken in less than six seconds, after a decision is made, on many occasions
4) not only is the claim, on the face of it, obviously false, but its proponents have given no reason to take it seriously.

So do you expect me to accept your version of events and ignore BBC Horizon, and the contributors to "In Our TIme: Determinism". 10th March 2011, with Simon Blackburn, Helen Beebee and Galen Strawson?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iotp/all

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profi ... helen.aspx
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/
http://www.reading.ac.uk/Phil/about/sta ... awson.aspx

All who agree that free-will is an illusion and cite neuroscience in support of the claim made by attofishpi.

[ughaibu]

So do you expect me to accept your version of events. . . .

My expectations aren't relevant, but I would hope that you'd prefer to think about things yourself.

. . . . and ignore BBC Horizon, and the contributors to "In Our TIme: Determinism". 10th March 2011, with Simon Blackburn, Helen Beebee and Galen Strawson?

Free will denial is an extreme minority position, as you should know from the PhilPapers survey results. So, why do you "accept" the version of the above mentioned three and "ignore" the majority?

All who agree that free-will is an illusion and cite neuroscience in support of the claim made by attofishpi.

Is that the programme in which Strawson presents the classical dilemma? That argument fails by equivocating over different notions of randomness and by confusion of determinism with causality.

[chaz wyman]

So do you expect me to accept your version of events. . . .

My expectations aren't relevant, but I would hope that you'd prefer to think about things yourself.

. . . . and ignore BBC Horizon, and the contributors to "In Our TIme: Determinism". 10th March 2011, with Simon Blackburn, Helen Beebee and Galen Strawson?

Free will denial is an extreme minority position, as you should know from the PhilPapers survey results. So, why do you "accept" the version of the above mentioned three and "ignore" the majority?

X Factor, MacDonald's Hamburgers and God = the majority. Are you serious?

All who agree that free-will is an illusion and cite neuroscience in support of the claim made by attofishpi.

Is that the programme in which Strawson presents the classical dilemma? That argument fails by equivocating over different notions of randomness and by confusion of determinism with causality.

So you haven't heard the program?


Reminder:


you said; 2) the predictions achieved about 63% accuracy

I said: please cite