For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Okie dokie. Stay informed is going to be my mantra.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:58 amWell, not so fast....
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... al/597736/
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/how-libe ... presented/
I don't think it means that. It at best means we don't use conscious thought to make many, possibly most of our decisions. Some people may maintain that conscious thought isn't a requirement for an action to be one of free will, and others can still maintain that, even if many or most actions aren't the result of conscious thought, others are.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:46 amDanke! Libet's experiment proves it then - we don't have free will. Intriguing is it not? What are the other ramifications I wonder.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:34 amLibet was one of the first...Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:33 am Compatibilism is an intriguing stance to adopt.
Also what about the now-famous neuroscientific experiment in which it was found that the body moves milliseconds before one wills to do so. If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, please provide some links. I seem to have forgotten the scientist's name.
Vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet´
but there's also more recent research...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... we-know-it
The interesting thing for philosophers is that this stuff challenges not only free will but also our sense about why we make decisions.
IOW we may think we made them for rational reasons, but......
How many milliseconds is the delay between the movement of the arm and the will to move it?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:26 amI don't think it means that. It at best means we don't use conscious thought to make many, possibly most of our decisions. Some people may maintain that conscious thought isn't a requirement for an action to be one of free will, and others can still maintain that, even if many or most actions aren't the result of conscious thought, others are.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:46 amDanke! Libet's experiment proves it then - we don't have free will. Intriguing is it not? What are the other ramifications I wonder.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:34 am
Libet was one of the first...
Vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet´
but there's also more recent research...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... we-know-it
The interesting thing for philosophers is that this stuff challenges not only free will but also our sense about why we make decisions.
IOW we may think we made them for rational reasons, but......
Yes, we could be leaving the free part for new things, exceptions, special focus. Sort of like we put some stuff on automatic pilot because we can handle it. So, driving we don't decide to make all those adjustments that keep us from hitting other things and making nice turns, but we might taking over if we decide to cross three lanes and exit. Something that requires something tricky. Or when we are guiding the whole organism in new directions. I think I will ask her out, mull, mull. Plan.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:26 amI don't think it means that. It at best means we don't use conscious thought to make many, possibly most of our decisions. Some people may maintain that conscious thought isn't a requirement for an action to be one of free will, and others can still maintain that, even if many or most actions aren't the result of conscious thought, others are.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:46 amDanke! Libet's experiment proves it then - we don't have free will. Intriguing is it not? What are the other ramifications I wonder.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:34 am
Libet was one of the first...
Vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet´
but there's also more recent research...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... we-know-it
The interesting thing for philosophers is that this stuff challenges not only free will but also our sense about why we make decisions.
IOW we may think we made them for rational reasons, but......
Yes, idk about ontologically differences but differences in general, absolutely.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:44 amYes, we could be leaving the free part for new things, exceptions, special focus. Sort of like we put some stuff on automatic pilot because we can handle it. So, driving we don't decide to make all those adjustments that keep us from hitting other things and making nice turns, but we might taking over if we decide to cross three lanes and exit. Something that requires something tricky. Or when we are guiding the whole organism in new directions. I think I will ask her out, mull, mull. Plan.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:26 amI don't think it means that. It at best means we don't use conscious thought to make many, possibly most of our decisions. Some people may maintain that conscious thought isn't a requirement for an action to be one of free will, and others can still maintain that, even if many or most actions aren't the result of conscious thought, others are.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:46 am
Danke! Libet's experiment proves it then - we don't have free will. Intriguing is it not? What are the other ramifications I wonder.
Note: not arguing for free will, just saying that different kinds of cognitive processes may (somehow) have ontological differences.
The hypothesis you mentioned is one of the theories proposed to explain why we have a subjective experience of making decisions and taking actions. This idea is known as the "corollary discharge theory" or "efference copy theory" and suggests that the brain generates an internal copy of motor commands (efference copy) that is compared to the actual sensory feedback from the body.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 11:46 am It was recently brought to my attention that some people hypothesize the reason for conscious awareness of decisions is because we had a need in our evolutionary history to distinguish between "actions my body is taking because of my own brain" compared to "actions my body is taking despite what my brain wants".
Eg the difference between "I'm jumping off this rock" compared to "I'm being pushed off this rock by another being".
Thanks, I love discharge theoriesBigMike wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:32 pmThe hypothesis you mentioned is one of the theories proposed to explain why we have a subjective experience of making decisions and taking actions. This idea is known as the "corollary discharge theory" or "efference copy theory" and suggests that the brain generates an internal copy of motor commands (efference copy) that is compared to the actual sensory feedback from the body.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 11:46 am It was recently brought to my attention that some people hypothesize the reason for conscious awareness of decisions is because we had a need in our evolutionary history to distinguish between "actions my body is taking because of my own brain" compared to "actions my body is taking despite what my brain wants".
Eg the difference between "I'm jumping off this rock" compared to "I'm being pushed off this rock by another being".
According to this theory, the brain uses the efference copy to predict the expected sensory consequences of a movement, and if the predicted and actual sensory feedbacks match, the brain assumes that the movement was self-generated. However, if there is a mismatch between the predicted and actual sensory feedbacks, the brain infers that the movement was externally caused.
This theory has been supported by studies in both humans and animals. For example, studies have shown that the brain areas responsible for generating the efference copy are also active during the preparation and execution of movements. Additionally, studies on patients with certain neurological disorders have shown that a disruption in the ability to generate or process efference copies can result in a difficulty in distinguishing self-generated from externally caused movements.
While the corollary discharge theory is a promising explanation for conscious awareness of decisions, it is not the only one. Other theories propose that conscious awareness arises from the integration of multiple sources of sensory information, the comparison between different possible actions, or the need to selectively attend to relevant stimuli. Ultimately, the question of why we have a subjective experience of decision-making and action remains an active area of research in neuroscience and philosophy.
Given some measure of human autonomy, I root moral and political value judgments existentially in dasein. In a No God world.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:05 pmAssume determinism isn't true. Do you hold Mary responsible? If so, why and to what end?iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:01 pm But: though she was never not going to be toast, can someone still hold Mary morally responsible for killing her?
I don't see that that answers the question I asked. I also don't see what Benjamin button syndrome has to do with this, perhaps you have some unique meaning you give to that that I don't understand.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:30 pmGiven some measure of human autonomy, I root moral and political value judgments existentially in dasein. In a No God world.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:05 pmAssume determinism isn't true. Do you hold Mary responsible? If so, why and to what end?iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:01 pm But: though she was never not going to be toast, can someone still hold Mary morally responsible for killing her?
Mary lived a particular life. And as a result of her childhood indoctrination and her own personal experiences as an adult, she came to think and to feel what she did about abortion.
Given the manner in which I construe the "self" in the is/ought world here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And given the profoundly problematic "for all practical purposes" implications of the Benjamin Button Syndrome...for all of us in regard to our own value judgments.
So, the question for philosophers and ethicists is this: given the above is it possible, using the tools of philosophy, to propound the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve the "conflicting goods" embedded in the abortion wars?
Yes? Okay let's explore your own frame of mind.
Then the part where the objectivists among us actually do attempt this with me. And, here, I'll leave it to others to assess how well they fared.
I bring it up because eventually everything that we think we know regarding the human condition comes back to everything that we do not know regarding how matter itself evolved from the Big Bang into us.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:37 pmPointing it out is one thing. Point it out, it's a great thing to point out! Fantastic!iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:33 pm Back to that again. I'm clearly not interested in not thinking about it. I merely point out the "for all practical purposes" limitations of thoughts emanating from a human brain that is not even capable of explaining how or why human brains themselves came to evolve into existence in the first place.
But you bring it up every other post you make. It's past the point of pointing it out.
I must concur with you on this point. This appears to be iambiguous's favorite subject, and he appears incapable of ever progressing beyond repeatedly posing the same irrelevant question. Fortunately for me, he addressed this question to philosophers and ethicists, excluding me from consideration.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:36 pmI don't see that that answers the question I asked. I also don't see what Benjamin button syndrome has to do with this, perhaps you have some unique meaning you give to that that I don't understand.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:30 pmGiven some measure of human autonomy, I root moral and political value judgments existentially in dasein. In a No God world.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:05 pm
Assume determinism isn't true. Do you hold Mary responsible? If so, why and to what end?
Mary lived a particular life. And as a result of her childhood indoctrination and her own personal experiences as an adult, she came to think and to feel what she did about abortion.
Given the manner in which I construe the "self" in the is/ought world here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And given the profoundly problematic "for all practical purposes" implications of the Benjamin Button Syndrome...for all of us in regard to our own value judgments.
So, the question for philosophers and ethicists is this: given the above is it possible, using the tools of philosophy, to propound the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve the "conflicting goods" embedded in the abortion wars?
Yes? Okay let's explore your own frame of mind.
Then the part where the objectivists among us actually do attempt this with me. And, here, I'll leave it to others to assess how well they fared.
You ask me if I would hold Mary morally responsible in a free will world. I responded to that above.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:36 pmI don't see that that answers the question I asked. I also don't see what Benjamin button syndrome has to do with this, perhaps you have some unique meaning you give to that that I don't understand.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:30 pmGiven some measure of human autonomy, I root moral and political value judgments existentially in dasein. In a No God world.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:05 pm
Assume determinism isn't true. Do you hold Mary responsible? If so, why and to what end?
Mary lived a particular life. And as a result of her childhood indoctrination and her own personal experiences as an adult, she came to think and to feel what she did about abortion.
Given the manner in which I construe the "self" in the is/ought world here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And given the profoundly problematic "for all practical purposes" implications of the Benjamin Button Syndrome...for all of us in regard to our own value judgments.
So, the question for philosophers and ethicists is this: given the above is it possible, using the tools of philosophy, to propound the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve the "conflicting goods" embedded in the abortion wars?
Yes? Okay let's explore your own frame of mind.
Then the part where the objectivists among us actually do attempt this with me. And, here, I'll leave it to others to assess how well they fared.
Back to this:BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:45 pmI must concur with you on this point. This appears to be iambiguous's favorite subject, and he appears incapable of ever progressing beyond repeatedly posing the same irrelevant question. Fortunately for me, he addressed this question to philosophers and ethicists, excluding me from consideration.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:36 pmI don't see that that answers the question I asked. I also don't see what Benjamin button syndrome has to do with this, perhaps you have some unique meaning you give to that that I don't understand.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:30 pm
Given some measure of human autonomy, I root moral and political value judgments existentially in dasein. In a No God world.
Mary lived a particular life. And as a result of her childhood indoctrination and her own personal experiences as an adult, she came to think and to feel what she did about abortion.
Given the manner in which I construe the "self" in the is/ought world here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And given the profoundly problematic "for all practical purposes" implications of the Benjamin Button Syndrome...for all of us in regard to our own value judgments.
So, the question for philosophers and ethicists is this: given the above is it possible, using the tools of philosophy, to propound the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve the "conflicting goods" embedded in the abortion wars?
Yes? Okay let's explore your own frame of mind.
Then the part where the objectivists among us actually do attempt this with me. And, here, I'll leave it to others to assess how well they fared.
Click.
Again, with BigMike, my main interest lies in grasping whether, given how he understands a "no free will determined universe", he either does or does not opt freely to post this. Instead, compelled or not, he produces yet another "general description intellectual/philosophical contraption" in which the explanation revolves around words defining and then defending yet more words still. And, apparently, his aim/"aim" here seems to be that of the objectivist: to convey to others that it is his explanation or they are wrong.
Unless of course he can offer us a definitive/demonstrable account of how lifeless matter did evolve into biological matter here on earth billions of years ago evolving further into conscious biological matter millions of years ago evolving into philosophers a few thousand years ago.
Using, I suppose, the scientific method to establish this?
Because I still don't know what your answer to the question is. Big Mike apparently also does not.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:12 pmYou ask me if I would hold Mary morally responsible in a free will world. I responded to that above.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:36 pmI don't see that that answers the question I asked. I also don't see what Benjamin button syndrome has to do with this, perhaps you have some unique meaning you give to that that I don't understand.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 6:30 pm
Given some measure of human autonomy, I root moral and political value judgments existentially in dasein. In a No God world.
Mary lived a particular life. And as a result of her childhood indoctrination and her own personal experiences as an adult, she came to think and to feel what she did about abortion.
Given the manner in which I construe the "self" in the is/ought world here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And given the profoundly problematic "for all practical purposes" implications of the Benjamin Button Syndrome...for all of us in regard to our own value judgments.
So, the question for philosophers and ethicists is this: given the above is it possible, using the tools of philosophy, to propound the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve the "conflicting goods" embedded in the abortion wars?
Yes? Okay let's explore your own frame of mind.
Then the part where the objectivists among us actually do attempt this with me. And, here, I'll leave it to others to assess how well they fared.
Okay, how does my assessment not meet your own requirements here?