Page 3 of 10
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:57 am
by chaz wyman
ughaibu wrote:ntadepalli wrote:chaz wyman wrote: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?
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:59 am
by chaz wyman
ughaibu wrote:chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:32 pm
by ughaibu
chaz wyman wrote:ughaibu wrote: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.
chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:35 pm
by ughaibu
chaz wyman wrote:ughaibu wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:47 pm
by chaz wyman
ughaibu wrote:chaz wyman wrote:ughaibu wrote: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!
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:41 pm
by ntadepalli
ughaibu wrote:ntadepalli wrote:chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:16 pm
by AMod
chaz wyman,
chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:26 pm
by chaz wyman
AMod wrote:chaz wyman,
chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:50 pm
by attofishpi
chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:02 pm
by ughaibu
attofishpi wrote:chaz wyman wrote: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?
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:21 pm
by chaz wyman
ughaibu wrote:attofishpi wrote:chaz wyman wrote: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?
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:39 am
by ughaibu
chaz wyman wrote:ughaibu wrote:attofishpi wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:07 am
by chaz wyman
ughaibu wrote:chaz wyman wrote:ughaibu wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:23 am
by ughaibu
chaz wyman wrote: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.
chaz wyman wrote:. . . . 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?
chaz wyman wrote: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.
Re: Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:37 am
by chaz wyman
ughaibu wrote:chaz wyman wrote: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.
chaz wyman wrote:. . . . 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?
chaz wyman wrote: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