I think Michael missed it on this one. Free won't is still not evidence for free will. What causes you to resist one impulse is the result of another impulse driven by the simulation of possible outcomes. This other impulse (to resist) came into being out of your control as well so it really isn't a product of free will anymore than your original impulse. Of course choice and will do exist, but to say it's free will because "my brain" made the choice is to confuse the illusion of self with the biological brain. I'll be waiting for a retraction Mr. Shermer. You're still the man though!
I believe in free will. It depends how you define consciousness. In theory I could come up with a mathematical model of your brain to predict what your next reply will be. But that doesn't mean you have no free will. What if your consciousness *is* the mathematical model I use to make the prediction? In that case, the only reason I can make the prediction is because I'm effectively asking "you" (albeit another manifestation of "you") what your reply will be.
In my view, he's missed it on the impulse control (as others have said - the impulse that bubbles up is just as mysterious as the impulse to veto the impulse). However, he gets it right on the degrees of freedom; we're just never *actually* free in the contra-causal "could have done otherwise" sense. He also gets it right on the is-ought problem, in that it's not a real problem. Whatever *IS* ultimately does determine what we ought to do (and I would add, Sam Harris's distinction that what is cannot be determined without appealing to certain oughts, like the value of logical consistency and evidence as tools to help us decide what is most likely true). I think he's got a good argument w.r.t our dual nature also. It's a good talk - I just don't understand why he doesn't see that he's not being a proper skeptic on the free-will question. I mean even the language he uses he says "we can still back into a sense of free will...". Yes - you can back into it - you want there to be free will, and you "back into it" with irrational reasons that don't actually hold up to scrutiny. We have degrees of freedom, and we can cultivate our ability to respond to various challenges by helping each other and developing intuition pumps and cognitive prosthetics etc. but we never have the freedom to do otherwise - that just doesn't happen (both by definition and by way of the available evidence we have for how the universe seems to function). It's rational to cultivate the ability to respond, but anyone who chooses not to behave rationally in that regard is deciding to do this for causal reasons, and again - we should want to help this person out, and convince them to change their decision on this and similar points.
If I change my mind at the last moment, that's not me vetoing or "doing otherwise", but doing exactly what my brain state is at the moment. I have no control over that brain, but it is defined by genes and environment.
"Climate denier" - and you call yourself a skeptic? No warming in what - 19 years now according to some measurements? It's the climate hysterics who have all their work ahead of them as none of their models work. We don't know how much is natural variability and how much is forcings from human activity. That doesn't mean CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and that pushing more into the atmosphere isn't problematic. It's just that there is no basis for he confidence that you AGW hysterics hold. No "denier" here, just a skeptic. And gosh, I thought this was a skeptical movement...
Keep that ostrich neck buried deep in the sand. In fact why don't you go to the Skeptic Society website and download your very own pdf A Skeptic's Guide To Global Climate Change, by Donald Prothero
***** Been there and done that. Go to judithcurry.com - she a leading climate scientist - to see what a skeptical conversation about this topic actually looks like. I don't have my head in the sand - I just keep up. Tell me, which of the models in the latest AR actually isn't broken? Please, I'm dying to hear. And on what actual scientific basis does the IPCC conclude with 90% confidence that 50% of warming is due to anthropogenic causes? Go read those sections of the IPCC report and try not to laugh. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane. More of it should create some warming. But the truth is was don't have enough understanding of how the entire process works. If the current AGW hysterics can't explain "the pause" - what good are their models? You presumed superiority is based on vaporous nonsense. Just look at the Arctic polar ice cap - up 40% from 2012. Gore claimed it could be entirely melted by now. When you make predictions and none of them come true, you might consider that your models/assumptions are wrong. The official skeptical community have shown up very poorly on this topic, cowed by "consensus" - the enemy of reason. But hey - keep lecturing me, I know it makes you feel good.
***** "The official skeptical community have shown up very poorly on this topic, cowed by "consensus" - the enemy of reason. But hey - keep lecturing me, I know it makes you feel good." Well, I guess, following the tiny minority of climate scientists dismissing climate change makes you feel special.
This is an outright lie. The global temperature has been rising steadily throughout all this time. You are only trying to anger everyone here by saying utterly stupid things, its a game to you. You should have your brain scanned to see what is wrong with you.
***** Rolf A blog is not the equivalent of a peer reviewed paper. Try again. You find a lone rogue against the consensus and claim victory. Try again. You talk again GORE? rofl This is a red herring. I don't care what Gore thinks about climate change, I care what the majority of scientist think and not some rogue scientist on a blog. FAIL
Thank you for this wonderful talk and all the book titles :)
I think Michael missed it on this one. Free won't is still not evidence for free will. What causes you to resist one impulse is the result of another impulse driven by the simulation of possible outcomes. This other impulse (to resist) came into being out of your control as well so it really isn't a product of free will anymore than your original impulse. Of course choice and will do exist, but to say it's free will because "my brain" made the choice is to confuse the illusion of self with the biological brain. I'll be waiting for a retraction Mr. Shermer. You're still the man though!
Shermer is great !
I believe in free will. It depends how you define consciousness.
In theory I could come up with a mathematical model of your brain to predict what your next reply will be.
But that doesn't mean you have no free will. What if your consciousness *is* the mathematical model I use to make the prediction? In that case, the only reason I can make the prediction is because I'm effectively asking "you" (albeit another manifestation of "you") what your reply will be.
Good talk.
In my view, he's missed it on the impulse control (as others have said - the impulse that bubbles up is just as mysterious as the impulse to veto the impulse). However, he gets it right on the degrees of freedom; we're just never *actually* free in the contra-causal "could have done otherwise" sense.
He also gets it right on the is-ought problem, in that it's not a real problem. Whatever *IS* ultimately does determine what we ought to do (and I would add, Sam Harris's distinction that what is cannot be determined without appealing to certain oughts, like the value of logical consistency and evidence as tools to help us decide what is most likely true). I think he's got a good argument w.r.t our dual nature also.
It's a good talk - I just don't understand why he doesn't see that he's not being a proper skeptic on the free-will question. I mean even the language he uses he says "we can still back into a sense of free will...". Yes - you can back into it - you want there to be free will, and you "back into it" with irrational reasons that don't actually hold up to scrutiny. We have degrees of freedom, and we can cultivate our ability to respond to various challenges by helping each other and developing intuition pumps and cognitive prosthetics etc. but we never have the freedom to do otherwise - that just doesn't happen (both by definition and by way of the available evidence we have for how the universe seems to function). It's rational to cultivate the ability to respond, but anyone who chooses not to behave rationally in that regard is deciding to do this for causal reasons, and again - we should want to help this person out, and convince them to change their decision on this and similar points.
If I change my mind at the last moment, that's not me vetoing or "doing otherwise", but doing exactly what my brain state is at the moment. I have no control over that brain, but it is defined by genes and environment.
google "Why we don't need moral responsibility"
The mini me argument isn't logical, there's no reason to think there's anything more than a conscious and unconscious mind
"Climate denier" - and you call yourself a skeptic? No warming in what - 19 years now according to some measurements? It's the climate hysterics who have all their work ahead of them as none of their models work. We don't know how much is natural variability and how much is forcings from human activity. That doesn't mean CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and that pushing more into the atmosphere isn't problematic. It's just that there is no basis for he confidence that you AGW hysterics hold. No "denier" here, just a skeptic. And gosh, I thought this was a skeptical movement...
Keep that ostrich neck buried deep in the sand. In fact why don't you go to the Skeptic Society website and download your very own pdf A Skeptic's Guide To Global Climate Change, by Donald Prothero
***** Been there and done that. Go to judithcurry.com - she a leading climate scientist - to see what a skeptical conversation about this topic actually looks like. I don't have my head in the sand - I just keep up. Tell me, which of the models in the latest AR actually isn't broken? Please, I'm dying to hear.
And on what actual scientific basis does the IPCC conclude with 90% confidence that 50% of warming is due to anthropogenic causes? Go read those sections of the IPCC report and try not to laugh.
Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane. More of it should create some warming. But the truth is was don't have enough understanding of how the entire process works.
If the current AGW hysterics can't explain "the pause" - what good are their models?
You presumed superiority is based on vaporous nonsense. Just look at the Arctic polar ice cap - up 40% from 2012. Gore claimed it could be entirely melted by now. When you make predictions and none of them come true, you might consider that your models/assumptions are wrong.
The official skeptical community have shown up very poorly on this topic, cowed by "consensus" - the enemy of reason. But hey - keep lecturing me, I know it makes you feel good.
*****
"The official skeptical community have shown up very poorly on this topic, cowed by "consensus" - the enemy of reason. But hey - keep lecturing me, I know it makes you feel good."
Well, I guess, following the tiny minority of climate scientists dismissing climate change makes you feel special.
This is an outright lie. The global temperature has been rising steadily throughout all this time. You are only trying to anger everyone here by saying utterly stupid things, its a game to you. You should have your brain scanned to see what is wrong with you.
*****
Rolf A blog is not the equivalent of a peer reviewed paper. Try again. You find a lone rogue against the consensus and claim victory. Try again. You talk again GORE? rofl This is a red herring. I don't care what Gore thinks about climate change, I care what the majority of scientist think and not some rogue scientist on a blog. FAIL