No article I've ever seen on here relating to "Free will" has seemed to really understand anything about what the concept actually means. Probably the scientists involved in the studies or the journalists writing the articles didn't take enough philosophy in university.
Nobody thinks that free will means that some of our actions are uncaused. Nobody asserts that free will requires that all our actions be fundamentally unpredictable; behaving in a way that follows no rational pattern is actually known as insanity, which generally is understood to mean the person behaving that way has something interfering with his or her ability to make free will decisions. It's also important to realize that not every decision we make is considered to be a free will decision, even by proponents of free will. Choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate is not a matter of free will if I just like vanilla better -- that's freedom of preference, and I suspect that's closer to what this experiment was actually measuring. Making an arbitrary decision between one button and another has nothing to do with free will. A free will decision is one where we cause ourselves to do something that we may or may not prefer, as a result of ascribing a superior value to following the principle that would command such a decision. So (continuing with the ice cream example) choosing vanilla over chocolate is not a free will decision; choosing not to get ice cream at all, even though you want to, but because you're a vegan for moral reasons and that principle overrides your strong natural preference -- that's a free will decision. They should try measuring that.
According to the Biblical calendar, the 6000 years (actually 5768 years) is NOT counted from the beginning of the creation of the universe -- it's counted from the creation of the human soul (ie, "Adam"), which happens at the very tail-end of the creation account. That's the point at which an Earth-based accounting of time becomes sensible. The creation story is not meant to be a literal account of anything, and in fact the Talmud explicitly states that it was written in such a way as to intentionally conceal information. I have no idea why anyone would dispute the findings of science when they seem to conflict with a literal reading of the Bible which was NOT INTENDED, when the metaphorical/metaphysical description is EXPLICITLY referred to in the earliest commentaries.
a. certain intermediate-free-energy thermodynamic regimes (regimes in which common elements and molecules can co-exist in all three of solid,liquid, and gaseous phases so that rigid and semi-rigid structure can be combined with constrained energy flows), and with
b. the right soup of lots of different common and chemically combinable elements trapped together in a gravity well,
you get the preconditions for randomly occurring structural and process experiments.
Some of these randomly occurring but probable-due-to-the-regime-and-the-ingredients experiments end up making structural and process fragments that alter/interact with/use their environment in such a way as to incrementally, or in some cases dramatically, increase the probability of a similar structure or process fragment recurring nearby in time and space to the first one. This is already a positive feedback loop. Eventually, by chance, some cluster of these self-probability-improving structure+processes, a cluster most likely made of smaller self-made-more-probable structure-process fragments, reaches a threshold at which its robustness leads to a probability of 1 of structure and process like that existing in the general area. Pattern self-preserving functionality transcends pattern occurrence improbability. Sure, but the fact is that this origin of life hypothesis is not only completely unproven, but also probably unprovable in principle. Unlike the theory of evolution (for which we've obviously discovered plenty of evidence that fits), the amount of extant evidence for the "primordial soup" hypothesis is precisely zero. There's just nothing to show that any sort of primordial soup ever existed, and it seems like the necessary conditions for such a substance to have existed at the time it would have needed to just weren't there (oxygen atmosphere, etc), and the timeframe also seems too short for the necessary interactions to have occurred. That's why the panspermia hypothesis is gaining popularity lately; though it only really pushes back the timeframe about 10 billion years at best, and of course raises its own problems.
The article seems to assume that optimists (people whose rostral anterior cingulate and amygdala are highly active) are the norm, or at least the ideal, and that pessimists (where those regions are less active) have something "going wrong."
I wonder if that's actually the case. Optimism may FEEL better (obviously depression is pretty rotten), and it's apparently beneficial to the optimists (or so studies have indicated), but does it more accurately describe reality? Lots of people say that they're not pessimists, but realists, and that realism is simply inherently depressing. So are all the benefits of optimism emotional, or are there benefits to pessimism as well, in the sense that the pessimist models reality more realistically? If that's the case (and I guess it might not be), which wins out?
Most theologists may agree that Genesis is highly metaphorical, but it wasn't always that way. Theologians are forced to take this as metaphorical because there is massive amounts of evidence that this didn't happen and they are rational people that can see that evidence. Any conflict with these people would be artificial. I think you're implying that the fact that Genesis is treated highly metaphorically by many theologians is a fairly recent, modern phenomenon, like post-Enlightenment? But, for example, in Judaism, Biblical literalism hasn't been mainstream for like 900 years. Let me quote from "The Guide For the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonedes, arguably the most authoritative scholar in Jewish history:
You are no doubt aware that the Almighty, desiring to lead us to perfection and to improve our state of society, has revealed to us laws which are to regulate our actions. These laws, however, presuppose an advanced state of intellectual culture. We must first form a conception of the Existence of the Creator according to our capabilities; that is, we must have a knowledge of Metaphysics. But this discipline can only be approached after the study of Physics; for the science of Physics borders on Metaphysics, and must even precede it in the course of our studies, as is clear to all who are familiar with these questions. Therefore the Almighty commenced Holy Writ with the description of the Creation, that is, with Physical Science; the subject being on the one hand weighty and important, and on the other hand our means of fully comprehending these great problems being limited. He described those profound truths, which His Divine Wisdom found it necessary to communicate to us, in allegorical, figurative, and metaphorical language. Our sages have said "It is impossible to give a full account of the Creation to man. Therefore scripture simply tells us, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Thus they have suggested that this subject is a deep mystery, and in the words of Solomon, "Far off and exceedingly deep, who can find it out?" It has been treated in metaphors in order that the uneducated may comprehend it according to the measure of their faculties and the feebleness of their apprehension, while educated persons may take it in a different sense. That was written at the beginning of the 12th Century, and there are few Jewish scholars today who don't accept Maimonedes as authoritative. One has to be careful when speaking broadly of "theologians" or of "Religion" because there is a huge amount of divergence on these points from religion to religion. Literalism is by no means universally dogmatic.
First of all, this is an old experiment, I remember reading about it a long time ago.
But while it's interesting from a neuroscience point of view to discover the location of these experiences within the brain, it doesn't give us any philosophical insight into the existence or non-existence of God. On the one hand, it could be that the religious experiences that people have had throughout history were caused by random events stimulating this bit of the brain. But from the theistic perspective, it seems obvious that if God exists He would build the brain with some capacity to detect His presence under certain circumstances -- just as we can't say that the fact the experience of seeing colour is caused by certain brain regions being stimulated means that colour doesn't exist except in our heads, we can't say that this experiment proves that God is just in our heads either. So: philosophically uninteresting.
So you're aware, the Bible doesn't say that God created the rainbow after the flood, it just says that He used the rainbow to signify His new covenant with Noah subsequent to it. The implication that there were no rainbows prior to the flood doesn't exist in the text.
Israel's Knesset bans all Arabs from cabinet posts in government, they're not as fair as you think.
This is an absolute lie. There have been Arabs elected to and sitting in the Knesset (parliament) consistently since 1948. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights under the law than they do in any Arab country.
Slashdot Mirror
No article I've ever seen on here relating to "Free will" has seemed to really understand anything about what the concept actually means. Probably the scientists involved in the studies or the journalists writing the articles didn't take enough philosophy in university. Nobody thinks that free will means that some of our actions are uncaused. Nobody asserts that free will requires that all our actions be fundamentally unpredictable; behaving in a way that follows no rational pattern is actually known as insanity, which generally is understood to mean the person behaving that way has something interfering with his or her ability to make free will decisions. It's also important to realize that not every decision we make is considered to be a free will decision, even by proponents of free will. Choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate is not a matter of free will if I just like vanilla better -- that's freedom of preference, and I suspect that's closer to what this experiment was actually measuring. Making an arbitrary decision between one button and another has nothing to do with free will. A free will decision is one where we cause ourselves to do something that we may or may not prefer, as a result of ascribing a superior value to following the principle that would command such a decision. So (continuing with the ice cream example) choosing vanilla over chocolate is not a free will decision; choosing not to get ice cream at all, even though you want to, but because you're a vegan for moral reasons and that principle overrides your strong natural preference -- that's a free will decision. They should try measuring that.
According to the Biblical calendar, the 6000 years (actually 5768 years) is NOT counted from the beginning of the creation of the universe -- it's counted from the creation of the human soul (ie, "Adam"), which happens at the very tail-end of the creation account. That's the point at which an Earth-based accounting of time becomes sensible. The creation story is not meant to be a literal account of anything, and in fact the Talmud explicitly states that it was written in such a way as to intentionally conceal information. I have no idea why anyone would dispute the findings of science when they seem to conflict with a literal reading of the Bible which was NOT INTENDED, when the metaphorical/metaphysical description is EXPLICITLY referred to in the earliest commentaries.
elements and molecules can co-exist in all three of solid,liquid, and gaseous phases so that rigid and semi-rigid
structure can be combined with constrained energy flows),
and with
b. the right soup of lots of different common and chemically combinable elements trapped together in a gravity well,
you get the preconditions for randomly occurring structural and process experiments.
Some of these randomly occurring but probable-due-to-the-regime-and-the-ingredients experiments
end up making structural and process fragments that alter/interact with/use their environment in such a way as to
incrementally, or in some cases dramatically, increase the probability of a similar structure or process
fragment recurring nearby in time and space to the first one. This is already a positive feedback loop.
Eventually, by chance, some cluster of these self-probability-improving structure+processes, a cluster
most likely made of smaller self-made-more-probable structure-process fragments, reaches a threshold
at which its robustness leads to a probability of 1 of structure and process like that existing in the general
area.
Pattern self-preserving functionality transcends pattern occurrence improbability. Sure, but the fact is that this origin of life hypothesis is not only completely unproven, but also probably unprovable in principle. Unlike the theory of evolution (for which we've obviously discovered plenty of evidence that fits), the amount of extant evidence for the "primordial soup" hypothesis is precisely zero. There's just nothing to show that any sort of primordial soup ever existed, and it seems like the necessary conditions for such a substance to have existed at the time it would have needed to just weren't there (oxygen atmosphere, etc), and the timeframe also seems too short for the necessary interactions to have occurred. That's why the panspermia hypothesis is gaining popularity lately; though it only really pushes back the timeframe about 10 billion years at best, and of course raises its own problems.
The article seems to assume that optimists (people whose rostral anterior cingulate and amygdala are highly active) are the norm, or at least the ideal, and that pessimists (where those regions are less active) have something "going wrong." I wonder if that's actually the case. Optimism may FEEL better (obviously depression is pretty rotten), and it's apparently beneficial to the optimists (or so studies have indicated), but does it more accurately describe reality? Lots of people say that they're not pessimists, but realists, and that realism is simply inherently depressing. So are all the benefits of optimism emotional, or are there benefits to pessimism as well, in the sense that the pessimist models reality more realistically? If that's the case (and I guess it might not be), which wins out?
First of all, this is an old experiment, I remember reading about it a long time ago. But while it's interesting from a neuroscience point of view to discover the location of these experiences within the brain, it doesn't give us any philosophical insight into the existence or non-existence of God. On the one hand, it could be that the religious experiences that people have had throughout history were caused by random events stimulating this bit of the brain. But from the theistic perspective, it seems obvious that if God exists He would build the brain with some capacity to detect His presence under certain circumstances -- just as we can't say that the fact the experience of seeing colour is caused by certain brain regions being stimulated means that colour doesn't exist except in our heads, we can't say that this experiment proves that God is just in our heads either. So: philosophically uninteresting.
Conservatives more likely to be conservative! Liberals more likely to be liberal! Because of BRAINS! Fascinating stuff, really.
...Evolutionary Psychology is nonsense.
So you're aware, the Bible doesn't say that God created the rainbow after the flood, it just says that He used the rainbow to signify His new covenant with Noah subsequent to it. The implication that there were no rainbows prior to the flood doesn't exist in the text.
Israel's Knesset bans all Arabs from cabinet posts in government, they're not as fair as you think. This is an absolute lie. There have been Arabs elected to and sitting in the Knesset (parliament) consistently since 1948. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights under the law than they do in any Arab country.