JackC

Possibly, but crowing about it definitely pisses people off.

Marg, I'm a physicist not a neuroscientist so I can't help you with references. All I can do is try to think about sources of ambiguity in the experiment and the consequences for free will. I'll try to get back to you when it isn't beer o'clock.

Probably, yes. A relationship between position and momentum is not the only way you can write the HUP.

Sorry Marg but I really don't think it does anything to free will. The experiment can be explained quite happily without doing away with or modifiying the idea of free will in any way. It just says that the subconcious plays a part in the process. As far as I can see, the decision isn't taken away from the person and there is nothing to stop conciously overriding any subconcious decision made.

Sorry but you're still thinking of determinism and Heisenberg clobbered that one with the uncertainty principle.

Really? I have a PhD in that crap. Trust me, you've got unified field theory confused with determinism.

I don't think it even does that. There's nothing in there to suggest that a decision that you make is anything other than your decision. It does prove that the subconcious is tremendously important in that process, but we knew that already. It also proves that some people make decisions without conciously thinking about them, well we already knew that too. The other problem is that since we already know that it is possible to make decisions from the subconcious (aka muscle memory), a simple task like button pushing could quite easily be relegated to the subconcious without the subject even realising. How often have you driven home and spent the entire time thinking about what you're going to have for dinner, or the overdue project at work or whatever else? And driving is a hell of a lot harder than pushing a button. But if someone pulled out in front of you, you'd still hit the brakes even if you weren't conciously thinking "hit the brakes" at that exact moment. I don't think pointless button pushing is a good test because it is already predisposed to subconcious action. You'd need some form of "information -> process -> action" test. Playing whack-a-mole for example. No, I think it just proves that the subconcious is significant in the decision making process. That's a good thing since if it wasn't you'd have to conciously think about the person pulling out in front of you, remember the process you need to deal with that and then implement each part of that process as a concious act. By which time you've collided. I think that what we think of as the concious mind is actually just taking the thought process and pushing it thought the part of the brain needed to verbalise it. Concious thought is usually associated with some kind of internal dialogue. And the brain is capable of much more than just talking to itself. But then I'm a physicist not a neuroscientist. I don't think free will and unified field theories are related concepts.

Thanks Marg. I'm not convinced it actually proves that free will doesn't exist, maybe just redefines it a bit. It doesn't suprise me that the subconcious plays a big part in the decision making process or that there is a lag between subconcious and the concious mind. I'm not totally convinced that pushing buttons for no good reason is a particularly good test either. That sounds like something you could easily defer to the subconcious anyway, much like breathing is a subconcious act. You can push it to the concious (or maybe not if this research is correct) but it usually stays in the subconcious. The whole point of doing repetitive safety procedures in skydiving and the concept of muscle memory is just a way of getting a new activity from the concious to the subconcious. The idea is that in the event of a mal, you cut away without having to go through the mental check list of finding all your handles and pulling them in order during a moment of high stress. Now if there was a way to tell if making a decision that required a certain amount of concious cognitive function, like solving a puzzle, was predicted by a subconcious process, that might be a bigger deal. But even then, I'm not sure it would be curtains for free will.

You know, that could be written about me. I think that trying to get me to believe in god is a bit like trying to get a dog to stop wagging its tail. Even if you could get it to understand what your were talking about, wagging is hard wired into its DNA.

Frequently. The point is to try and minimise them, own up to the ones you make and correct them if possible. It seems to me that the internet is a place where shoddy workmanship is the norm. People generally don't proof read what they type, they rarely use correct grammar or bother to check their spelling. General standards are low on the net. I think the increasing acceptability of piss poor standards is one of the main reasons why "everything is shit these days" as Vortexring recently pointed out. Init.

Although I am a scientist now, I wasn't always. I realised I was an atheist long before I even knew what science was. Why? Because religion has always had the distinct and unshakable odour of bullshit.

I don't suppose you have a link for that?

I have. You are asuming that those people have some knowledge that you don't. Well they haven't so any decision based on what they say is no better than a guess. So if you absolutely have to choose, toss a coin. Put my 50p into Sangiro's bail fund.

I have answered it. It's a logical fallacy to choose left due to popularity. Without more information the choice is essentially arbitrary, toss a fucking coin, it will do you just as much good. That's my answer and I'm sorry you don't like it.

It doesn't make it a good tool either. We know that religion can lead people to do some pretty hideous things. That still goes on. The problem is, god hasn't issued an update on religion. Man can't do it without convincing all the other men that it's actually god doing the updating. Even then you just get another faction branching off, usually labeled a cult. So we are stuck with an outdated mythology that can't be updated, can't be scrapped and has the potential to do some good or unspeakable bad. If it was a peice of machinery you had to work with that had such a crap history of killing workers and innocent bystanders, it would be outlawed even if it did get the job done some of the time. But because it's religion, it gets special treatment. That's bollocks.

Did I factually say that statement? That's only your interpretation. Poor point. Yes Vortex, that has been your point all along.

There isn't enough information to answer. Quite honestly, the idea of a violent death one way and paradise the other sounds like bullshit anyway. So I'd abstain from taking either fork until more information was gathered. Maybe where I am is perfectly OK.

There is some inherent goodness in the bible, that's a given. But there are also some pretty disgustingly objectionable morals in there too. Now if a book is supposed to be the word of god, the first thing that comes to mind is that it is supposed to be read literally. It is the word of a perfect god after all, why would he require us to interpret it any other way? God certainly hasn't given us any guidelines on how to interpret his word other than the word itself. Now the christian religion is based largely (solely?) on the Bible. So the way christians interpret the things said in the bible is definately their fault. If christians interpret the bible to say burn witches, it's the christians fault if witches get burnt. Equally, if they interpret the bible to say "do unto others", that is also their fault. If you take the credit for the good, accept the debt of the bad. Todays christians have largely abandoned witch burning because they realise that it's an immoral thing to do. But there are still plenty of arguments about what christianity actually means and how to be a good christian. The matter is definately not settled. So a proper application of christianity hasn't even been defined yet, 2000 years after the fact. Now I agree that the law leaves a lot to be desired. I personally blame the politicians, lawyers and police for some of this, fueled mostly by human nature to be greedy opportunists who try to get away with any shiftyness they can. Now if I had a policy I thought would work, I'd stand for parliament and try to get it working. But alas, I don't. Maybe stiffer punishments for real criminals and a fairer deal for otherwise law abiding citizens who get Gatso'd for driving 3mph over the speed limit. Maybe reintroducing national service, maybe repealing the Human Rights act and pulling out of the European Union, maybe showing a fairer deal to British citizens and not cowtowing to every illegal immigrants human rights to have a fucking council flat. But alas, I don't have an answer. I wish I did.

Now it all depends on the situation. If no one had ever come back from either fork in the road, and even if 100% of the people (who could have no knowledge of what lies down that road) said go left, it would be a logical falacy to think that left was any more certain to be the safe route than right. Since no one had ever returned, both routes could be equally hazardous. If on the other hand, all those people had seen that people who turn left, come home safe and sound but those that turn right don't, then it would be more logical to turn left. The logical fallacy is assuming that what is popular is correct simply because it's popular. Popularity is not enough, you need actual evidence to back it up. You need to know that all those people had been down the road and come back safe and sound. It constantly amazes me that people don't get this intuitively, let alone need it explaining to them. Surely you see it now?

Society will definately benefit from moral guidance. However, religion is not uniquely or specially qualified to give it. In the christian tradition, it was quite acceptable to stone adulterers, gay and witches to death. You can even interpret the bible to condone slavery if you so wish. None of these things are what I would consider moral. Now you may consider that to be an improper application of religion. And exactly who are you to define what is and is not a proper application of religion? If you do consider this to be an improper application of religion, then you must have filtered religion's moral guidance through some other philosophy of moral guidance. Possibly your own innate sense of right and wrong. If you have done this, then it must be that this other philosophy is superior to that of religion or you would not have discarded parts of that religion. Next, you cannot enforce this policy of properly employed religion. You cannot make me beleive in god any more than you can make me believe in the FSM. People will not be subjected to thought police no matter how much you want them to. Now moral guidance from parents does work provided they themselves have a good moral compass that they can pass on. If one set of atheist (or religious) parents can breed moral kids, then so can all the others. What works for one can work for many. But this moral compass obviously doesn't come from religion alone, or we would still be stoning people to death. Society does provide a moral compass of sorts. It's called the law. If you break it, you go to prison. Now you may think the law is failing and you might be right, but substituting some ancient mythology with threats from beyond the grave won't do anything to help. But if people think the law is fair and worthy of respect and parents and society in general to teach their kids to honour and respect the law and more importantly, the spirit of the law; then maybe you stand a better chance of getting some form of moral guidance that might work. Too much typing and it's probably a load of disjointed crap anyway.

That is argumentum ad populum and it's still a logical fallacy.

Haha... good one. I love a good joke

It's called argumentum ad populum and I would hope the majority of sane people would see that it is a logical fallacy as soon as it is pointed out to them. As for the avatar, it just cracks me up.

Politicians use these tactics all the time and since they are by definition the contents of the gutter, I think the term is applicable. Still, how can I be mad at someone with an avatar like yours. Self-portrait?

I actually agree with all of that. Every word. The only thing I would add it that your inner sense of self and what you perceive as god are one and the same. There is no external objective entity to get closer to.