Dr.Grass said:
Kasz216 said:
Dr.Grass said:
Kasz216 said:
Dr.Grass said:
Kasz216 said:
Dr.Grass said:
spurgeonryan said:
I had a funny reason that I wanted to add, but it would make Jay mad about recent things. By the way I have a thread about that if you want to share with all of us!
Humans do have free will. I just ate a carmel apple , did not have to, in fact something inside me (arteries) told me not to, but because of my free will I decided to eat it. Just like I decided to post here instead of the latest JoelCool7 thread, or one of my own. |
That's not an argument at all. Just because things happened in a certain way and you feel you were the cause does not mean you are the cause - that's the whole point of this debate.
|
Maybe he's just an evolutionary biologist. Oddly enough that's how most evolutionary biologists judge free will.
|
I seriously doubt that.
|
Well you'd be wrong then.
Most evolutionary biologists & Psycologists believe how we act is all due to DNA we were born with before we were born.
Most also believe in free will.
This was found in more then a couple studies that gauged religious belief by scientific field of study.
Here's one of them.
We anticipated a much higher percentage for option B and a low percentage for A, but got just the opposite result. One of us (Provine) has been thinking about human free will for almost 40 years, has read most of the philosophical literature on the subject and polls his undergraduate evolution class (200-plus students) each year on belief in free will. Year after year, 90 percent or more favor the idea of human free will for a very specific reason: They think that if people make choices, they have free will. The professional debate about free will has moved far from this position, because what counts is whether the choice is free or determined, not whether human beings make choices. People and animals both certainly choose constantly. Comments from the evolutionists suggest that they were equating human choice and human free will. In other words, although eminent, our respondents had not thought about free will much beyond the students in introductory evolution classes. Evolutionary biology is increasingly applied to psychology.
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747,y.2007,no.4,content.true,page.5,css.print/issue.aspx
|
I'm sorry but,
My original interpretation of your statement was that it was the view of evolutionary biology that agreed with the underlined statement. From what you've posted it just seems likes it's the view of humans. Nothing to do with evolution or biology, just a poll done on those people (who happen to be in a specific field) with their respective opinions. Who knows, maybe the most important evolutionists voted 'no'. I hope you get my point.
This leads us to an interesting place...
CLEARLY modern science has very little to say about this subject. And what it does have to say is pathetically 'unsientific' in its own right.
I never go into 'preaching mode' like most others as I have little to gain from it and I know how much it just plainly pisses people off, but...
This whole debacle does give me a lot of faith in those miraculous books from India...
'' After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense.'' ~Heisenberg
''There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction... The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.''~Schrodinger
|
Your original interpretation of my statement was incorrect. My point was that most evolutionary biologists believe that is what free will is.
Free will as a scientific concept is essentially non-existant due to ethical limitations.
|
Yeah I conceded that, but that implies that you might as well have said,
''Maybe he's a pilot'',
Instead of,
''Maybe he's an evolutionary biologist'',
since I see no reason why you should jump to a conclusion about his adherence to some scientific school's thought about a matter the school itself has nothing to say.
I believe (if your interpretation of my interpretation is correct) that you were driven to your original statement (''Maybe he's just an evolutionary biologist'') because you believed there exists some credible research about the matter in the school.
Subsequently the link between the group of people and their beliefs turned out to be nothing more than a statistical result that probably holds for most subsets of occupation.
Hence my original assumption that your statement was based on developments in the field itself.
''Free will as a scientific concept is essentially non-existant due to ethical limitations.''
(So I'll be straightforward this time)
This statement intrigues me. Care to elaborate?
|
