The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:Maybe you can explain what the underlined refers to in your own information, and that there is NO CONCENCEOUS AMONG RESEARCHERS? it says there are different concepts as to the definiation of "Free will" and what it means, not just to you and I, but in the world of science related researchers. What more do you want?

I never said there was only one possible definition of free-will, I just said yours would appear to not be valid as it's not covered in any dictionary or encylopedia I have seen.

There is an issue with agreeing to a strict definition as the underlines implies, but it only suggests one experiment does not cover all definitions of free-will. That's okay, because I cited three that would seem to cover all common definitions.

Even if we do accept your strange definition of free-will, it is still unlikely to exist because the brain's processing has been shown to be aware of what we are going to think, at an unconscious level, before we consciously think it, or are aware of the thought. The brain is in complete control whatever way you spin it, and not at a conscious level.

Let's revisit your definition or free-will (which isn't actually a definition by the way you're still to properly define what you mean in a clear fashion):

"Free will still has nothing to do with physical acts at all, it has to do with your decisions about doing good or bad, philisophical and spiritual directions, compassion, caring, empathy, decisions or the soul, The believe in God and to Worship God, things that have nothing to do with physical acts."

How does one commit a good or a bad act without physically doing something?

If you decide to help an old lady cross the street but your hand grabs a knife and stabs her instead, are you exercising free-will or the lack of it? You cannot remove the action from free-will, it's just silly.

Your own link is what I quoted, as to not being any clear concenceous among researchers. Your own link is where I quoted the difference in the hypothesis of Free will. Your scientists do not even agree, why should I?

greeney2 wrote:Your own link is what I quoted, as to not being any clear concenceous among researchers. Your own link is where I quoted the difference in the hypothesis of Free will. Your scientists do not even agree, why should I?

Way to ignore everything I just posted addressing that!

But no, of course, if two scientists don't perfectly agree on the definition of something you might as well just scrap it and not think about it any more

There is no strict consensus on the definition of life, either, but there is plenty to say on that matter regardless.

Okay, let's try again:

How does one commit a good or a bad act without physically doing something?

humphreys wrote:How does one commit a good or a bad act without physically doing something?

Thought?

Humphreys, you need to read you own links, and the link to Neuroscience of free will. It supports my replies, about the physical testing, and conclusions not being a concenceous among researchers, and it also talks about different kinds of free will. You want me to believe all of Libets experiment 100%, which is discribed as primative in the early years of this research.

This seems to be as desparate of an argument to you as the Faith one, which would be key to your rocking believers out of belief, if you prooved Faith or Free Will did not exist.

at1with0 wrote:

humphreys wrote:How does one commit a good or a bad act without physically doing something?

Thought?

Well I hope the homeless guy up the street is happy because I just thought about giving him 20 quid.

greeney2 wrote:Humphreys, you need to read you own links, and the link to Neuroscience of free will. It supports my replies, about the physical testing, and conclusions not being a concenceous among researchers, and it also talks about different kinds of free will. You want me to believe all of Libets experiment 100%, which is discribed as primative in the early years of this research.

I have read the links, responded to the objections you keep making 3 times now, and I did not ask you to accept it 100% I said it was suggestive of no free-will and not absolute proof.

But whatever, if ignoring what someone writes and then responding with the same objections is satisfactory to you, then I guess we're done here.

Are you simply going to ignore my question?

GREENEY: How does one commit a good or a bad act without physically doing something?

You won't answer the question because you'll have to admit that acts themselves involve physical things of the body, whether it is speech, or movement, and once you realize that you'll see that the Libet experiments (and others) show that bodily movement is predetermined in the brain at an unconscious level, and then you are forced to face the fact that the notion of "free-will" (whichever definition you choose) is in trouble.

There is something wrong with you!