Alaska beat Ginebra 104-80 in game 3, sweeping the series and bagging the Commissioner's Cup title.read more
Summer seems to be ending, but the feeling doesn't have to end. Check out this list for awesome road-trip getaways!read more
The NU Lady Bulldogs outlast the AdU Lady Falcons in 4 sets, taking their first trip to the Shakey's V-league finals.read more
Guess the theme! Have you seen Twilight, Sister Act and these other movies? Share your thoughts and reviews in here!read more
Profound. If proven true and accepted, this theory will shatter Free Will, the fall-back position in any and all Christian arguments. The illusionary nature of Free Will will shake religion to the same degree as when the Evolution theory was proposed.
I didn't exercise free will when I accidentally farted inside a cramped bus and it created a riot inside.
baket ano sabe nya na ubod na nakamamangha in one paragraph pls katamad manood.
^^^ Sakiman, the first video link is very short, even in 3 parts. It's worth thinking about.
and in neuroscience(fmri scans) and psychology(wiki: priming), this is a non-controversial issue.
@tonton, you are welcome! glad to share.
alam mo, wala lang akong magawa kaya kunwari interestedo ako sa input ng neuroscientist at ng kung sino pang ekspertong tao. it's inconsequential to me kung ano man ang sagot nila.
hindi ko alam kung ano ang posisyon mo sa mga ispiritual na bagay bagay pero marami pang bagay bagay na hindi maabot ng isipan at maranasan ng mga tao.
Can an Atheist Believe in Free Will?
Why isn't Dawkins as tough on himself as he is on believers?
Published on January 22, 2009 by Tamler Sommers, Ph.D. in Experiments in Philosophy
Here's an interesting 5 minute video accusing Richard Dawkins of being inconsistent in holding that belief in free will and moral responsibility is justified but that belief in God is unjustified. The argument goes like this.
In response to a questioner, Dawkins concedes that if you take a deterministic or mechanistic view of the universe, it seems absurd to think we have free will and that we can go around blaming criminals and praising distinguished authors. The whole idea of blame and praise seems to go out the window. It's like Basil Fawlty blaming his car for not running properly. And since there's likely no one alive who takes a more mechanistic view of human behavior than Dawkins, he should stop going around affirming free will and blaming and praising people. But when asked why he doesn't stop, he says first, that it seems to us that have free will and second, that life would be intolerable if we believed otherwise. In another post, I've challenged the latter point, but that's not the concern here. Let's grant Dawkins those claims. Dawkins concludes that "this is an inconsistency we have to live with" and so we may continue to believe in free will and moral responsibility, and blame and praise people accordingly. (In his defense, he does seem slightly uncomfortable about the tension.)
Now the video turns to his views on belief in God. A questioner asks him why he doesn't think that belief in God is a personal choice, given that some people find great comfort in that belief. Dawkins replies: Look, that's fine if some people find comfort believing in God, but that doesn't mean that belief is true! He says: "I'm afraid that something intolerable may still be true. That's just tough."
Now wait a minute! Didn't Dawkins just say that it's fine for us to go on believing in free will and acting accordingly because life would be intolerable otherwise? By that same reasoning, people who would find life intolerable without belief in God are justified in retaining it. What's sauce for free will goose should be sauce for the God gander, right? Or, on the flip side, why isn't it "just tough" for Dawkins that he would find life without free will intolerable? Why shouldn't he stop affirming it anyway? This seems like a deep inconsistency.
Now granted, Dawkins doesn't find life without God intolerable, nor does it seem to him that God exists. So Dawkins himself wouldn't be justified in believing in God by his own standards. But someone who did meet those conditions-and there are certainly plenty of those people-would seem to be justified in that belief.. After all, I'm someone who doesn't find life without free will intolerable. I see Dawkins on free will the same way he sees people who couldn't bear it if there were no God or afterlife. I don't think he's thought the implications through clearly. In any case, to resolve this consistency, it seems Dawkins has to either (a) think that it's justified for people to believe things that make life tolerable, or (b) repudiate his own belief in free will and moral responsibility as firmly as he thinks that others should repudiate belief in God. I don't see any other way out. Does anyone else?
Technically, if you can defy the laws of the universe down to the collective or individual states of the smallest particle which supposedly has to have precise and determined influence upon your thinking (i.e. decisions) then you have free will.
how can you call something freewill when your action will depend on quantum randomness that you aren't aware of, and beyond your control? this is assuming that quantum events/rendomness affect neurons or synapses, which it doesn't. How is this different from the quantum effects on the neurons of a chicken?
When you shoot an arrow and aim it, you have the free will where you want to have it landed. In quantum randomness, when you shoot an arrow and aim it where you want to have it landed, it doesn't follow you. The arrow goes where it wants to land, like having a mind of its own.
I think this is simple enough to say we have no free will.
Mga evil people lang ang takot sa patas.
Mga evil people lang ang galit sa freewill dahil pag may kalayaan ka, patas na.
Gaya ng admins na ban ng ban pano kapag malaya kang magsalita patas na at talo na sila sa usapan.
Usapang Freewill naman...
Free will was given by God, because he wants you to return his love on your own.Free will is the the answer to the so oft asked question, Why do bad things happen if God is so good? The biggest problem in the world is not guns, poor education, poverty,etc. It is the condition of the human heart.