It's time to wake up!

a reply to: Andy1144

Influences give me options, new perspectivs, but as long as it is no life threatening situation, it is my free choice, my will what makes the decission which interpretation, or influence i want to follow.

originally posted by: Andy1144
tell me where it would be found.

We don't know, which is why we are ignorant and claiming anything about it is an argument from ignorance.

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: daskakik
No honesty - that is what is seen here!

But according to your logic you can't blame anyone, since we have no control.
If i would call you an anoying idiot, it wasn't my free will to do so, it just happened... Lol just an example, you're funny, no hard feelings...

There is no blame. It is no ones fault. Not because no one has control - but because there is no one. It is not that there is someone who does not have control - everything that is appearing is simply appearing.

a reply to: daskakik

We can know that there is no control free from absolutely any influence whatsoever. It is so incoherent, it can't even be debated about. That's what honest scientists say. Maybe you don't know, but science does.

a reply to: Andy1144

We can know does not mean that we do know.

Honest scientists have no problem saying "we don't know".

a reply to: daskakik

No they don't but they admit that free will is an impossibility. Science doesn't say "we don't know" about this, it says it is incoherent and can't possibly be real.

originally posted by: Andy1144
No they don't but they admit that free will is an impossibility. Science doesn't say "we don't know" about this, it says it is incoherent and can't possibly be real.

No, I think you have found "someone" who says this.

a reply to: daskakik

That "someone" is the scientific community.

a reply to: Andy1144

Prove it.

Did anyone watch this BBC Horizon documentary called 'The Secret You'?
vimeo.com...
At the end the presenter sat on the steps after his last test results and was astounded - he even forgot to speak to the camera - he is speaking to the crew in utter amazement at what he had found out.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

That is someones take and not the "scientific community".

Show me tha law that states that there is no free will or something that shows that the scientific community has accepted the theory.

a reply to: daskakik

I think I already gave the example with the MRI scanner. But you don't even need science to prove it. You can see in direct experience if you have control or not. I can see that I clearly don't because my subconscious reactions dictate my decisions completely. I don't know what my next action will be. I don't have a little control or a lot. There is 0 control ultimately.
Self control is a different type of control which I said exists but that's not what I am talking about.
But if there was control, what would that possibly look like? What would it be?

a reply to: Andy1144

I didn't ask for an example I asked for proof of acceptence by the "scientific community".

a reply to: daskakik

There are many members within the scientific community who still play with this and have different views. So I can only give you certain individuals, but I don't think that's what you wan't. But let's say I am wrong, please answer my question of, if there was control, what could it possibly be, or look like?

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: daskakik

No they don't but they admit that free will is an impossibility. Science doesn't say "we don't know" about this, it says it is incoherent and can't possibly be real.

Lol it is debated, there are findings supporting the claim our brain decided before we make a conscience decission.
But that doesn't make it the final truth. Besides we humans need the free will for many reason. Even if it would be just philosophical. It certainly is no impossibility. And science doesn't say it is incoherent, or can't possibly be real. Some scientists think so... Not science...
There is f.e. one test where you get told to hit the button when you see the blue circle. This shows that the first impuls or decission isn't necessarily the executed, final decission.

originally posted by: Andy1144
There are many members within the scientific community who still play with this and have different views. So I can only give you certain individuals, but I don't think that's what you wan't.

You said "That "someone" is the scientific community."

"Certain individuals" is not the "scientific community".

But let's say I am wrong, please answer my question of, if there was control, what could it possibly be, or look like?

How can I answer if it isn't known?

a reply to: daskakik

How can I answer if it isn't known?

I can't say god doesn't exist either based on your logic. I can't prove a negative so I can't prove free will doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I can't say god doesn't exist either based on your logic. I can't prove a negative so I can't prove free will doesn't exist.

I'm not asking you to prove free will doesn't exist.

I'm asking you to show that the scientific community has accepted the theory. Big difference.

a reply to: Andy1144

Boooooo! Boooooo!


He pulled the god card! The free will thing will be proven to exist, or not, your god is personal belief, per definition unprovable.

Booooooooooo!!!

a reply to: daskakik

Scientific community it divided into many groups who specialize in many different fields. Neuroscience talks about free will the most and accept that there is no free decision made from the influences that made it. Quantum physicists say the universe is in determined and some say differently but either way no scientist has ever found any evidence for free will because it just can't exist. Just like god can't exist.

So if we can't prove that jesus didn't carry noah in a cradle to heaven or whatever, likewise we can't know we have control either.

EDIT:
Members within the community would be a better term. But either way, has science disproved the existence of god? No, does that mean he might exist? Well...