Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Free Will - does it exist?

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2010,23:58    But doing that takes you straight to mornington crescent.  ;) -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,00:32    But isn't that the point?

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,07:58    I see. :) Well played sir. Do you think joy or thought provoker will be back? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,11:21    BWE: Quote Penrose is pretty cool but it still belongs in the what if department. It hinges completely on a neurological model requiring that the basic process of thinking is algorithmic. Seems to me he's challenging the algorithmic model, at least for higher functions (most automatic and subconscious processing/response probably is algorithmic or primarily so). Sure, quantum computation is still computation, but he makes a big enough issue of "non-computability" to highlight a different approach. Quote Anyway, the issue he raises goes something like this (please correct me if I am wrong): In order to have confidence in any system (of algorithmic first order logic), the system needs to be viewed from outside to see its truth or falsehood. He claims that the existence of math is evidence that we do this. Since that violates Godel's second theorem, (a system can not prove it's own consistency)  he deduces the existence of a different, non algorithmic system which functions using some kind of superposition to explore all options at once and settle into one state. Not quite sure how to parse that in terms of what (little, given my shortcomings) I learned. The way I grok the gist... The only 'outside' system that might be said to 'observe' the workings of the cosmos and the mind would have to be something fundamental to the nature of cosmos and mind - a quality or parameter of the universe itself. Hameroff suggests this is consciousness (he's a bit of a panentheist or something) that seeks ever greater and more orderly expression of itself. Penrose doesn't go that far, though allows the suggestion to stand on the organic level - that which concentrates and experiences consciousness. His process involves a separation of reality, not quite the same thing as a simple superpositioned reality. I analogized it to time for my own understanding, which Penrose probably wouldn't approve of but fits with my suspicion that nobody's paid enough attention to that factor in the overall scheme of things. As if there's a static universal 'reality' representing the collective *now* that is constantly slipping into to the next *now* as individual wavefunctions diverge from the previous measurement. When the separation of the THEN *now* and the COMING *now* reaches Planck distance, gravity serves as the collapse operator. This would make time reducible to Plank scale 'ticks' of the cosmic clock, though, and that is much too swift for any consciousness we know of to ever keep track - our awareness time-lags are immensely longer than that. IOW, consciousness experiences itself and the universe in the (relatively distant) past instead of the measurement present. Which means our awareness is always of the reality that was measured some microseconds previously. Penrose is a Platonist. Thus he believes in the existence of 'model' worlds where all the big-t True things reside, and this lesser manifestation is shaped (is there a better word?) in its event trajectory according to that superior model. Which people like him can describe with mathematics. Nobody - least of all Penrose - ever suggested mathematicians don't believe themselves god-like! §;o) There are no "all options" in that process. Sum of histories (*past*) and actual state (*now*) represent everything that need be represented to accomplish the next state - the universe can't phase change into something entirely 'other', even if isolated weirdness can be tolerated in the system. The process is habitual, automatic, and governed by gravity - no truly chaotic degrees of freedom. Quote If Hofstadter is right, there is a level beyond which we cannot model reality and that limit is determined by brainpower. Simple as that. Perhaps he is right. I am unfamiliar with his work, so can't say. But I'm fairly convinced that we DON'T model reality as-it-is because we don't know enough about reality to do so. Theorists make a mighty effort, then invest so much emotion into their provisional models that they convince themselves they do know it all and nobody can rightfully challenge. That seems to be a significant limitation. Sort of dueling wannabe godlings... At any rate, I previously expressed my personal suspicion that Penrose's model is indeed insufficient. He suspects so himself. It may be a step in the right direction, at least to facilitate what may come from theorists 'someday'. But that obscure model I mentioned with the p-adic mathematics looks to account for more of the anomalies than Penrose's can. It's got 8 dimensions plus a "many-sheeted" spacetime! Plus: no pesky singularities. Minus: it's thick as a brick, unspecified extremal for collapse (looks to be a hedgehog). Penrose's extremal - the graviton - is not postulated to need more than a single step to align all vectors. I am not so sure mathematics is some sort of miraculous manifestation of a Platonic realm of Absolute Truth as mathematicians are. But then, I'm not a mathematician. Quote Also, embodied intelligence and the revolution in AI heralded by Brook's Subsumption architecture* makes it even dicier because it isn't clear that we are even integrating all the parts of our own system, let alone transcending the whole thing. Of course we aren't transcending "the whole thing"! BTW, I expect an "intelligent" machine isn't all that difficult, we'll see it relatively soon. What do you think of the idea that someday they'll create a "conscious" machine?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,11:59    Hi BWE,   Quote (BWE @ Feb. 20 2010,03:32)   Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 19 2010,17:24) Furthermore, I suggest that Quantum Mechanics is the only known mechanism where two mutually exclusive "realities" can exist at the same time (quantum superposition). But wait... Isn't that exactly what they don't do is exist in multiple realities at the same time? I thought that you had to choose whether you want to look at them in space (position) or time (momentum) and that the reason you couldn't get both is because they don't do both simultaneously. I'm probably wrong. I just learned Schroedinger's equations and Feynman diagrams last year and I'm miss-applying them all over the place, Yes, I'm still around.  Excuse me for not responding to you earlier.  I didn't want to head down a off-topic trail. But what the heck! While I enjoy provoking though by making bold statement about Quantum Mechanics, I am really just a "physicist wannabe".  That being said, the sense I get from trying to understand how Roger Penrose sees reality is that the apparent quantum superposition actually exists until Objective Reduction occurs. A simple example is a qubit.  from Wikipedia... "A qubit has some similarities to a classical bit, but is overall very different. Like a bit, a qubit can have two possible values—normally a 0 or a 1. The difference is that whereas a bit must be either 0 or 1, a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both." Initially, the presumption was that superposition wasn't real.  As you said "...they don't do both simultaneously".  However, after nearly 100 years of experiments, "spooky action at a distance" still confounds general acceptance. Penrose coined the term Quanglement.  Here is a reasonably sounding summary I could conveniently cut and paste... "In quantum theory, one of the most paradoxical issues is the entanglement of multiple particles in superposed states, which Schrödinger illustrated with his cat and which Einstein considered a reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics. Penrose calls quantum entanglement quanglement (2004, p. 407). ... The problem with quanglement is that almost every particle in the universe may be quangled with innumerable others. Quanglement may even create the classical surface of our phenomenal reality. Although physical reality may contain infinities of possible worlds, the fact remains that all we see is a unique classical world. That may be because we quangle with anything we touch and thus force it to join our world (Aczel, 2001)." What this reviewer sees as a "problem", I see as a likely explaination of reality.  That is that quantum effects are quangled with innumerable others in space-time (IOW in both space and time). With quanglement, future causes can create past effects.  This is a parsimonious explaination of Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments (link). We tend to instinctively reject such retrocausality because of causal paradoxes (e.g. killing ones ancestors).  However, with quanglement classical paradoxes are prevented from happening. With "spooky action at a distance" the answer is either faster than light communication or retrocausality.  Frankly, it is a matter of semantics because they mean the same thing in Minkowskian geometry. The metaphysical argument of Many Worlds has been offered but, to me, you might as well argue GodDidIt.  It is just as valid a possibility and has the advantage of extreme popularity. As an attempt to make this topical, when the reviewer talks about "anything we touch", it really is anything our conscious mind perceives. This is why Penrose has been very interested in the possibility of Quantum Consciousness.  It is necessary in order to complete his view of reality. As for Free Will being a separate issue from Consciousness (h/t Tom Ames), I suggest if consciousness is directly linked to creating reality and vice versa, it is pretty much a moot point.  We think, therefore we are…  so is the universe. And if you want to call me a Quantum Quack for thinking this, go ahead.  You won’t be the first. EDIT - I see Joy and I posted at the same time.  Now you can compare and contrast Joy's beautify prose verses my crude engineering ramblings.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:09    I think there will be recognized AI very soon. I meant that the thing the system works with is algorithmic. That Penrose claims consciousness is an outer or other process than thinking or pattern recognition. Also the reality 'out there has next to nothing to do with how we perceive it in terms of isomorphisms because we aren't designed to understand it but to be little entropy generators within the larger thing. Different kinds of eyes see different em spectrums for example. Also, in terms of time lag: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080602-foresee-future.html Also, have you heard of Max Tegmark? Read this: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0646v2.pdf I don't necesarily buy it but it's pretty interesting if you are into that stuff. The real problem I have with penrose's idea is that it isn't necessary to explain the phenomena related to consciousness. There are certainly many levels to reality, whatever that may be, but the level of mechanics which best describe a system tend to be the units it uses to build rather than the units those units use. A mechanic doesn't have to understand metallurgy to fix a car or to understand how it generates that transcendental state called driving. The metallurgy is interesting though and ultimately responsible for the driving but not necessary to explain it. Have you read Edelman? If you can manage Penrose, you can probably manage Hofstadter. I highly recommend Godel Escher Bach. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:21    Thought provoker, anyone who has ever taken the time to learn how to solve Schrodinger's equations ought to be a quantum quack of some sort in my opinion. It's too weird to think of as if it makes sense. I would only add that equations are models of, not the source of sense data. Superposition describes what we expect to see happen. I'm pretty sure (I'm a wannabe too so no worries there) that the dual nature of position/momentum are not modeled successfully as particles which they need to be in order to have both at all times. I think that we hit a technical issue there. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,12:53    BWE: Quote I think there will be recognized AI very soon. I meant that the thing the system works with is algorithmic. That Penrose claims consciousness is an outer or other process than thinking or pattern recognition. Well, I obviously disagree with the idea that the [entire] system is algorithmic and cannot be anything else. What Penrose and Hameroff are describing when they say consciousness may be a parameter of the universe is that it's like a Planck (or maybe sub-Planck) level 'matrix'. Which sort of suggests dimensionality (as in our 3-D space but not time, which is just a distance factor in that model), but I don't think that quite captures it either. Its existence 'out there' would have little or nothing to do with what we call consciousness 'in here'. We're just eddies in the current, so to speak, some of the critters evolved to concentrate and experience consciousness. Quote Also, have you heard of Max Tegmark? Read this: Yeah, I've read Tegmark. Looks to be essentially a Platonist too, but with less room in his wannabe godling-ness for the freedom required for something like "free will." I thought his multiverses were imaginative fodder for sci-fi (though the good sci-fi authors were doing alternate universes long before Max was out of knee pants), but not particularly relevant to anything arguably real. I did enjoy Tuszynski's take-down of Tegmark's critique of Orch-OR on the decoherence issues. In your link I didn't have to get past the abstract before knowing this hypothesis wouldn't appeal to me. Sorry. I've seen too many anomalies to buy a model that doesn't allow for them. I'll read the whole thing when I've time, it's been downloaded. Quote The real problem I have with penrose's idea is that it isn't necessary to explain the phenomena related to consciousness. There are certainly many levels to reality, whatever that may be, but the level of mechanics which best describe a system tend to be the units it uses to build rather than the units those units use. A mechanic doesn't have to understand metallurgy to fix a car or to understand how it generates that transcendental state called driving. Nice analogy, but why would it be scientifically sound to simply cut off any level of investigation just because someone (or a consensus of someones) think they already know everything that needs to be known? We're talking reality, consciousness and free will here, not cars or the metals that go into engines. Yet even there some understanding of the metal's tolerances and the thermodynamics at issue goes into being a mechanic. Otherwise you might get hold of a mechanic who thinks it's a good idea to pump cold water onto an overheated block! I personally want to get all the way to PCCs and their processes and mechanisms because I'd like some rational explanation of some of the anomalies I've seen/experienced. It might not matter to you because your level of understanding and favorite model are "good enough for gub'ment work" but please don't presume that's enough for everyone. Or for science, since it does have a job to do.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,13:44    Hi BWE,   Quote (BWE @ Feb. 21 2010,12:21) I'm pretty sure (I'm a wannabe too so no worries there) that the dual nature of position/momentum are not modeled successfully as particles which they need to be in order to have both at all times. I think that we hit a technical issue there. You would not be the first person to argue we just don't understand the logical solution but, someday, we will come up with a sensible answer. I don't know if you meant it or not, I think you hit the nail on the head with your use of the word "particle". For the longest time, science has been looking for the fundamental piece(s) of solid matter from which everything is made. Even String Theory has the connotation of something tangible that can only be in one place at one time. Penrose makes it clear he is comfortable with the idea that "particles" are nothing more than artifacts from wavefunction effects in the nothingness of relativistic space-time geometry. Here is a link to a presentation on Twistor Space I have only begun to understand.   The first slide is reasonably clear as to how Penrose sees "particles". While Penrose's view is internally consistent with observations, it is too woo-like for Tegmark and others. Especially when it is clear consciousness has to play a direct role in order for it to be complete. To poke a stick at a bee hive, there is some merit in the ID proponents’ claim a materialistic bias exists. The funny part is when they accuse me of being a materialist, especially if it is clear they believe Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) PHYSICALLY ascended to heaven.

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,14:04    Hahaha!!! [wipes eyes]. Well, if you're 'beginning' to understand it, you're light-years ahead of me!

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,15:22    Hi Joy,   Quote (Joy @ Feb. 21 2010,14:04) Hahaha!!! [wipes eyes]. Well, if you're 'beginning' to understand it, you're light-years ahead of me! We all have are strengths.  You can write pretty and I can think like an engineer. I humbly submit I'm rather adept at figuring out solutions to problems.  Sometimes, I don't even know how I do it but I do.  One of the keys is to presume the solution will be as simple as possible (which still can be quite complicated). Penrose strikes me as someone who thinks similar to this.  Of course he is doing it at a much higher plane.  He has indicated the previously standard String Theory doesn't make sense to him.  From a Radio Interview... "...the way string theory requires all these extra dimensions and this comes from certain consistency requirements about how string should behave and so on. Now twistor theory is something quite different. It’s an approach to understanding how spacetime and quantum mechanics might fit together in some way. The basic theory in twistor theory is not to add extra dimensions. In fact, it is only crucially only three space dimensions and one time dimension. It’s the the number of dimensions we experience. But instead of adding extra dimensions, it’s a reformulation of spacetime as we understand it."

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,15:45    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 21 2010,10:53) BWE:     Quote I think there will be recognized AI very soon. I meant that the thing the system works with is algorithmic. That Penrose claims consciousness is an outer or other process than thinking or pattern recognition. Well, I obviously disagree with the idea that the [entire] system is algorithmic and cannot be anything else. Oh woah! Sorry, my bad, I meant 'subject to Godel's theorems'. Most math isn't. Only sufficiently powerful recursive first order algorithmic systems are subject to them. There are several axiomatic and powerful logic systems to which they do not apply. It's just that they do apply to first order Peano arithmetic which is a fairly important part of the way we represent using math. For Penrose to be right, consciousness must be a quality that is outside Newtonian mechanics so that it can be outside all algorithmic modeling done in the brain to see its accuracy. Consciousness must NOT be able to arise in a computer running only algorithmic processes. That was my point. Which means, time will tell if a falsification turns up in the form of strong AI. I'll have to come back later to get you a series of links on people building arithmetic which doesn't fall victim to incompleteness. The successor axiom plays a key role it turns out. There are ways to construct arithmetics without it.   Quote What Penrose and Hameroff are describing when they say consciousness may be a parameter of the universe is that it's like a Planck (or maybe sub-Planck) level 'matrix'. Sure, but it's not a better model yet, just an interesting one. It has to predict something first before we should assign any kind of qualitative  status to it. Right?     Quote Yeah, I've read Tegmark. Looks to be essentially a Platonist too, of the worst kind. :) I just thought if you were into Penrose you might like him. I think it's interesting and he does make a good case it's just that it falls flat when you put actors in it.   Quote     Quote The real problem I have with penrose's idea is that it isn't necessary to explain the phenomena related to consciousness. There are certainly many levels to reality, whatever that may be, but the level of mechanics which best describe a system tend to be the units it uses to build rather than the units those units use. A mechanic doesn't have to understand metallurgy to fix a car or to understand how it generates that transcendental state called driving. Nice analogy, but why would it be scientifically sound to simply cut off any level of investigation just because someone (or a consensus of someones) think they already know everything that needs to be known? Whoah there Nellie!!! Stop the presses. Where did I say that? I didn't. That's where. Speculation is the stuff of dreams and imagination leads us to the future. Resting on our laurels isn't something that should be done in the first 50 years of the greatest tool humanity has ever developed, bar none, for learning. I would even go so far as to say that any certainty in a model at all is an impediment at this point in our history. But when we are talking about philosophical questions relating to agency, free will, self-awareness and the like, it seems to me that nailing down patterns at this particular level of resolution is something of a necessity before we speculate on the actions causes and effects which produce the fuzz at the edges of the system. I think that we can produce consciousness through algorithmic processes. That does not close any doors at all. It's a big old world out there and if Godel's theorems do apply, it's an infinite ladder of complexity, each one holding entire universes invisible to us now but visible with each new godelization and we are simply at one particular level. The only rule if that were the case is that all bigger or outer levels must contain the inner ones. So you always keep what you have, you just get more.   Quote We're talking reality, consciousness and free will here, not cars or the metals that go into engines. Yet even there some understanding of the metal's tolerances and the thermodynamics at issue goes into being a mechanic. Otherwise you might get hold of a mechanic who thinks it's a good idea to pump cold water onto an overheated block!. Don't need any thermodynamics to know that if you pour cold water into a hot block it might crack. I could tell that to a 5 year old and they would nod and understand. Just sayin.   Quote I personally want to get all the way to PCCs and their processes and mechanisms because I'd like some rational explanation of some of the anomalies I've seen/experienced. It might not matter to you because your level of understanding and favorite model are "good enough for gub'ment work" but please don't presume that's enough for everyone. Or for science, since it does have a job to do. [/quote] If I weren't a scoundrel at heart I'd be offended by that remark. I think our knowledge just took the curve straight up. In ten years our world will be unrecognizable and in 20 humans may be unrecognizable. The depth of the power instant access to information has given us makes GR look like learning to make arrowheads from obsidian. The state of the art today was literally impossible in 1985 because the technology to crunch the numbers simply couldn't be built. I entertain any idea at all and accept none as truth. I just like to evaluate claims is all. When claims aren't yet useful they sit there, when they get support it goes in the matrix. When they get refuted, that too gets stored. But I would never ever stop at some level and say good enough. I would however say that no one will ever make a toyota one atom at a time. We have to take advantage of the rules at a given resolution level. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,15:57    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 21 2010,11:44) Hi BWE,     Quote (BWE @ Feb. 21 2010,12:21) I'm pretty sure (I'm a wannabe too so no worries there) that the dual nature of position/momentum are not modeled successfully as particles which they need to be in order to have both at all times. I think that we hit a technical issue there. You would not be the first person to argue we just don't understand the logical solution but, someday, we will come up with a sensible answer. I don't know if you meant it or not, I think you hit the nail on the head with your use of the word "particle". yep. I meant to and for that reason. But I don't think many physicists really think of the bohrs model any more. Quote While Penrose's view is internally consistent with observations, it is too woo-like for Tegmark and others. Especially when it is clear consciousness has to play a direct role in order for it to be complete. To poke a stick at a bee hive, there is some merit in the ID proponents’ claim a materialistic bias exists. The funny part is when they accuse me of being a materialist, especially if it is clear they believe Jesus (Yeshua ben Yosef) PHYSICALLY ascended to heaven. Reality without consciousness is the greatest of small minded thoughts I think. Sound without ears is not sound. Reality is inside, not outside so it's an oddly irrelevant concept. What is 'out there' is blocked forever from our internal mental worlds by our senses as they try to be helpful and organize the stuff they sense. But that is no excuse to dump what we have and hurry to the next level. The train is moving faster every day. Nothing will ever be 'truth'. All we get are models which predict the next sense data with greater or poorer precision. Eqach equally as untrue as each other but successively more accurate at predicting. That is all. So it seems to me that dreaming is great but we should just assume the state of the art hovers aropund the zeitgeist and that it will change in the direction of accuracy. Sooner rather than later. I would challenge any world view only on its predictive quality. :) -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,19:28    BWE: Quote We have to take advantage of the rules at a given resolution level. Then I'd go ahead and suggest that means we've got free will, FAPP.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2010,20:40    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 21 2010,17:28) BWE:   Quote We have to take advantage of the rules at a given resolution level. Then I'd go ahead and suggest that means we've got free will, FAPP. so would dennett for exactly that reason. You'd like freedom evolves I bet. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,15:58    http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html Quote Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ... -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,16:52    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58) http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html Quote Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ... John Calvin and David Heddle knew that you were gonna post that... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,18:38    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58) http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html Quote Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ... I saw that elsewhere, but I can't find the one marked "God" or, "The Fall" - where does that fit into the model? -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,18:49    Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 04 2010,19:38) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58) http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html   Quote Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ... I saw that elsewhere, but I can't find the one marked "God" or, "The Fall" - where does that fit into the model? In the gaps, as usual. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,19:02    Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,18:49) Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 04 2010,19:38) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58) http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html   Quote Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ... I saw that elsewhere, but I can't find the one marked "God" or, "The Fall" - where does that fit into the model? In the gaps, as usual. But, I gets my pants at the gaps, so does that mean that God is in my jeans?  Like a priest? :D -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,20:01    Quote Mind the gap, by Márcio Cabral -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,10:22    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an/ -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2010,10:26    Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 04 2010,19:02) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,18:49)   Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 04 2010,19:38)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58) http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html     Quote Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ... I saw that elsewhere, but I can't find the one marked "God" or, "The Fall" - where does that fit into the model? In the gaps, as usual. But, I gets my pants at the gaps, so does that mean that God is in my jeans?  Like a priest? :D -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard