LuckyR wrote: ↑June 1st, 2023, 2:35 pmFirstly, I agree that such studies indeed have lots of room for improvement.Wardwatcher wrote: ↑June 1st, 2023, 10:28 amDr Haynes' work doesn't investigate Free Will since no one, including him, understands the processes involved in human decision making. Rather he performs observational studies to see if there is correlation (very different from demonstrating causation) between brain states before decisions and the ultimate decision that is made. You mention that he has demonstrated some minimal to moderate correlation (a coin could "predict" the decision 50% of the time so an fMRI performing it 71% of the time is not dramatic, though is real).LuckyR wrote: ↑June 1st, 2023, 2:30 amJ.D. Haynes conducted an experiment regarding free will. His objective was to predict simple decisions (the subjects were to decide between either adding or subtracting two numbers). He was able to predict the outcome almost 10 seconds ahead with a success rate of 71% (I hope the data I gave is correct, feel free to go check). Obviously these are very simple decisions, but I do not see a reason for me to doubt that science will do a much better job in the future.Wardwatcher wrote: ↑May 30th, 2023, 3:51 pmIf human decision making could be predicted, then the conclusions you mention would apply. Alas it isn't reliably predictable so your guess is unsubstantiated.
Firstly, I will offer a shorter definition:) : a deterministic world is a world which is entirely predictable, therefore every action has it´s cause (Hume would disagree here ). For purposes of this post, I will assume that there is a very long chain of these causalities, reaching all the way to the very first event - some might say that this event is the big bang.
Science allows us to predict the future from past experiences (A caused B in the past, therefore we know that if we observe A, B will follow shortly after). If we perfected this tool of science and therefore had knowledge of every cause or effect, that would inevitably imply that thare are strict rules which cannot be defied. After all, why make the assumption that we, human beings, are somehow different from the rest of reality?
Another argument could be based on the fact that we evolved just as any other organism. Just as a cheetah developed teeth in order to hunt, we developed a brain in a similar manner to survive. I struggle to see why we should be any different. We know how atoms and chemicals interact and how substances are made up of atoms. There is an essay written by La Mettrie (which I haven´t read, but it´s title speaks for itself) "L´Homme Machine" (or Man a machine). To sum up: Could it be that we are such complex machines that we ourselves are unable to see through this fog of seemingly unsolvable problems?
For example if the brain states he observes represents mood, it may be that a subject is slightly more likely to choose "add" instead of "subtract" if they are happy vs sad. This would completely explain his findings, yet would tell us nothing about the presence or absence of either Free Will or Determinism.
Secondly, do you consider human decision-making to be free? (Which would mean that we DO have free will)? If so, how do you reconcile that with materialistic view of world I assume you have (since our education is heavily focused on it)? How did free will come to be? How was it created from particles or substances, which we know to obey certain laws?