Support NeoGAF

[disastermouse]

I mean under this weird line of discussion, the voting age should be raised.

Anyway, there's presumably some balance between making university accessible enough that those with that aptitude and inclination are able to go, while people who aren't really well served aren't simply frittering away their own time and money, as well as potentially other people's, spending 6-8 years on a piece of paper. Although, what that balance is I have no idea really.

As a society, we've decided to educate our children to a certain stage of development/life for free, regardless of their aptitude for academics. I guess the question at hand is whether we can or should lengthen that period.

I think you're right, and I think that's exactly what the debate should be about.

I don't think we can educate our way out of the problems that we have, but I think a post-high-school education should be available to everyone with enough merit to get in. Combined with a UBI, it could be a wonderful thing.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm not saying either is bad, I think they're both damn stupid, though. Especially the Hillary one. I have the right to be more critical of "my" campaign than Bernie's. Shit like that just irks me. It's like an own goal. Don't help the other guy/girl.

Think of it as a symptom, not a disease. Not all symptoms are indicative of the same disease, is what I mean.

It is a stupid way to create unforced errors, but any campaign with passion will create people who do or say wild ass crazy things.

Personally, I give the age questioning a pass because I don't think it's a bad question.

 

[East Lake]

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

Do you want more proof or do you not think drug addiction is a disease but rather a failing of agency/willpower?

It is kind of out there to discuss but I think that's probably the right way to view things. It's something I imagine 99% of people wouldn't accept though.

 

[ugaboga232]

It is kind of out there to discuss but I think that's probably the right way to view things. It's something I imagine 99% of people wouldn't accept though.

I hate accepting it because it makes me even more depressed but all the evidence points to it and it makes sense when you think about it in the context of drugs/psychoactive medicines/mental illness. Thats why recidivism rates suck here and are better in sweden or w/e. All human behavior is incentive weighing by parts of your brain, governments job is to set up the best incentive structures.

 

[RustyNails]

Because you think that people being able to chose their own path means college shouldnt be paid for or something. College graduates seem to better in a ton of fields even controlled for income so it makes sense to want more people to go through college. Education has its own virtues outside of prepping for a job.

Well I'm sure college graduates are better all around compared to non-college graduates. I'm sure PhD students are even better!

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

Do you want more proof or do you not think drug addiction is a disease but rather a failing of agency/willpower?

That is pretty unconvincing evidence for a lack of free will. And no, you don't need to quote me further evidence, because I've quite familiarized myself with the subject of why people think neuroscience has ejected the possibility of free will.

 

[ugaboga232]

That is pretty unconvincing evidence for a lack of free will. And no, you don't need to quote me further evidence, because I've quite familiarized myself with the subject of why people think neuroscience has ejected the possibility of free will.

And you disagree why? Your brain deciding things before you realize it seems like pretty good evidence (plus the fact the brain runs on chemical reactions which are all deterministic ).

Well I'm sure college graduates are better all around compared to non-college graduates. I'm sure PhD students are even better!

Probably not as phd is a very niche program. College (at least most US ones) requires you to sample a lot of courses including philosophy/literature.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

At this dark hour, Trump needs to use his media manipulation skills the most. Christie needs to dominate Rubio like Jobba The Hut did to Leia. Halt his momentum.

 

[A Human Becoming]

One thing that I think fuels it, and I'm probably not going to be popular for saying this, is the complete and total bullshit Bernie's campaign throws out there. We had the whole "Hillary's going to flood the caucuses with people from other states" conspiracy theory. We had the "Microsoft is going to try and steal it" conspiracy theory. We have every newspaper who endorsed Hillary is working against Bernie. Now we have the coin flip conspiracy theory." These take hold among some of the more...ardent supporters because (for some, DEFINITELY NOT ALL) it's become a cult. Like, Bernie is the way, the truth and the light, and since Hillary (and by extension Hillarybots) stand in his noble path, we're all shit.

But are those really ALL out his campaign or just some? I know the first and third were, but I figured the second and last were from supporters, unless you're counting them as part of the campaign. If so, I'll say there might be some truth to it, but not fully, which relates to the newspaper comment. While I originally thought it was nonsensical for Bernie to say they're the establishment, my opinion has softened since reading Nate Silver's article on what the establishment might really be:

The caricature of the book seems to be this: “The Party Decides” posits a clash between “the establishment” and rank-and-file voters and claims that the establishment always prevails. But that’s not really what the book says. Instead, the book argues that the major American political parties are broad and diverse coalitions of politicians, activists and interest groups, many of whom would never think of themselves as belonging to the political establishment.

That means the term “Republican establishment” (in addition to its other problems) is not a good approximation for the book’s view on the party. “Anti-establishment” members of Congress, such as the Freedom Caucus, are parts of “the party” as much as members who always vote with leadership. Lots of people within Washington, D.C., are considered to be part of the “party,” but so are people in Kentucky and Alaska. The editors of National Review magazine are probably3 part of the Republican Party as the book’s authors would define it, but so are bloggers at RedState and conservative talk-radio hosts in Iowa.

I'm not saying the Washington Post and other newspapers are part of the Democratic establishment, but that the establishment isn't simply influential party members. Like everything in life it's much more nuanced.

Like, in the Iowa Caucus thread, some people were bitching about older people messing this up for Bernie. They were mostly tongue in cheek (I hope) but were literally saying "It doesn't matter they'll be dead soon." That's such the wrong way to approach this. If someone is not feeling your guy/girl, figure out why and try to find a point of consensus. Like Hillary said, maybe we can't get the person to agree on the huge things, but we can find some small thing and work from there. It's better than throwing everyone under the doubledecker bus.

It reminds me of the people who say things will get better once the Baby Boomers die off. I understand feeling they're stuck in the past, but the rhetoric is dark and unhelpful. Maybe even dehumanizing, but I don't think that's the word I'm looking for.

 

[Bowdz]

At this dark hour, Trump needs to use his media manipulation skills the most. Christie needs to dominate Rubio like Jobba The Hut did to Leia. Halt his momentum.

Lmao. Your metaphor is too accurate. He will humiliate Marco all week until Marco strangles him to death next Tuesday.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The establishment is everything working against you until you become it.

 

[disastermouse]

And you disagree why? Your brain deciding things before you realize it seems like pretty good evidence (plus the fact the brain runs on chemical reactions which are all deterministic ).

Performative contradiction. If it's true, it's false. If it's true that all decisions are deterministic, then you're decision to believe that is based solely on chemical interactions that are not, in and of themselves, verifiably 'correct'. That is also to say that all questions of 'logic' are pointless, which, if that's a conclusion arrived at by logic, is also meaningless.

 

[B-Dubs]

The establishment is everything working against you until you become it.

Then you're working against yourself!

 

[User 463088]

But are those really ALL out his campaign or just some? I know the first and third were, but I figured the second and last were from supporters, unless you're counting them as part of the campaign. If so, I'll say there might be some truth to it, but not fully, which relates to the newspaper comment. While I originally thought it was nonsensical for Bernie to say they're the establishment, my opinion has softened since reading Nate Silver's article on what the establishment might really be:


I'm not saying the Washington Post and other newspapers are part of the Democratic establishment, but that the establishment isn't simply influential party members. Like everything in life it's much more nuanced.

It reminds me of the people who say things will get better once the Baby Boomers die off. I understand feeling they're stuck in the past, but the rhetoric is dark and unhelpful. Maybe even dehumanizing, but I don't think that's the word I'm looking for.

The Microsoft one came from his campaign as well.

Right, my point is that the campaigns conspiracy theory paranoid feeds into some supporter's paranoia. The campaign isn't doing a good job at managing expectations. If you see a campaign literally saying crazy shit that is completely made up, then we can't really be surprised when the more vocal supporters take it to the next level. Its like giving blanket permission to believe in whatever you want, because everyone is so obviously against Bernie Sanders.

That's what gets me. Like, as a campaign, Weaver and Devine should know you have to take your lumps sometimes. Instead, every single critique of Bernie is something created by the establishment to bring him down.

It reminds me of what Obama said recently, how his campaign got so defensive that they should have been willing to look at the legitimate issues Hillary was bringing up. Instead, they hand waived them away.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

And you disagree why? Your brain deciding things before you realize it seems like pretty good evidence (plus the fact the brain runs on chemical reactions which are all deterministic ).

Well, A) those studies have not been shown to hold in more complex decision-making processes, at least not yet, B) the fact that conscious deliberation and decisionmaking is preceded by particular brain states does not necessarily mean that there was no free will in that decision being made, because you can just as easily say that consciousness is not actually the decision-making self, but rather a mental representation and expansion of it, C) philosophically, "X can only have happened a certain way" does not logically follow from the statement "X happened a certain way", and D) that chemical reactions are the mechanism by which brains function does not necessarily mean that intelligence and consciousness cannot have emergent properties that differ from what you might expect just looking at the blind physical laws that govern those reactions, much as one could not predict the macro world from quantum rules.

Note that I do not deny the possibility that free will might not exist, I just don't buy the current arguments regarding such.

 

[disastermouse]

The Microsoft one came from his campaign as well.

Right, my point is that the campaigns conspiracy theory paranoid feeds into some supporter's paranoia. The campaign isn't doing a good job at managing expectations. If you see a campaign literally saying crazy shit that is completely made up, then we can't really be surprised when the more vocal supporters take it to the next level. Its like giving blanket permission to believe in whatever you want, because everyone is so obviously against Bernie Sanders.

That's what gets me. Like, as a campaign, Weaver and Devine should know you have to take your lumps sometimes. Instead, every single critique of Bernie is something created by the establishment to bring him down.

It reminds me of what Obama said recently, how his campaign got so defensive that they should have been willing to look at the legitimate issues Hillary was bringing up. Instead, they hand waived them away.

And they suffered a mighty loss because of it!

 

[disastermouse]

Well, A) those studies have not been shown to hold in more complex decision-making processes, at least not yet, B) the fact that conscious deliberation and decisionmaking is preceded by particular brain states does not necessarily mean that there was no free will in that decision being made, because you can just as easily say that consciousness is not actually the decision-making self, but rather a mental representation and expansion of it, C) philosophically, "X can only have happened a certain way" does not logically follow from the statement "X happened a certain way", and D) that chemical reactions are the mechanism by which brains function does not necessarily mean that intelligence and consciousness cannot have emergent properties that differ from what you might expect just looking at the blind physical laws that govern those reactions, much as one could not predict the macro world from quantum rules.

Note that I do not deny the possibility that free will might not exist, I just don't buy the current arguments regarding such.

Correlation, not causation. That is to say, you can say that they happen at roughly the same time, but not that one is the cause of the other.

Materialism has a lot of flaws (Yes, a Marxist just admitted that!).

 

[RustyNails]

Correlation, not causation. That is to say, you can say that they happen at roughly the same time, but not that one is the cause of the other.

Materialism has a lot of flaws (Yes, a Marxist just admitted that!).

disastermouse
Materialism has a lot of flaws
(Today, 09:56 PM)

mod tag pls

 

[ugaboga232]

Well, A) those studies have not been shown to hold in more complex decision-making processes, at least not yet, B) the fact that conscious deliberation and decisionmaking is preceded by particular brain states does not necessarily mean that there was no free will in that decision being made, because you can just as easily say that consciousness is not actually the decision-making self, but rather a mental representation and expansion of it, C) philosophically, "X can only have happened a certain way" does not logically follow from the statement "X happened a certain way", and D) that chemical reactions are the mechanism by which brains function does not necessarily mean that intelligence and consciousness cannot have emergent properties that differ from what you might expect just looking at the blind physical laws that govern those reactions, much as one could not predict the macro world from quantum rules.

Note that I do not deny the possibility that free will might not exist, I just don't buy the current arguments regarding such.

You are right, the paper isnt really all that detailed or convincing, but as a proof of concept it makes sense. My opinion is consciousness is an emergent property that is fully controlled/accounted for by the chemical reactions of the brain. One CAN predict the macroworld decently with quantum rules (its just hell to do the schrodinger equation for more than hydrogen). Drug addiction and mental illness and even the fact that drugs like EtOH can dramatically impact perception/awareness suggests free will is probably an illusion.

And in mouse/monkey studies we are showing causation so unless you think humans are vastly different than free will seems like a nice dream.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Then you're working against yourself!

 

[ugaboga232]

Wait a minute...

Spoiler

I also just noticed that your tag actually spells something and feel dumb now

 

[shinra-bansho]

Spoiler

That was actually a reminder that 1) you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet and 2) you can put whatever words you want on a person's photo and people will think they said it.

 

[ugaboga232]

Spoiler

That was actually a reminder that 1) you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet and 2) you can put whatever words you want on a person's photo and people will think they said it.

 

[And_Gignac]

http://dowefeelthebern.com/

This is the most millennial thing ever.

 

[disastermouse]

disastermouse
Materialism has a lot of flaws
(Today, 09:56 PM)

mod tag pls

I finally get a mod tag?!

Also, what makes that tag-worthy?

 

[RustyNails]

I finally get a mod tag?!

Also, what makes that tag-worthy?

it's up to shinra-bansho to decide!

 

[A Human Becoming]

The Microsoft one came from his campaign as well.

I don't take that as quite a conspiracy theory, although I understand why you would. I view it as a link to his campaign message about the influence of money in politics. Questioning the motives of others is healthy, especially corporations who do things only in their best interest, even charity. Not to vilify the people who run companies, since I'm sure most do it for good reasons, but the corporate underlying motive (money) is always there. Corporations are more than the sum of its parts, like most things.

Right, my point is that the campaigns conspiracy theory paranoid feeds into some supporter's paranoia. The campaign isn't doing a good job at managing expectations. If you see a campaign literally saying crazy shit that is completely made up, then we can't really be surprised when the more vocal supporters take it to the next level. Its like giving blanket permission to believe in whatever you want, because everyone is so obviously against Bernie Sanders.

That's what gets me. Like, as a campaign, Weaver and Devine should know you have to take your lumps sometimes. Instead, every single critique of Bernie is something created by the establishment to bring him down.

It reminds me of what Obama said recently, how his campaign got so defensive that they should have been willing to look at the legitimate issues Hillary was bringing up. Instead, they hand waived them away.

I agree with you, these sentiments can be taken too far and the campaign has been defensive. I don't feel he has great people in charge, which I know is the sentiment here. I would argue though only the people out-of-state flooding the caucuses is a real conspiracy theory. It was deprived from Weaver not knowing how the system works, which as I said before is bad, even if he's not likely responsible for that aspect. Bureaucracy exists within campaigns and with this one even staffers get annoyed by it.

Just like Bernie I don't think his staffers always consider the ramifications of statements. You're right, it's all about management.

 

[ugaboga232]

I finally get a mod tag?!

Also, what makes that tag-worthy?

How do you not believe in materialism >_< (i guess i think qualia or whatever has no scientific theory addressing it yet but i think all decisions are a result of the brain).

 

[disastermouse]

it's up to shinra-bansho to decide!

Yeah, Historical Materialism is something that, as a Buddhist, I see has...problems, at least as a final word on philosophy.

 

[Teggy]

I'm sold, T-Swift '28.

 

[Makai]

It looks like the core of this conspiracy theory involves one of Rubio's college roommates. They were arrested together as teenagers. Later, he illegally rented a house to a porn company which specialized in livestreaming gay orgies. Sorry, guys. That's all they really have. Maybe Jeb's PAC will make an ad of Rubio on Fallon intercut with softcore foam porn.

 

[B-Dubs]

It looks like the core of this conspiracy theory involves one of Rubio's college roommates. They were arrested together as teenagers. Later, he illegally rented a house to a porn company which specialized in livestreaming gay orgies. Sorry, guys. That's all they really have. Maybe Jeb's PAC will make an ad of Rubio on Fallon intercut with softcore foam porn.

Hey, if Trump gets a hold of it that'll be all he needs. He's done more with less.

 

[disastermouse]

How do you not believe in materialism >_< (i guess i think qualia or whatever has no scientific theory addressing it yet but i think all decisions are a result of the brain).

Science is great. Scientism is just another dogma. It strips interiors of any sort of reality of their own, deems consciousness as epiphenomenal, all while not realizing that its own decree is sketchy as hell.

Interiors cannot be reduced to exteriors. Mind cannot be reduced to brain. Scientism says that because it cannot measure it as a definite quality of the exterior, either it doesn't exist or that it is epiphenomenal to exterior causes. But actual causes cannot be determined, merely correlations, and they are not the same thing.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of processes that are both considered very interior and very scientific (logic, mathematics).

Happiness may be related to serotonin levels in the brain, but no one describes themselves as 'I have a lot of serotonin right now'. Interiors have their own reality, their own language.

So much of scientism falls prey to the 'myth of the given' (*look it up).

 

[Makai]

Then they cut to Jeb's face and say, "You know Jeb would never be invited to involved with stuff like that."

 

[Makai]

disastermouse, you think by abolishing money, we can eliminate artificial supply limits. Therefore, there is an infinite amount of gold. True or false?

 

[ugaboga232]

Science is great. Scientism is just another dogma. It strips interiors of any sort of reality of their own, deems consciousness as epiphenomenal, all while not realizing that its own decree is sketchy as hell.

Interiors cannot be reduced to exteriors. Mind cannot be reduced to brain. Scientism says that because it cannot measure it as a definite quality of the exterior, either it doesn't exist or that it is epiphenomenal to exterior causes. But actual causes cannot be determined, merely correlations, and they are not the same thing.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of processes that are both considered very interior and very scientific (logic, mathematics).

Happiness may be related to serotonin levels in the brain, but no one describes themselves as 'I have a lot of serotonin right now'. Interiors have their own reality, their own language.

So much of scientism falls prey to the 'myth of the given' (*look it up).

p-pls I suck at philosophy. I think the interior (if we are talking about the same things) is definitely outside of the realm of science for now but I would argue that thoughts/behaviors are part of the exterior. I also think if we are setting policies for the outside, we should be aware that humans are not nice little rational actors with unlimited agency. If you are buddhist it does make sense, ignore all I say because its dumb and will make you feel sad.

On consciousness: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/

 

[User 463088]

If someone offered Jeb! a Cleveland Steamer, he'd probably take me to a dry cleaners in Lakewood.

 

[pigeon]

disastermouse, you think by abolishing money, we can eliminate artificial supply limits. Therefore, there is an infinite amount of gold. True or false?

This is not a good argument. Marxism doesn't abolish the concept of substitute goods.

 

[disastermouse]

p-pls I suck at philosophy. I think the interior (if we are talking about the same things) is definitely outside of the realm of science for now but I would argue that thoughts/behaviors are part of the exterior. I also think if we are setting policies for the outside, we should be aware that humans are not nice little rational actors with unlimited agency. If you are buddhist it does make sense, ignore all I say because its dumb and will make you feel sad.

On consciousness: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/

I'm not sad! I make friends via argument, usually, and I love anyone who can make me reconsider my positions. It's not always evident in the way that I argue, because I don't concede a point until I absolutely have to.

The woman I'm dating now is someone I met via an argument. Most of my best friends are similar. It weeds out people who don't think deeply about things that I think are important.

I wouldn't say that thoughts are separate from exterior reflection, simply that there is an inside and and outside to these things, and that to describe one is not to describe the other. That is, insides cannot be reduced to outsides, but that they are co-related.

 

[Makai]

This is not a good argument.

He's mentioned the Venus Project a few times and that is what they believe, at least.

 

[pigeon]

He's mentioned the Venus Project a few times and that is what they believe, at least.

I edited my post to add like a two word response to that silly argument.

 

[ugaboga232]

I'm not sad! I make friends via argument, usually, and I love anyone who can make me reconsider my positions. It's not always evident in the way that I argue, because I don't concede a point until I absolutely have to.

The woman I'm dating now is someone I met via an argument. Most of my best friends are similar. It weeds out people who don't think deeply about things that I think are important.

Thats good to hear. I meant more, if you think of behavior/thoughts as deterministic its easy to get stuck in a rut about existential things.

 

[disastermouse]

disastermouse, you think by abolishing money, we can eliminate artificial supply limits. Therefore, there is an infinite amount of gold. True or false?

I don't think supply limits are artificially set by money. So, false, I guess?

Value and gold aren't linked by some sort of Goddess-given decree. I think resource hoarding is problematic, but money and its concentration are merely reflective of that, not the cause.

I'm not sure if I answered your question though. Can you elaborate on the question?

 

[Makai]

I don't think supply limits are artificially set by money. So, false, I guess?

Value and gold aren't linked by some sort of Goddess-given decree. I think resource hoarding is problematic, but money and its concentration are merely reflective of that, not the cause.

I'm not sure if I answered your question though. Can you elaborate on the question?

Sorry, my mistake. I remember somebody citing the Venus Project, but it must have been somebody else. Pretty central to their ideology is that world GDP would dramatically increase if money were abolished (although you wouldn't be able to measure it, of course).

 

[disastermouse]

He's mentioned the Venus Project a few times and that is what they believe, at least.

I mentioned the Venus Project? Wow, I haven't even thought about that in a long time, mostly because I don't think it's sufficient to the argument of resource allocation.

Here's the main problem with all Marxist variants thus far: They have complete disregard for the importance of striving for excellence as a basic human value. That's problematic, to say the least. I don't think that excising the striving for excellence does much but to bring the excellent down to the level of the very basic demands of life.

What I think is important is that the search for personal excellence not deprive anyone of basic human dignity. I think material reward for excellence is an outmoded way of thinking, but that without a replacement, there is no incentive for excellence.

I've been booted from at least one Marxist party for both this belief and also my skepticism of historical materialism as the end all, be all of philosophy. I think Marx provided a very accurate and honest counterpoint to Hegel, but not the refutation that he's said to have provided. Marx has to be regarded in context, not removed from it and elevated to some sort of total philosophical solution to human suffering, which is what many Marxists do.

I have a lot of sympathy for idealism, I just think that without a method, it is easily attacked. I have a lot of sympathy for Marx, I simply think that he over-reached by reducing all struggle to the material.

 

[User 463088]

I don't take that as quite a conspiracy theory, although I understand why you would. I view it as a link to his campaign message about the influence of money in politics. Questioning the motives of others is healthy, especially corporations who do things only in their best interest, even charity. Not to vilify the people who run companies, since I'm sure most do it for good reasons, but the corporate underlying motive (money) is always there. Corporations are more than the sum of its parts, like most things.

I agree with you, these sentiments can be taken too far and the campaign has been defensive. I don't feel he has great people in charge, which I know is the sentiment here. I would argue though only the people out-of-state flooding the caucuses is a real conspiracy theory. It was deprived from Weaver not knowing how the system works, which as I said before is bad, even if he's not likely responsible for that aspect. Bureaucracy exists within campaigns and with this one even staffers get annoyed by it.

Just like Bernie I don't think his staffers always consider the ramifications of statements. You're right, it's all about management.

He was allowing people to fill in the blanks on their own, but the subtext is definitely there. Microsoft is giving the software away for free because they're corporate and want Bernie to lose. That's what he was wink-wink-nudge-nudging, and a lot of Bernie's people ran with it.

I've always been critical of Bernie's people more than Bernie. I don't agree with him on specific policy, but that's something we could debate on and he could smooth over. The conspiracy theory, the Berniebro stuff, his ridiculously poor campaign management...that's the stuff that gets me. The latter I find most worrying, because it shows me that he would be a hands off President on nearly everything that wasn't income inequality. He hasn't shown he can lead anything at all, let alone his campaign.

I'm glad to see that a Hillbot and a Berniestan can agree on things, though!

I'm also annoyed at this "virtual tie" nonsense. Hillary won. Period. She had more state delegate equivalents, and she is projected to have more state delegates. (23 to 21, and when we add her soft delegates who would support her because she won the state's caucus, she's up to 29). By every measure we have ever used in the history of politics, she won....but because it was Bernie she beat (albeit way too slightly for my tastes) it's a virtual tie.

The other thing that I think should concern some Bernie folks, and this is not me attacking him, is that Iowa should have been better for him, especially if his "revolution" is a real thing that's really happening. To be frank, I believe it is happening, but it's only happening among the 18-30 year old liberals who were ready to put their throat on the capitalist neck to begin with. If there was this huge movement, we should have seen it. He killed it among the under 30s, no question at all. But, his revolution wasn't strong enough to overcome a better, more organized, better trained and (probably) better funded ground game. That doesn't bode well for his GE chances, in my opinion.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

And you disagree why? Your brain deciding things before you realize it seems like pretty good evidence (plus the fact the brain runs on chemical reactions which are all deterministic ).

You can never show free-choice (or lack of) through the scientific process. It's just a busted induction.

BTW, this is the second Bernie fan that I have seen follow this train of thought. Why is that? And why do you guys insist on talking about something that can never be proven right or wrong?

 

[ugaboga232]

You can never show free-choice (or lack of) through the scientific process. It's just a busted induction.

BTW, this is the second Bernie fan that I have seen follow this train of thought. Why is that? And why do you guys insist on talking about something that can never be proven right or wrong?

I am a neuroscientist way before I was a bernie fan, and you can definitely show the lack of free choice. Imagine in mice models where we selectively target neurons and reliably cause behaviors. Imagine when we get much better resolution and control and can play the neural piano so to speak. If we can create any behavior/though pattern in a subject (mouse or human, both have similar architecture), would that not show that decisions are subject to the whims of chemicals?

 

[Holmes]

I'm not going to name names but my favorite thing ever is that "someone" put a [citation needed] beside "states carried" for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

I am a neuroscientist way before I was a bernie fan, and you can definitely show the lack of free choice. Imagine in mice models where we selectively target neurons and reliably cause behaviors. Imagine when we get much better resolution and control and can play the neural piano so to speak. If we can create any behavior/though pattern in a subject (mouse or human, both have similar architecture), would that not show that decisions are subject to the whims of chemicals?

That has nothing to do with free choice. Which is why i changed it from free will. The will is a force, and therefore not free. And as such, things like the environment or chemicals can act towards one's choice through one's will.

And again, no you can't. Science can never prove any of this. The entire process is a bad induction proof.