Coffee! Neuroscience: Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 16, 2009

Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I found this chilling:

Abstract:
This paper questions criminal law’s strong presumption of free will. Part I assesses the ways in which environment, nurture, and society influence human action. Part II briefly surveys studies from the fields of genetics and neuroscience which call into question strong assumptions of free will and suggest explanations for propensities toward criminal activity. Part III discusses other “causes” of criminal activity including addiction, economic deprivation, gender, and culture. In light of Parts I through III, Part IV assesses criminal responsibility and the legitimacy of punishment. Part V considers the the possibility of determining propensity from criminal activity based on assessing causal factors and their effects on certain people. In this context, the concept of dangerous individuals and possible justifications for preventative detention of such individuals in order to protect society is assessed. The concluding section suggests that the law should take a broader view of factors that could have determinant effects on agents’ actions.

The part that bugs me is “possible justifications for preventative detention”.

That’s what always happens when free will is denied. Somehow or other, the idea gets started that we can detect in advance who will commit a crime. Then you needn’t do anything to get arrested and put away. Someone just needs to have a theory about you.

But no one can truly predict the future in any kind of detail.

What about the Fort Hood massacre, you ask? Well, according to a number of reports, that guy had been advertising his grievances for some months. You sure wouldn’t need a brain scan or materialist theories about free will to figure out that he wasn’t happy in the Army and should just have been discharged – which is what he wanted. You’d just need to listen to what he actually said.

Also just up at my neuroscience blog, The Mindful Hack:

Neuroskepticism: A breath of fresh air, and maybe more legal safety too

Materialism and popular culture: The human brain as a machine?

Spiritual Brain: Polish translation rights bought

Curiosity and the dead cat

Comments

Mr BA^77, The big scary idea of Genetic Entropy, capital G capital E can be falsified by neutrality, not even growth in functionality and fitness is necessary. The issue is not to falsify Genetic Entropy, it is to find its place in a description of reality - does it describe an inevitability for all life or does it describe what can happen to small populations of bacteria.Nakashima_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Lamarck @18,
If someone else gave you responsibility then you’re still not responsible at all. They are entirely because they placed in you the length and breadth of responsibility. The answer has to lie outside the timestream.
So giving your teenager responsibilities somehow makes you accountable when they arbitrarily or in some cases rebelliously decide not to adhere to them? In the case of Adam and Eve they were both fully grown and matured adults with an inherent sense of moral perfection, giving them no excuse when they decided of their own free will to disobey God. So what's your solution to this in terms of a teenager being given responsibilities from the parent? Or do you just avoid that altogether?PaulN_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Now how does materialistic evolution handle the degradation of metabolic pathways due to changes in the environment?
It doesn't, therefore the steady decline in number of species is evidence that the end is near because environmental changes will continue and probably will become more extreme in the future.Cabal_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

good sources bornagain77: One would expect, as per the Front Loading theory, that some genetic code that is used when certain conditions are met may not be as efficient as the information they replace. So of course, such as the degradation of some molecular abilities would be expected or the genetic code might be used all the time. Again all of that is far more logically and throughly explained by front loading which predicts that. Now how does materialistic evolution handle the degradation of metabolic pathways due to changes in the environment? Seems as though evolution lunges forward and backward depending on which way the "experiments" seem to pull.lcd_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Well Nak or Allen of any of you other 1000 false prophets of Baal (shout louder your god may be sleeping), you may clearly falsify Genetic Entropy by showing an increase of 140 Functional Information Bits of a parent bacteria in the parent bacteria's native environment. For a broad outline of the "Fitness test", required to be passed to show a violation of the principle of Genetic Entropy, please see the following video and articles: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp This "fitness test" fairly conclusively demonstrates "optimal information" was originally encoded within a "parent" bacteria/bacterium by God, and has not been added to by any "teleological" methods in the beneficial adaptations of the sub-species of bacteria. Thus the inference to Genetic Entropy, i.e. that God has not specifically moved within nature in a teleological manner, to gradually increase the functional information of a genome, still holds as true for the principle of Genetic Entropy. It seems readily apparent that to conclusively demonstrate God has moved within nature, in a teleological manner, to provide the sub-species bacteria with additional functional information over the "optimal" genome of its parent species, the "fitness test" must be passed by the sub-species against the parent species. If the fitness test is shown to be passed then the new molecular function, which provides the more robust survivability for the sub-species, must be calculated to its additional Functional Information Bits (Fits) it gained in the beneficial adaptation, and then be found to be greater than 140 Fits. 140 Fits is what has now been generously set by Kirk Durston as the maximum limit of Functional Information which can reasonably be expected to be generated by the natural processes of the universe over the entire age of the universe (The actual limit is most likely to be around 40 Fits). This fitness test, and calculation, must be done to rigorously establish materialistic processes did not generate the functional information (Fits), and to rigorously establish teleological, within nature, processes were indeed involved in the increase of Functional Complexity of the beneficially adapted sub-species. The second and final phase of Genetic Entropy, outlined by John Sanford in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, is when "slightly detrimental" mutations, which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from a genome, slowly build up in a species/kind over long periods of time and lead to Genetic Meltdown. Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUeCgTN7pOo see here for refutation of Lenski's e-coli and Nylonase https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/ken-miller-in-birmingham/#comment-340097bornagain77_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Leviathan, Surely the Big Tent is big enough for honest materialists of which I'm sure you are one. But it's also got to be big enough for those of us who do not accept that mind supervenes on mechanism. More of us should be familiar with Angus Menuge's Agents Under Fire, Materialism and the Rationality of Science. It's not that we have to go way off into theology and "the supernatural" and imagined entities that leave no trace in our world---rather it's that consciousness and free will are at some level elemental---"sky hooks" in Dennettian terms. The materialist needs a theory---a theory as to a mechanism that could produce consciousness and free will. It's not enough to say that if a mechanism is complex enough it could do the trick. We need a theory as to how? So far there has been no such theory whatsoever. It's an ancient philosophical argument but one in which science is beginning to get involved.Rude_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

One of the things I have heard over and over from materialists is that fitness is only measurable by how it helps the organism live and reproduce. So how does materialism determine what is a fitness enhancing mutation vs a deleterious mutation that in fact does the opposite? I know this is not a problem for the front loaded theory which would have genes turned on and activate when certain conditions are met. the reverse is true as Design Theory holds that genetic coding gets turned off and becomes passive when other conditions are met.lcd_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

hey i'm new here. I just joined because I had some questions. Who do i ask? One of my questions was, how do we deal with the mullerian two step idea in relation to irreducible complexity? Can it be explained in a simple manner also, but sparing no details. thank you.trekky_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Sorry, should be *mutational* polyploidyPaulN_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Nakashima,
How would that work? Genetic Entropy is a claim about the average fitness of populations of certain types of creatures.
I suppose you could find data that supports an increasing average fitness level as opposed to decreasing, and then show how these increases are due to constructive mutations as opposed to deleterious ones. Good luck with finding a substantial amount of empirical evidence on that one though. According to empirical observation and some of Sanford's own experimental research in mutationaly polyploidy in plants, the potential benefits of mutations follow a kimura curve as opposed to a standard bell curve. I'm sure there's debate as to whether you can apply the kimura curve as he does in his book, but either way it's supported by his studies, and most others involving experimental mutational research.PaulN_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, For instance Allen Would you mind showing me a violation of Genetic Entropy at the molecular level? You see Allen that would be empirical evidence! How would that work? Genetic Entropy is a claim about the average fitness of populations of certain types of creatures.Nakashima_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

I agree completely with Michael Crichton, who wrote:
"In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results."
Reproducible results are precisely what is contained in the scientific journals and peer-reviewed books that I cited in my comment. It is also what ID currently completely lacks. Until ID supporters start to do actual empirical research and publish their results, they will not be taken seriously by any scientist anywhere.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Hello all. I know I've been away for some time but I've been lurking in the background and getting more and more saddened by the tones I read on here and other blogs. After reading all of the article and the posts, I can't help but wonder why people keep believing that we are nothing more than living machines. I see no hope for our humanity if we are nothing but a collection of chemicals that go about doing what is the prevalent reaction that must be satisfied today. I don't know about you but that reduces us to nothing and I know that we are truly unique in His eyes. The Designer designed even the soul and that is something we'll never find with science. Why not? There are things that the Designer has left hidden and we are left to learn about the Designer through the obvious designs we can easily see in our so called nature.lcd_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Re comment #22: I already have. See this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/nachmans-paradox-defeats-darwinism-and-dawkins-weasel/ and this one: http://telicthoughts.com/mutations-fitness-and-more/ John Sanford (whom Will Provine and I invited to give a guest lecture in our evolution course, and who thanked us profusely for the opportunity to present his views), has produced a mathematical model that purports to show that the accumulation of deleterious point mutations should eventually result in the "genetic disintegration" of any species, especially humans. However, his model is fatally flawed (as has been pointed out by many qualified scientific critics and reviewers), most notably because it completely ignores the effects of simple Mendelian dominance, purging of recessive deleterious mutations as the result of inbreeding, and founder-flush effects. Furthermore, Sanford's model is just that: a purely conjectural mathematical model, with no empirical testing provided to validate or falsify it. Over a century of Mendelian and molecular genetics research has provided no evidence whatsoever for his hypothesis, and abundant evidence against it.Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Re comment #14 by vjtorley: Empirical research into the non-conscious causation of human actions has gone far beyond Libet's rather crude experiments. For example, Daniel Wegner in his 2002 book The Illusion of Conscious Will (MIT Press) reports on the results of a series of research experiments that confirm and extend Libet's original findings from the late 1980s. I have taught an entire course at Cornell on the relationship between evolutionary biology and the concept of human free will (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/04/evolution-is-free-will-illusion.html ). I recommend the following books, which present both sides of this complex issue: Ainslie, G. (2008) Breakdown of Will, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521596947 (paperback: $34.99), 272 pages. Dennett, D. (2004) Freedom Evolves, Penguin Books, ISBN: 0142003840 (paperback: $17.00), 368 pages. Fisher, J., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., & Vargas, M. (2007) Four Views on Free Will, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN: 1405134860 (paperback: $33.95), 240 pages. Kane, R. (2001) Free Will (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy), Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN: 0631221026 (paperback: $33.95), 328 pages. Kane, R. (2005) A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will, Oxford University Press (USA), ISBN: 019514970X (paperback: $19.95), 208 pages. Wegner, D. (2003) The Illusion of Conscious Will, MIT Press, ISBN-10: 0262731622 (paperback: $21.95), 419 pages. Wilson, E. O. (2004) On Human Nature (Revised Edition), Harvard University Press, ISBN: 0674016386 (paperback: $22.00), 284 pages. It may also interest some readers here to note that when Will Provine's grad student, Greg Graffin, surveyed the leading members of the national academies of science around the world, he found that the overwhelming majority believed that humans did indeed have free will. This included evolutionary biologists, 76% of whom agreed that humans have free will (see http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/ ).Allen_MacNeill_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Allen did you cite consensus and claim that it is "empirical evidence"? Allen's Quote- So, based on the empirical evidence, which is “crumbling”, evolutionary biology or ID? Michael Crichton on consensus science: I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. And he continues: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. You know Allen I want to see you present actual empirical evidence instead of your usual deception as you did in your post when you claimed that "opinions" are empirical evidence". Do you truly believe opinions matter more than truth in science? For instance Allen Would you mind showing me a violation of Genetic Entropy at the molecular level? You see Allen that would be empirical evidence!bornagain77_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

#14 vj (cont) I just read your link to Bob Doyle. I liked the model but I am really surprised you like it because he is a materialist (his recent article in Nature is entitled: "Free will: it’s a normal biological property, not a gift or a mystery") and I would describe his model as compatabilist (although he denies this). To me he has suggested a model of how compatabilism might work. The random element through quantum mechanics (or whatever) makes no difference in principle whether it is applied to the act of choosing or the range of choices available.Mark Frank_{November 17, 2009
November
11
Nov
17
17
2009
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

To Fross at #13: Your post sounds like parody, but Im just not sure. You seem to be suggesting that the US engage in a race for the bottom: to join Turkey. (& Brazil/Mexico etc!) Please tell me that it is parody.Graham1_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

#14 Vj As always you produce interesting links. However, I think you are overstating the case when you write: Here are some useful scientific links to recent articles suggesting evidence of free will. All these papers do is criticise Libet and Soon's experiments which tried to establish the conscious decisions cannot be the cause of actions because of timing issues. As Batthyany writes: In this paper I do not argue that conscious causation really takes place in a critical number of cases. I claim merely that both kinds of models – both the ones that deny the reality of conscious causation and free will and the ones that affirm it – are compatible with the outcomes of the experiments So he is not arguing there is evidence for free will just that current evidence against it is misplaced. Having said that I think they are all wrong (Libet, Soon, Batthany, and O'Hanlon). All them seem to assume that free will and conscious causation are incompatible with determinism. Have they not read Daniel Dennett? A related assumption is that conscious causation is prove of immaterialism. A perfectly reasonable model is that conscious causation is just a personal experience of brain activity which is taking place at the same time because it is the same thing. An analogy is the way we experience the position of our own bodies, our kinaesthetic sense. My experience of where my arm is is completely different from your experience of where my arm is - but they are both experiences of the same physical phenomenon.Mark Frank_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

Wrf3, "The “problem” of God’s sovereignty vs. man’s responsibility is solved by notin that man is responsible, not because he is (allegedly) free, but by Divine fiat." If someone else gave you responsibility then you're still not responsible at all. They are entirely because they placed in you the length and breadth of responsibility. The answer has to lie outside the timestream.lamarck_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

wrf3 (#5) Thank you for your post. You write:
As a Christian in the Reform camp, I too think that free will is a myth. The "problem" of God’s sovereignty vs. man's responsibility is solved by noting that man is responsible, not because he is (allegedly) free, but by Divine fiat. If your response is, "but that's not fair", welcome to Romans 9.
I suggest you read the following article: Pohle, J. (1911). Predestination. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved November 17, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm Excerpt: "The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that 'classical' passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God's purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Romans 9:18: 'Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth'). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a 'classical text' and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation... For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory ... "It is just as difficult to find in the writings of the Fathers a solid argument for an absolute predestination. The only one who might be cited with some semblance of truth is St. Augustine, who stands, however, almost alone among his predecessors and successors. Not even his most faithful pupils, Prosper and Fulgentius, followed their master in all his exaggerations...." (End of excerpt.)vjtorley_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Allen,
So, based on the empirical evidence, which is “crumbling”, evolutionary biology or ID?
Evolutionary biology. Numbers do not the truth make. 8)Clive Hayden_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Furthermore, do you believe that humans have what is commonly regarded as a “soul”?
As if "the soul" is a part of the human anatomy?Mung_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Leviathan (#1) Thank you for your post. You write:
Miss O’Leary, may I ask you how exactly you believe the brain implements supernatural characteristics within its design schemata? I.E., why would the Designer bother with a supernatural component when a natural, or “materialist” component is all that is needed to fully explain brain / mind phenomena? .... How exactly do we go about detecting the supernatural "mind"?
First, "immaterial" does not mean: supernatural. Nor does it mean: unobservable. Second, critics of free will (such as Stephen O'Hanlon, author of the article cited above by Ms. O'Leary) clearly need to familiarize themselves with the latest scientific literature, before being so cavalier in their dismissal of free will. For the fact of the matter is, they are behind the times. Here are some useful scientific links to recent articles suggesting evidence of free will. Mental Causation after Libet And Soon: Reclaiming Conscious Agency by Alexander Batthyany. In: Batthyany, Alexander & Elitzur, Avshalom C. 2009. Irreducibly Conscious. Selected Papers on Consciousness. Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter. An excerpt from the conclusion:
Contrary to the reductionist interpretations of the findings of Libet and Soon et al., it is no objection to conscious causation that it does not entail causing urges or desires. For urges or desires are passive experiences rather than actively and consciously chosen mental events; both empirical psychology and our everyday experience tell us that much, and so do Libet's subjects when they report that they did not consciously bring about their urges to move, but that the urges came "out of nowhere". Importantly, non-reductionist agency theories, too, predict that desires and urges are not consciously chosen and brought about. I therefore conclude that neither Libet's original experiment, nor the follow-up study by Soon et al. can be legitimately interpreted to provide empirical evidence in favour of agency reductionism. More generally, the lesson we can draw is that it is highly problematic to study conscious causation in cases where the subjects themselves state that they did not consciously cause the act in question.
Free will is not an illusion after all by Anil Ananthaswamy. In New Scientist magazine, 23 September 2009. "Champions of free will, take heart. A landmark 1980s experiment that purported to show free will doesn't exist is being challenged." Brain preparation before a voluntary action: Evidence against unconscious movement initiation by Dr. Judy Trevena and Dr. Jeff Miller. In Consciousness and Cognition, doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.006 Abstract available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WD0-4X5HY69-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=369e8144917a3cb7f8e50e9f9010d12e Abstract:
Benjamin Libet has argued that electrophysiological signs of cortical movement preparation are present before people report having made a conscious decision to move, and that these signs constitute evidence that voluntary movements are initiated unconsciously. This controversial conclusion depends critically on the assumption that the electrophysiological signs recorded by Libet, Gleason, Wright, and Pearl (1983) are associated only with preparation for movement. We tested that assumption by comparing the electrophysiological signs before a decision to move with signs present before a decision not to move. There was no evidence of stronger electrophysiological signs before a decision to move than before a decision not to move, so these signs clearly are not specific to movement preparation. We conclude that Libet's results do not provide evidence that voluntary movements are initiated unconsciously.
But how would free will be implemented in the brain? And is it compatible with determinism? What light can quantum physics shed on the subject, if any? The following link provides details of a well-thought out model. If you allow top-down causation, free will becomes a lot less mysterious. The Cogito Model. From The Information Philosopher Web site. This site represents a bold philosophical attempt to reconcile the valid insights underlying both determinism and indeterminism. The authors of the model show that it accords well with the findings of quantum theory, and guarantees humans libertarian freedom, but at the same time avoids the pitfall of making chance the cause of our actions. An excerpt:
Our Cogito model of human freedom combines microscopic quantum randomness and unpredictability with macroscopic determinism and predictability, in a temporal sequence. Why have philosophers been unable for millenia to see that the common sense view of human freedom is correct? Partly because their logic or language preoccupation makes them say that either determinism or indeterminism is true, and the other must be false. Our physical world includes both, although the determinism we have is only an adequate description for large objects. So any intelligible explanation for free will must include both indeterminism and adequate determinism.
You might ask, "But how do we go about detecting the operations of an immaterial mind?" Neurologists have been doing this for decades. See the following excerpt from The truth about human origins by Brad Harrub, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press Inc., 2003 (p. 405), which describes research by Nobel prize winner John Eccles, as well as earlier research by Dr. Wilder Penfield:
In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention” preceded an actual neuronal firing – thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. As Eccles and Robinson concluded:
But it is impressive that many of the samples of several hundred SMA nerve cells were firing probably aboutr a tenth of a second before the earliest discharge of pyramidal cells down to the spinal cord... Thus there is strong support for the hypoithesis that the SMA is the sole recipient area of the brain for mental intentions that lead to voluntary movements (pp. 157, 160, emp. in orig.)

See http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28#v=onepage&q=&f=false for the above extract. Finally, you ask:
Furthermore, do you believe that humans have what is commonly regarded as a "soul"? If so, what evidence do you have for this position?
Actually, I've got pages of links to good arguments for the soul. See here. Enjoy!vjtorley_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

FWIW, my blood is 50% coffee! Go coffee! the "evolution castle" can crumble. Take a look at Turkey where they have finally overthrown the Darwinists control of science. Their scientific literacy story is a story of success and Turkey now ranks higher than Tunisia, Brazil and Mexico in regards to scientific literacy. I do feel the US still has hope. We are starting to get a large percentage of evolution skeptics, and funny enough, Turkey has us beat by a little bit. If we revamped our views of science and put the right type of politicians and judges in place, I think we could join Turkey in being one of the few nations on earth with an overwhelming majority of evo-skeptics. Skeptics who no longer put up with the Darwinians and their naturalistic "just so" stories.Fross_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

zeroseven in #10: ID supporters in general, and O'Leary in particular, are fond of asserting that a branch of the biological sciences that currently accounts for over 100 regularly published journals (containing over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific reports) per year, over 1000 books published by reputable scientific publishers per year, and involving grant and foundation support amounting to several billion dollars per year is "crumbling", while ID, which accounts for not one peer-reviewed scientific journal and one peer-reviewed book (published over a decade ago) is replacing it. I can go to Mann Library here at Cornell (the second largest library of biology in the world, comprising over a million books and bound periodicals) and find an entire floor devoted to evolutionary biology. I couldn't carry this month's issues of the various journals devoted to evolutionary biology to the loan desk, even if I used a large laundry basket and made several trips. I have a paltry selection of the most current books on the subject of evolution in my personal library: only 1000+ volumes published in the past ten years or so. If I had unlimited funds, I could buy ten times as many, and still could not keep up with the field. Virtually every large university in the world has a department of ecology and evolutionary biology. Here at Cornell we have such a department, with almost two dozen professors and dozens of graduate students, and there are at least five other departments at Cornell who number evolutionary biologists among their members. There are almost half a dozen undergraduate and graduate organizations devoted to the scientific aspects of evolutionary biology at Cornell; branches of such societies are found worldwide. By contrast, there are two tenured professors in the entire world who explicitly support the version of ID promulgated at this website, only one of whom is in a department devoted to an emipirical science. Of the 35+ undergraduate IDEA clubs (a very liberal estimate) that were founded during the heyday of ID (the late 1990s and early 2000s), not one is currently maintaining a website or apparently meeting regularly (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/12/intelligent-design-movement-on-college.html ). And according to Google Trends, interest by the news media in ID has fallen almost to zero since the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in late 2005, while interest in evolutionary biology is at an all-time high and still increasing with no end in sight (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evolution-intelligent-design-and-banana.html ). So, based on the empirical evidence, which is "crumbling", evolutionary biology or ID?Allen_MacNeill_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

As I have pointed out many times here, the main source of disagreement between such ID supporters as Drs. Behe and Dembski and proponents of mainstream evolutionary theory is the source of the variation which provides the raw material for biological evolution. To put it simply, Drs. Behe and Dembski assert that "you can't get here from there" without some intelligent something-or-other (identity unspecified) producing the new, complex variations that provide the basis for both evolutionary adaptations and evolutionary homologies (which both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski have stated are indeed valid and supported by overwhelming empirical evidence). Furthermore, Dr. Dembski is on record in multiple forums as saying that the "intelligent something-or-other" that produces the complex variations need not necessarily be the deity of the Abrahamic religions, nor even a deity at all. I therefore find it quite interesting that Drs. Behe and Dembski reject a priori the hypothesis that there is a "natural complexifying force" (as proposed, for example, by Stuart Kaufman and Simon Conway Morris) that could produce such complex, novel variations. If one is genuinely committed to the idea that the cause of apparently designed biological objects and processes need not be supernatural, why rule out some kind of natural tendency toward the evolution of greater complexity as the result of purely natural processes, unless one is reflexively ruling all except supernatural explanations?Allen_MacNeill_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

@4 "The castle is crumbling, and anyone who wants can get a souvenir brick." It really is hard to take this kind of comment seriously. I wonder if you really believe this. ID has had absolutely no impact in the scientific world, and in the world outside this blog and other religious forums, evolution is as uncontroversial as electricity.zeroseven_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

My last post, but this time formatted correctly:
I.E., why would the Designer bother with a supernatural component when a natural, or “materialist” component is all that is needed to fully explain brain / mind phenomena?
And why would a materialist bother with believing in consciousness at all if materialism is all that is needed to fully explain mind/brain phenomena? Under the materialist schema, particles in motion get the job done without remainder, so why, oh why does a wholly superfluous consciousness bother to exist?Matteo_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

<blockquote I.E., why would the Designer bother with a supernatural component when a natural, or “materialist” component is all that is needed to fully explain brain / mind phenomena? And why would a materialist bother with believing in consciousness at all if materialism is all that is needed to fully explain mind/brain phenomena? Under the materialist schema, particles in motion get the job done without remainder, so why, oh why does a wholly superfluous consciousness bother to exist?Matteo_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply