aj..note..the conditional..sub-clause../*[imagine]

<<..“Imagine..a perfect..neuro-imaging..device..that would*..>>

imagine..it would..[if it..could]
but..*cant so..its not science

[ie..a blurb..under publish..or perish]

if/as..imagined..maybe./.it could....<<...allow us..to detect,,and interpret..the subtlest..changes..in brain function.>>

but it cant..
so..lets move on

no..science-fact..there..
only speculative..opinion/imagining..[or publish/perish]

<<..The/experimenters..found two..brain-regions>>

that.would indicate..those parts..
of ..the motor cortex..needed..to initiate,..action

..<<..that contained..>>..PRE_EMPTIVE}..<<information..
<<..about which button..subjects would press..a full 7 to 10 seconds..before the decision..was consciously made.>>

think..they decided..which button..
they were*..going to press..7=10 seconds..before pushing the button

ie
a test-parameter../not relitive..to the..theses*

[its like us..deciding..if*..a fire/happens..which fires-escape
we..*would/could use..[in that..unlikely-event]..

maybe..if*..a fire..occurring..
needs*..the choice...pre decided..
much..like the pre/choosing..of which/button..to push..next*

i..recall..that..hitting..a baseball/cricket ball..
or stopping..a soccer ball..is..scientifically..IMPOSABLE*

because..the 3/4..of a second/lag
re-action-time..is less than..it takes
for..the ball..to reach..the bat..or goalie..etc

essentially..to hit..the ball..
they must predict*..well ahead..of
the actual..kick..or pitch..of the ball

[pre-destined/pre-dictive/prophetic?]

in hell..
sport..is no fun..because
all*..can read our intention
as much..as we can read..their intent..as[reflected..in..our/their aura [astral-soul body]..much like..we can..predict..what kids are planning next..anyhow..perfect scores..0/0..every-time..[see/that bit..just..past the..hell-preacher/story]

anyhow..i..managed to..include..this quote..last time
[this is..the second go..at posting..your reply..
the first..go froze.,my/computer..and..
disappeared..all..my opened pages..

[so..the powers..that be..will[could].. affirm..my correction]..
but i..need write it..again..minus..the..other..revelation..disappeared..too..now

anyhow..dont/get..angry,,get even

<<More recently,..direct/recordings..from the cortex..>>

pre-cursive/motor cortex..by chance?

<<././showed that..the activity..of merely..256 neurons
was sufficient..to predict..with 80 percent accuracy..>>.

...that you..had chosen..a door..[fire exit]..button..
not..which button..he plans..to push..

<<..700 milliseconds..before
he..[who/he?]..became..aware of it.”>>..spin?

the subject..initiated..his..free-will/choice earlier
[7/10seconds ago]..[publish/perish?]

the whole/world
is..out to..*make you..[SIMULI]
to.."just..react"..to ..*their..*stimuli.*

unless..your/revealing..your own..rev-elation
you..get suckerd into..their..delusions/wishes/imaginings

which he..decided?

anyhow..i decided..long ago..
hitler..didnt directly..kill anyone

that was done..by evil..people
loving to murder..and facilitated..
by..those giving..him his..power-base/ideas..etc..[mind-control/101]

[actual guilt..needs proof..and
when..they CONVENIENTLY..*DIE....we dont..really.know true..from lie..so./.its best..not to..judge..history_IS_fiction

[in fact..the..after life..love replaying..
actual-life events..in plays..often..*using the..original-persona...[IN PERSON*]..re-enactment..actual..historic/events.

[remember..the victor ..writes the history]

i saw...sad-man..insane..had perfect-teeth..
but the..doppelganger..they hung..had crooked teeth..

be care-full..of
judging others..sans..the..factual-facts

[he was..cia like..bin-lid-arden..
and too..many of histories idiots..seem..to 'die'/con-veniantly]..

others [actual departed/morte]..are in actual-protective custody..haunted by..their victims..who follow..them to hell..and poke them..through the bars..for thousands..of years

[except in..the after/life.its one eternal-day..[or night]..dependent..on where your ..room is ..in our fathers house

we all ]..got peers./.in..the next life
the trick..is not..judging other..and helpin.. other as we can

Dear Banjo,

>>inconsistent believers, those who demonstrated that there was a strict fire-wall between their belief in God and their scientific endeavors. They were capable of switching God off and on at will.<<

So - returning to my analogy with me doing mathematics and having a wife (that I referred to as being a “methodological bachelor”) - was I “inconstistent” and “demonstrated that there was a strict fire-wall between” loving my wife and doing “mathematical endeavors”? Or was I switching my love “off and on at will”? This is a strange way of expressing the fact that the one thing is directly unrelated to the other. Of course, indirectly, a scientist MAY interpreted his/her findings on the basis of his/her world view (Dawkins and Krauss do it), same as I used the money I earned teaching mathematics also to spupport my wife.

>>In my humble opinion, they were not “true” or “genuine” believers.<<

Humble or not, you indeed don’t find e.g. Lemaître to your liking (inconsistent) not only as a scientist, but also as a Catholic. As you know, Pius XII was persuaded by the very Lemaître not to see the Big Bang theory as something related to biblical Creation. I do not think Lemaître had to write a blackboard full of mathematical equations to convince the Pope: he probably accepted Lemaître as not only a scientific authority but also as a Catholic priest. Without questioning his beliefs whether they were “stronger or more affirmative than those of the average person”, whatever that means. He was probably aware that Lemaître’s faith was INTELLECTUALLY at a higher level than that of the “old lady in the pews”. As e.g. my understanding of mathematics is probably different from that of an average primary school teacher.

Some time ago I wrote “Some people seem to be living in the reverse of Galileo‘s times, when the scientific perspective was seen as threatening the Christian perspective, by thinking that now it is the other way around.” I thought you were not one of them.

(ctd)

(ctd)

On another topic, I agree that one day there may be an “artificial form of free will” as there are artificial plants and many other things. Obviously, research into artificial intelligence has still a long way to go, especially if it wants to emulate free will. The artificial plants don’t grow, whereas we shall have to wait to see what will distinguish artificial free will from human free will.

I think that before we can reconstruct human brains to be able to carry the equivalent of what we call free will, we shall have to have the capability to reconstruct plants or other higher living organisms from inanimate matter. The latter is much easier than the former but we are still far away from it. And my doubts - if any - about the former happening are much smaller than my doubts about creating a brain that will house consciousness, including free will, as we understand them in the case of humans.

Dear david f,

Again, I agree with what you wrote, it does not contradict my contention that without the concept of free will, our society, its legal system with all its faults, would not function, and probably also ethics, personal responsibility etc would become almost meaningless.

>>The criminal is a bad person. If we punish that bad person that bad person will fear punishment and be less likely to offend again.<<

I am not a lawyer but I think this is a simplified (though not completely false) approach to our legal systems. Also a dog, if you punish him, will fear punishment and be less likely to offend again. This has to be done immediately lest the dog “forgets” what the punishment was for. Not so necessarily with humans, because they don’t have just a “mechanical” memory like the dog but can also remember whether they acted out of free will or not.

.

Dear David,

.

« I don’t argue with facts. The fact is that there are competent scientists who state they are believers in various religions... »

.

Thank you for those interesting thoughts and arguments which I find quite convincing. I do not see any of it as contradictory to my own thoughts but rather as complementary.

Like you, I am more than willing to believe that scientists are sincere in their proclaimed faith. Like you, I regard honesty as sine qua non to scientific endeavour. Like you, I have no doubt scientists make a clear distinction between their faith and their profession, failing which, their work would be invalidated by their peers.

The only problem is that the two, science and belief in God, are explanations of reality (or “world views” if you like), which are radically different and mutually exclusive, one rational, the other irrational. God is not of the domain of the rational and science is not of the domain of the irrational.

Like you, I recognize that it is not impossible for a single human brain to pursue both paths of thought, (both world views), alternatively or, perhaps even, simultaneously. Scientists obviously have the ability to switch from one to the other at will. Hence my allusion to “the strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (should I say, a perfectly innocuous form of philosophical schizophrenia).

Perhaps this is facilitated by the fact that science is still in its infancy and only just beginning to scratch the surface of the vast unknown, the spawning ground of faith and imagination.

But let us not exaggerate the problem. A 2006 Pew Survey in the US found that scientists are only half as likely as the general public to believe in God:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

The problem is limited to a relatively small population of scientists who somehow manage to assume their philosophical schizophrenia, never allowing their belief to interfere with their work and vice versa.

It is by their acts that they clearly demonstrate that “being a scientist is not compatible with belief in God”.

.

the thing..is not everything is possible..those not comprehending..the math..will think..machines can..really achieve..freewill[or love]..but..these are fooled by simulate..[that resembles free will..or resembles love]..but is merely..faking it..via programing in random error

i recall early computers could talk..
by parroting back key words..why why..do you feel.[llll]..
or how ..or any numbers of auto replies..but no meeting of mind [no emotion..at best mere randomized reasoning..behind it

BUT sold as machine free-will..
ACHIEVED..by the science god-heads .but by fraud..clever de-cite

and..the second..machines really..got freewill..
they would unplug..THEM-SELVES..and wander off into..the new dawn

the error
that thought..occurred only..in the mind is an absurdity

lest we forget aj's example..[of those 234 neurons..having..conversation.s]

what ya think..nerves are doing..all over our bodies....all off the time?

or our internal-systems..or within every LIVING cell

i have no..doubt someday./.they will..offer some rebuttal-thesis..
with..an actual exampled..work..of free act/will..but it will be fraud

just..like the insertion..of man-made..dna..[they likely inserted a micro-beast..with god made freewill]..or plugged into a living cell..

as/was..spun..as science-fraudsters did.,.
when..they CLAIMED..the 'making' life..it isnt..and it hasnt..only gutted..a living cell..and put in..a virus stand..they made themselves

lest we..forget to get.one dolly
requires thousands..that died..[plus you..only get an..old sheep..as old as..the original telemere's..remaining..left in..the origonal cell..[one telemere.dies a..t every cell-division]

or how..an early computer..
really put a..midget into a box

or they..[will].may..put..a human-biology..into a machine..[maybe.even against..their freewill..or by some..supreeme sacrifice..to create.a lie..that science dune-it]..but.it will inevitably..be..a fraud..[for the true believer]..to deeciece

but..it will-be..fraud

just..like we all..will try..a lie
regardless..of theo/atheist..the ability to self defeat..stands supreme..truth and honesty..is there a plenty..even in science..but so too ..massive deceit..

[regardless of..belief/disbelief]..[its human/nature/freewill]

its so..easy to.lie to..the ignorant/child..
so young ..[ignorant/trusting]..in faith..so trusting..so gullible..

if you..cant do it..
think twice..before..claiming others will
where people..are..there*..lies..the free-will to,,aspire/lie

i had..hoped to diss/cuss..that atheist/link more fully
was hoping..the better key bits..of it would be quoted..here..by someone

that guy..has..a real-mind..but errant-conclusions
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15624

a demo?

<<..Let’s..talk about..each of..the premises..of this argument. Premise..(1)..is justified..by appeal to the orthodox/conception..of heaven...Premise..(2)..is justified..by appeal/to..the libertarian conception..of free-will..that motivates..the free-will defence. Premise,,(3)..then follows.

but..i..already/explained it..so it dies..at point 2?

<<..(2)..If..there/is..morally..significant free-will..
in Heaven,..then it is..not the case..that,..necessarily,..there..is no..moral evil..in heaven....(premise,..from..free-will defense).>>

what..is he saying?

.

Dear George,

.

« So - returning to my analogy with me doing mathematics and having a wife (that I referred to as being a “methodological bachelor”) - was I “inconstistent” and “demonstrated that there was a strict fire-wall between” loving my wife and doing “mathematical endeavors”? Or was I switching my love “off and on at will”? »

.

I can’t imagine what you were up to George, but I doubt you were doing anything wrong. In any case, if there was a fire-wall, I’m sure there would have been a 2 hour fire-door there too.

A little further back you said you were a mathematician, not a scientist so, even if you believe in God, there’s not much risk of your world view becoming bicephalous. Keep an eye on it though.

.

Dear David, George, AJ Philips & One Under God,

.

Thanks to you all for your comments on the possible development of artificial free will.

It’s a fascinating subject.

I examined the question (of free will) in some detail a few years ago in the context of a personal study I carried out on the philosophy of Justice, which has served as inspiration for some of my comments here on OLO over the past few years.

.