The Science of "Free Will"

[Craig]

So you are saying that their results were substandard?

A new article written by Dr Drew Westin of Emory University has concluded a long researched subject on human perception and decision making. Dr. Westen's research concludes that when people draw conclusions about particular events, they're not just weighing the facts. "Without knowing it, they're also weighing what they would feel if they came to one conclusion or another, and they often come to the conclusion that would make them feel better, no matter what the facts are."

Dr. Westen found that knowing an individual's predisposition proved to be a perfect predictor of their ultimate decision 84 per cent of the time, which suggests that no amount of facts would change their original position. No amount of factual information, no matter how compelling, will alter our views, which explains why so many of us are slow to react to a changing environment given it makes us uncomfortable.

[Reverend G]

So you are saying that their results were substandard?

A new article written by Dr Drew Westin of Emory University has concluded a long researched subject on human perception and decision making. Dr. Westen's research concludes that when people draw conclusions about particular events, they're not just weighing the facts. "Without knowing it, they're also weighing what they would feel if they came to one conclusion or another, and they often come to the conclusion that would make them feel better, no matter what the facts are."

Dr. Westen found that knowing an individual's predisposition proved to be a perfect predictor of their ultimate decision 84 per cent of the time, which suggests that no amount of facts would change their original position. No amount of factual information, no matter how compelling, will alter our views, which explains why so many of us are slow to react to a changing environment given it makes us uncomfortable.

This shows that we are creatures of habit, it does not say a thing about our freedom to choose.  In fact, since the results are still not 100 percent, it only reinforces the fact that despite our tendencies, we are still free to choose, hence not 100 percent predictable.

[Craig]

Right. Even King Solomon says, things also happen by chance. :) A person in the 80% range can change if they want to, they just don't want to, they like their emotions too much.

[Craig]

For Paul,

I am sorry if I am seemingly unmoving from my position. Though, I am telling you that my position is not without years and years of study concerning it. It even includes the knowledge that most people, 80% of the time, have weighed how they feel about the conclusion into their thought process, without knowing it. That is why it is not irrelevant when I say that people use how they feel, to determine if something is true or not.

[Sarah]

It seems to me that they claim we have "free won't", not "free will".  The difference really is semantics.  Also, to whom does our subconscious mind belong?  It may be guided by our life experiences, but it is our subconscious.  The idea that 70 percent of the time they could predict peoples responses is not that unusual considering the size of the sampling. Even a coin toss averages a 50 percent correct guess.  Is that astounding?  No.  So given a small sampling of human subjects, the researchers interactions with these subjects, and the fact that they can learn the person's choices from the earlier answers, a 70 percent predictability is not unusual.  Now give me 100 percent, and you may have something.

Good Point!

[Paul Hazelwood]

For Paul,

I am sorry if I am seemingly unmoving from my position. Though, I am telling you that my position is not without years and years of study concerning it. It even includes the knowledge that most people, 80% of the time, have weighed how they feel about the conclusion into their thought process, without knowing it. That is why it is not irrelevant when I say that people use how they feel, to determine if something is true or not.

I am sure you are very knowledgable and it may be beyond reproach.   I don't agree with you entirely but I find it difficult to explain to you where I am coming from as I view scriptural words and passages differently than you.   It may be a fallacy when your view of a word is applied to my explanation, but I do not see my explanations as a fallacy based on how I view how a word is used.

I am sure there will be another thread at another time where we may revisit this and possibly I can approach my point of view differenly with you.

[Pierac]

:hijacked: :hijacked: :hijacked:

Hey guys this topic is about the science of "Free Will"  Most of us pretty much already know where we stand on the issue. Many of us have even debated each other before. Craig and I have even gone a round or two on this issue.

My question still stands but more on a scientific or philosophical level.

OK guys, how do you generate a thought? Do you create them or do they randomly pop into your head? Like when your driving down the road thinking about work, and all of a sudden your thinking about your child hood after seeing a sign about ice cream? Where do our thoughts come from? We don't consciously generate them, so what decides what thoughts randomly come into our head?

Makes you think!   :laughing7: 

How are our thoughts generated? The studies shown in the first post have a big impact in the answer, if in fact the studies are correct. There is a lot for room for error from what I read but the results as taken, is astounding. 

Paul