Free will? Who cares?

[JEDIYoda]

This post is just too full of rubbish to even start on..

..except, it is not "by their Faith you shall know them", it is "by their Fruit you shall know them" or "Love".

Full of rubbish, now the real sandorski is coming out......
I bet you also want evidence from something to which ther eis no way to prove or disprove?

So lets say by their fruits ye shall know them.....
Still is applicable to what I was saying!!

The only issue is once again an issue that you have deep seated within yourself......

So you need proof that's ok....
Quite a few people do not need proof.

Fore by grace are ye saved through faith....

Yep there is that faith word again and there is no way to prove or disprove faith....

We just keep going back and forth...only you lost it and started calling what I say -- Rubbish....

I respect what your right to say what you say but I am not putting you down!

I believe in a God who loves me and cares about me!

The only proof that I have there is a God is by what has happened in my life.

I accept things by faith...so sorry that you believe these things are rubbish!!

 

[sandorski]

Full of rubbish, now the real sandorski is coming out......
I bet you also want evidence from something to which ther eis no way to prove or disprove?

So lets say by their fruits ye shall know them.....
Still is applicable to what I was saying!!

The only issue is once again an issue that you have deep seated within yourself......

So you need proof that's ok....
Quite a few people do not need proof.

Fore by grace are ye saved through faith....

Yep there is that faith word again and there is no way to prove or disprove faith....

We just keep going back and forth...only you lost it and started calling what I say -- Rubbish....

I respect what your right to say what you say but I am not putting you down!

I believe in a God who loves me and cares about me!

The only proof that I have there is a God is by what has happened in my life.

I accept things by faith...so sorry that you believe these things are rubbish!!

I and others don't require "Proof", we only ask for Evidence. If that can not be supplied, apparently it can't, then there's no reason to accept the claims.

I called it Rubbish because that's what it is. There is no reason to accept these claims on Faith, sorry.

What things in your life are your proof of god?

 

[PowerEngineer]

here we go again -- evidence.....evidence.....sounds all well and good but its just the worlds way of down playing anything that has to do with "religion".....

I need evidence.........I am sorry the Bible or the scriptures talk about the word 'faith" yet the world cannot explain or understand what faith is....because there is no way to prove ones faith in something.

Yes, here we go again. I think "the world" does understand that faith is by definition belief that does not rest on any logical proof or material evidence.

Much of this discussion does really hinge on just how much evidence each of us as individuals need to have in order to believe that something is true. If you are willing to believe something on faith, then you require no evidence. There are obviously many of us, however, who require some amount of evidence before committing to a particular belief; we need to be reasonably comfortable saying that we don't know when there's not enough evidence to meet our threshold for choosing a belief.

What I find fascinating and horrifying is the frequent combination of faith-based belief with absolute certainty. As I've suggested before, we should all retain some doubt about our own beliefs. While you seem frustrated that "there is no way to prove ones faith in something", I am just as frustrated that there is no way to disprove someone's absolute faith in something.

It is useless to debate ones faith with an unbeliever or with somebody who does not believe as you believe!

Perhaps you are right, but it's completely pointless to "debate" any belief with only those that share that belief.

I really am interested in your answer my earlier question:

I wonder if you are willing to accept another person's belief (such as an alien encounter) as being true on the basis of his/her claimed personal experience?

 

[OverVolt]

Yes, here we go again. I think "the world" does understand that faith is by definition belief that does not rest on any logical proof or material evidence.

Much of this discussion does really hinge on just how much evidence each of us as individuals need to have in order to believe that something is true. If you are willing to believe something on faith, then you require no evidence. There are obviously many of us, however, who require some amount of evidence before committing to a particular belief; we need to be reasonably comfortable saying that we don't know when there's not enough evidence to meet our threshold for choosing a belief.

What I find fascinating and horrifying is the frequent combination of faith-based belief with absolute certainty. As I've suggested before, we should all retain some doubt about our own beliefs. While you seem frustrated that "there is no way to prove ones faith in something", I am just as frustrated that there is no way to disprove someone's absolute faith in something.



Perhaps you are right, but it's completely pointless to "debate" any belief with only those that share that belief.

I really am interested in your answer my earlier question:

Seems derailed from the OP, but a common theme these days is a low threshold in taking anything that even has a cursory mention of being from a scientific study as 100% true.

If you do even the most simple of digging you often find articles that were actually researching something entirely different and made some off-the-cuff remark, or articles with very poor methodology. Someone was citing a 2012 article at me and its root source was actually from 2002. Basically anything flies and people don't bother to check anything assume someone else must have and jot it down in their brain as 100% fact, this breeds alot of ignorance.

There was some study by an undergrad student asserting that drivers intentionally tried to hit turtles crossing the road by his massive sample size of him sitting there watching cars. Wow what an impressive data set. The articles run on these not-quite-so news websites such at this and get picked up by places like huffpo and then get millions of views.

Eduction at its root is meant to fight ignorance but it honestly looks to me like it is facilitating it in some cases. Alot of people who demand evidence every 2 seconds because they can't be bothered to check themselves, have no knowledge of the subject themselves, do only cursory reading of articles, expect that all knowledge on the internet is searchable by google, etc. etc. etc. etc. are colossally ignorant.

Most of the data on the internet is serious garbage these days so people obsessed with going "links?" to try and win arguments are so out of the loop its not even funny.

 

[OverVolt]

http://www.ted.com/conversations/1107/there_is_no_such_thing_as_free.html

Sorted by top rated, is a decent source I guess. Far more interesting than these boards and you intellectual juveniles bickering.

Notice the lack of "source!?!?" every 2 seconds even when the author admits his recall is hazy, people generally still accept the point for discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22tier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Is a decent NYT article on the subject. I didn't check any of the research because I don't care or place much credibility in this type of shit but you guys apparently do. A couple research trends look like they indicate believing in free will makes you more accountable for your own actions.... to yourself.

Such that people who are exposed to deterministic free will arguments and then participate in a cheating-type study have the handy excuse "well I was going to do it anyway" and they supposedly found higher levels of cheating among the deterministic free-will crowd. This matches very much so with my own experience and common sense and perceptions of very deterministic free will minded people (re: dirty cheaters). I supposed I've been in more of the free will exists camp, the stronger my belief in that at any given time the more accountable I felt for the choices I made. Life is better that way, IMO. You also learn from your mistakes that way as well which judging by this thread no one has been doing for a long, long time.

 

[disappoint]

Daniel Dennett on consciousness and free will:

Enable javascript to see the video, or you can read the transcript.

http://bigthink.com/videos/daniel-dennett-explains-consciousness-and-free-will

 

[OverVolt]

If you pay close attention to your thoughts and how they arise, you will notice that this isn't the case. They arise spontaneously.
If you had free will, you would have the freedom to plan and choose, but you do not. You have no control over, or even the slightest clue about what thoughts you will have exactly 5 minutes from now. This is because there are many causes that have yet to occur which will force you to arrive at that point in time, and your thoughts will be resultant of those causes of which you do not have, and cannot have any control over.

Probably one of the coolest things to realize its 100% true.

 

[moonbogg]

Probably one of the coolest things to realize its 100% true.

A few posts ago you seem to have indicated that you believe in free will, but at the same time agree with the bolded quote in a post of mine about spontaneous though appearance. What would spontaneous thought appearance indicate regarding free will?
Also, regarding the lack of free will leading to immoral behavior. I have a desire to be a good person and to not cheat. Those desires act as a cause for certain behaviors and the result is I try to be good etc. Free will is not needed to be a good person, just as a belief in god is not needed to be moral, or to account for the existence of moral foundations.
I cannot account for where my desires to be good come from, thus I was not free to choose them, but they are there. They may have resulted from causes, such as a loving mother, good experiences as a child, biology etc etc. If I had watched my dad rape and beat my mother when I was young and if I had the brain chemistry of a psychopath, I might find myself doing lots of immoral things and doing lots of cheating. Lucky for me that wasn't the case, but some of us are a victim of our biology and of our environment. It shapes us and forms the criteria upon which we make decisions.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/08/us/nebraska-swearing-toddler/
This young man has been declared to "not have much of a chance at a good life". Why not if he has the free will to be a good person? The state took him away, hopefully for good. That action may hopefully serve as a cause for his better future self, rather than let him spiral down the path that an unlucky environment would otherwise provide (dead or jailed at an early age).

If we decide to change and be better people, then perhaps that's because we were taught to see value in change. That learned or observed value in goodness serves as a cause for a change of behavior. We learned to value morality despite our conditions and environment initially working against us. Change matters. Decisions matter, choices matter, regardless of whether or not we have control over them ultimately.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Seems derailed from the OP, but a common theme these days is a low threshold in taking anything that even has a cursory mention of being from a scientific study as 100% true.

Yes, I'm a bit off topic on a side discussion about how beliefs are chosen. I do agree with you that much of what is reported through news sources in the name of "science" needs to be taken with lot of grains of salt. (The seemingly never-ending series of contradictory studies on whether coffee is good or bad for you comes to mind as an example.)

Alot of people who demand evidence every 2 seconds because they can't be bothered to check themselves, have no knowledge of the subject themselves, do only cursory reading of articles, expect that all knowledge on the internet is searchable by google, etc. etc. etc. etc. are colossally ignorant.

Perhaps, but when I ask for evidence it's because I want to understand on what basis the other person has decided to believe that something is "true".

Most of the data on the internet is serious garbage these days so people obsessed with going "links?" to try and win arguments are so out of the loop its not even funny.

It can be helpful to provide links when referencing material that you cite in support of what you are posting. I do agree that we shouldn't be "obsessed" about links, or think that we can "win arguments" by simply posting more links. And as I posted in the creation science thread (also off topic):

I'm sure we can find internet links that support virtually every point of view on virtually every question. No one should rest comfortably in their beliefs just because they can find an internet link that supports their point of view.

As to the topic of "free will", I see this as tied up into the larger mystery of the nature of consciousness. I haven't been particularly impressed with any explanations offered for consciousness so far, so questions about it (and about "free will") get an "I don't know" answer from me. While I appreciate the deterministic (Calvinistic?) arguments about free will, I'm unconvinced.

I also understand the gist of the NYT article you linked and can accept its argument that it's better for society as a whole (i.e. more consistent with the beliefs inherent in our laws) for us to believe that individuals do have free will. However, that doesn't make that belief any more likely to be true.

 

[Savatar]

I'll just address one point in this that I find interesting:

...
I cannot account for where my desires to be good come from, thus I was not free to choose them, but they are there. They may have resulted from causes, such as a loving mother, good experiences as a child, biology etc etc. If I had watched my dad rape and beat my mother when I was young and if I had the brain chemistry of a psychopath, I might find myself doing lots of immoral things and doing lots of cheating. Lucky for me that wasn't the case, but some of us are a victim of our biology and of our environment. It shapes us and forms the criteria upon which we make decisions.
....

While circumstances beyond our control are often influencers of a person's actions, I do not personally believe this interferes with the notion of 'free will'. A person does have more control over their thoughts and feelings with practice, but in general free will does not mean you control everything that's going on. From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

Whether you are angry at someone and have a fleeting desire to hit them or not is irrelevant to free will, since free will concerns itself primarily with your ability to choose whether or not to hit the person, weighing the situation and potential consequences before you act.

If you say that any external influence violates free will, then something like watching an advertisement or peer pressure would have to take away your ability to choose. Some peoples' situations or state of mind may indeed lower an individual's culpability for some actions, but I think it's safe to say that in most cases you and I are free to choose what to do. Societal pressures around some things make this a somewhat more compelling argument, for example there are sometimes more serious consequences for whether you decide to go to work or not, but the fundamental choice is still there (no matter how much it seems required).

 

[serpretetsky]

Imagine the whole universe was like a video and you could rewind it and play it forward, just like a video tape. Lets say you rewound the universe to a decision you made yesterday. Lets say you decided to eat dinner at Joe's instead of Moe's. If you rewound the universe, and I mean everything including all of your biological processes, neurology and everything else, back to an instant before you decided to eat at Joe's, could you now decide to eat at Moe's instead? Would you? If you say you would, then that's the kind of free will I think doesn't exist.
You decided to eat where you did due to many causes, and if that scenario was replayed it would unfold the same way according to my view. Hope that helps.

What if every action in this universe is probabilistic and not deterministic. So you rewind the universe to the exact same settings as before (not even sure that is possible, but i'll run with it). However, after you press play, that Carbon-14 atom off in the the corner decayed after 1000 years instead of 1200 years. Butterfly effect from there on.


What if you believe the following: There are an uncountabley infinite amount of static universes, with every possible combination for some existance. By static, i mean a single universe only has one outcome, it is set in stone (basically each universe has fate).

Most of the universes probably don't appear to have any structure whatsoever, more like the readings of several monkies bashing a typewriter.

If you can imagine a universe it exists, but there are infinitely more universes that you can't even begin to imagine.

In such a system of infinite universes, would you say that fate exists or does not? I mean, for every "decision" you can think of, there are universes that "split" off from that singular decision to create all of the other possible decisions. "You" in each universe simulataneously takes every decision. However, at the same time, each individual universe is already completely determined and set in stone.

 

[moonbogg]

I'll just address one point in this that I find interesting:



While circumstances beyond our control are often influencers of a person's actions, I do not personally believe this interferes with the notion of 'free will'. A person does have more control over their thoughts and feelings with practice, but in general free will does not mean you control everything that's going on. From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/



Whether you are angry at someone and have a fleeting desire to hit them or not is irrelevant to free will, since free will concerns itself primarily with your ability to choose whether or not to hit the person, weighing the situation and potential consequences before you act.

If you say that any external influence violates free will, then something like watching an advertisement or peer pressure would have to take away your ability to choose. Some peoples' situations or state of mind may indeed lower an individual's culpability for some actions, but I think it's safe to say that in most cases you and I are free to choose what to do. Societal pressures around some things make this a somewhat more compelling argument, for example there are sometimes more serious consequences for whether you decide to go to work or not, but the fundamental choice is still there (no matter how much it seems required).

Again, there seems to be confusion involving decision making. We make decisions, that's not what I am contesting. I am contesting the notion that these choices are made independent of causality. If I choose to not hit someone, that choice is made based on my desires. My desire is the cause, and my desires themselves are caused by things outside of my control. I cannot choose my desires. The fact that I make a choice does not mean it is a free one.
I'll try to give a comparison to something that can't think, and see if you can spot a difference. The earth developed to be the size that it is. It could have been many sizes, but its this size. Did it choose this size, or was the current size the result of causes? The ability for us to choose many things is an illusion. Those things never happen, only one thing happens, the one thing that was caused to happen.
"Could've" is a concept and has no basis in reality. "Could've" exists only in your mind. We have never observed "could've". We always observe caused results. There is only what is, and everything that is was caused.

 

[serpretetsky]

Whether you are angry at someone and have a fleeting desire to hit them or not is irrelevant to free will, since free will concerns itself primarily with your ability to choose whether or not to hit the person, weighing the situation and potential consequences before you act.

.

But then the argument still goes further. On what basis do you weigh your decisions on? Why did you decide to hit them or why didn't you? Was your decision a strong one that you probably wouldn't change? In that case was it based on some past experience you had that caused you to make that decision? Was that decision not a very strong one, and you felt like you could have gone either way? In that case can we go to a more fundamental level? Was your decision simply the effect of chemical reactions and electrical impulses in your brain (which appear to be fairly deterministic before you get down to the quantuam level)?

 

[Savatar]

Again, there seems to be confusion involving decision making. We make decisions, that's not what I am contesting. I am contesting the notion that these choices are made independent of causality. If I choose to not hit someone, that choice is made based on my desires. My desire is the cause, and my desires themselves are caused by things outside of my control. I cannot choose my desires. The fact that I make a choice does not mean it is a free one.

That makes sense. I would absolutely agree with where you're coming from here, then! Choices aren't 'free' - they definitely have consequences, and the situations we find ourselves in are often not ones that we directly chose (or expected), although we do have some limited control over them in general (like where we choose to work or where we live, who we choose to be friends with or spend time around, even if it's not absolute control).

However, the term 'free will' only means the fundamental ability to choose, I think... regardless of the situation. By that definition, it would seem to therefore be something that can not be taken away. A person can consciously choose to never hurt someone for ethical reasons, for example. They may find themselves in a situation where it would be wise to do so (someone is threatening themselves and/or family) - but they could still refrain from doing so simply because they choose not to. They could even hurt someone by accident as a matter of some unfortunate circumstances, even if it's not what they chose to do, but I think accidents like that would be an exception (something that lowers culpability for an action) - so I see where you're coming from. I just think that, in general, people have free will by that definition - even if we cannot control everything.

 

[Savatar]

But then the argument still goes further. On what basis do you weigh your decisions on? Why did you decide to hit them or why didn't you? Was your decision a strong one that you probably wouldn't change? In that case was it based on some past experience you had that caused you to make that decision? Was that decision not a very strong one, and you felt like you could have gone either way? In that case can we go to a more fundamental level? Was your decision simply the effect of chemical reactions and electrical impulses in your brain (which appear to be fairly deterministic before you get down to the quantuam level)?

Indeed, some philosophers have stipulated that some actions are involuntary and occur before an individual makes any conscious thought or decision about what to do. That's not what free will concerns itself with (see my post above this one), we obviously don't control everything.

The idea of making a decision, regardless of what you make the decision based on, I think is the quintessential meaning of free will itself. That we as human beings are capable of choice. Certainly not every situation is something we control, but in general we can choose to do A or B when faced with a decision - and that is what is meant by free will. It definitely isn't absolute. If an accident happens or a choice has an unintended consequence... obviously we didn't choose it, then - but those are things we can look at in retrospect and figure out how to improve or help prevent, though.

 

[serpretetsky]

Indeed, some philosophers have stipulated that some actions are involuntary and occur before an individual makes any conscious thought or decision about what to do. That's not what free will concerns itself with (see my post above this one), we obviously don't control everything.

The idea of making a decision, regardless of what you make the decision based on, I think is the quintessential meaning of free will itself. That we as human beings are capable of choice. Certainly not every situation is something we control, but in general we can choose to do A or B when faced with a decision - and that is what is meant by free will. It definitely isn't absolute.

That was exactly what my argument was against. If your decisions are based on your thought, and your thought is determined by your brain, and you brain is completely based on chemical reactions and electrical impulses, then couldn't you (with super advanced technology) build a super fast computer that simulated all of those effects in your brain and predict every decision you make?

 

[Savatar]

That was exactly what my argument was against. If your decisions are based on your thought, and your thought is determined by your brain, and you brain is completely based on chemical reactions and electrical impulses, then couldn't you (with super advanced technology) build a super fast computer that simulated all of those effects in your brain and predict every decision you make?

Hmmm... It would need all the inputs from every other event that the person interacts with (which may present itself with what is known as a deadlock condition in software engineering until other agents make their decisions to begin with - since those agents interact heavily with each other and so on), so based on my current understanding... maybe. That theoretically might be possible if the necessary conditions are met and deadlocks can be avoided! That might sound scary, but just have to think whether you are still being presented with a choice. As long as you're still making your own decision, even if someone else knows what you're going to do at that point... isn't it still a decision (if only by definition)?

Choices (and free will in general) are important because it forms a basis for why people hold others accountable for their actions. If the decision was made freely, then they can be said to be accountable for those actions... if not, then how can they be accountable? Even if you can predict everything that everyone is going to do, would that mean they are not accountable for their actions? I would think that people must necessarily still be accountable for their actions, if they are their own choices.

 

[moonbogg]

That makes sense. I would absolutely agree with where you're coming from here, then! Choices aren't 'free' - they definitely have consequences, and the situations we find ourselves in are often not ones that we directly chose (or expected), although we do have some limited control over them in general (like where we choose to work or where we live, who we choose to be friends with or spend time around, even if it's not absolute control).

However, the term 'free will' only means the fundamental ability to choose, I think... regardless of the situation. By that definition, it would seem to therefore be something that can not be taken away. A person can consciously choose to never hurt someone for ethical reasons, for example. They may find themselves in a situation where it would be wise to do so (someone is threatening themselves and/or family) - but they could still refrain from doing so simply because they choose not to. They could even hurt someone by accident as a matter of some unfortunate circumstances, even if it's not what they chose to do, but I think accidents like that would be an exception (something that lowers culpability for an action) - so I see where you're coming from. I just think that, in general, people have free will by that definition - even if we cannot control everything.

Here is why this discussion can be so funny. You very well may agree with me completely, yet you aren't aware of it. Let me restructure your free will description above.

"The term, 'free causality' only means the fundamental sovereignty of a personal causal chain of events so as to be considered free or natural."

I say we could replace "free will" with "free causality". Its when the causal chain of events leading to a decision appears to be sovereign, or uninterrupted, or allowed to appear to occur naturally which makes it easy for us to take ownership or the decision.
If the causal chain is messy, or complicated, or appears to be self constraining (like when someone holds a gun to your head) then it would seem less free. But in the end its all causal.

 

[serpretetsky]

That theoretically might be possible if the necessary conditions are met and deadlocks can be avoided! That might sound scary, but just have to think whether you are still being presented with a choice. As long as you're still making your own decision, even if someone else knows what you're going to do at that point... isn't it still a decision (if only by definition)?

If the computer knows exactly what you are about to do, then how can it be a decision. The computer knew exactly what you were going to do, so therefore that is the only choice that you could have chosen, there is no decision necessary in this process. You could not have decided to do anything else. If you did decide to do something that the computer did not predict, then either the original theory that you could simulate the brain with a computer is incorrect, or you didn't design your computer correctly.

Let's assume that you are an expert engineer, and have the ability to create the computer if it is theoretically possibly.

So:
a) Either the computer can predict your actions and there is no free will
b) Such a computer is impossible to build. There may still be no free will, but this particular thought experiment doesn't prove one way or the other.

 

[moonbogg]

Hmmm... It would need all the inputs from every other event that the person interacts with (which may present itself with what is known as a deadlock condition in software engineering until other agents make their decisions to begin with - since those agents interact heavily with each other and so on), so based on my current understanding... maybe. That theoretically might be possible if the necessary conditions are met and deadlocks can be avoided! That might sound scary, but just have to think whether you are still being presented with a choice. As long as you're still making your own decision, even if someone else knows what you're going to do at that point... isn't it still a decision (if only by definition)?

Choices (and free will in general) are important because it forms a basis for why people hold others accountable for their actions. If the decision was made freely, then they can be said to be accountable for those actions... if not, then how can they be accountable? Even if you can predict everything that everyone is going to do, would that mean they are not accountable for their actions? I would think that people must necessarily still be accountable for their actions, if they are their own choices.

It would mean the following:

With regard to your talents, strengths, skills and character assets, do not be prideful, but instead be grateful.

With regard to your shortcomings, weaknesses, and character defects, do not have regret or sorrow or guilt, but instead come into acceptance and do the best with what you have because you did not orchestrate your life. Lean upon the strengths of others when you are weak.

Regarding the justice system. Do not hate those who wrong you, because they did not orchestrate their life. There is no sense to be made of retribution. Instead, take actions to prevent further harm, try to understand how to correct the problem and leave the blame and hate behind because they are not responsible for what they are, just as a lion is not to be hated for attacking you, but you do what is needed to stay safe from a lion.

 

[Savatar]

If the computer knows exactly what you are about to do, then how can it be a decision. The computer knew exactly what you were going to do, so therefore that is the only choice that you could have chosen, there is no decision necessary in this process. You could not have decided to do anything else. If you did decide to do something that the computer did not predict, then either the original theory that you could simulate the brain with a computer is incorrect, or you didn't design your computer correctly.

Let's assume that you are an expert engineer, and have the ability to create the computer if it is theoretically possibly.

So:
a) Either the computer can predict your actions and there is no free will
b) Such a computer is impossible to build. There may still be no free will, but this particular thought experiment doesn't prove one way or the other.

While I accept it might be possible to build such a system, I am not as sure that would necessarily mean we therefore don't have free will. Free will is, basically, the capability to make a decision, and just because a computer might be able to simulate [at least some of] that decision-making process doesn't mean it's not happening, right? It's a fundamental component of human nature. For example, if The Sims depicted a real-life family with accuracy, that wouldn't mean they're not making decisions, you'd just be 'watching their life.'

Perhaps more importantly, if these predictions could be made that wouldn't reduce any personal responsibility for an individual's decisions/actions and the consequences of those actions, at least in the societal system we live in now. This is because what a person does has a very real impact now, for better or for worse, for which they are accountable principally because it was their decision. In other words, such a system might be said to be similar to being able to divine the future - but even if there were a method to do so it wouldn't change the fundamental principle that a person can make decisions.

I don't want to segway too much, but on an unrelated but also interesting and loosely related note, if such a system were feasible perhaps it could be used in a Minority Report type of thing, where future crimes could be prevented by detaining the person prior to its commission (however, if prevented, I would argue they could not be culpable for the consequences of the crime since it didn't happen - if it were successfully deterred).

At any rate, we should totally try to build something like this!

 

[moonbogg]

Interesting new study. Says your brain can only sustain a limited number of close friends. How many close friends are you free to choose? It seems determined by your physical brain.

http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014...y-handle-limited-number-close-friends/356775/

 

[JEDIYoda]

lets cut through the chase.....

You have a freewill to accept or reject Jesus Christ as your "personal" savior.....

That's what you hear taught in most mainstream Protestant churches.

You are arguing that you have no free will yet if we take the 2 thieves on the cross...

Did not jesus tell one of the thieves in Luke 23:42-43 ...'And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.'

The other thief??

 

[JEDIYoda]

I wonder if you are willing to accept another person's belief (such as an alien encounter) as being true on the basis of his/her claimed personal experience?

Your belief in aliens is your belief!
You are entitled to your belief...

However -- I do not have to accept your belief! You believe as you will!!
Or as Moonbogg would say -- you believe however your set of circumstances formed influenced your belief!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes. Now, how do you know I'm telling the truth?

The same way I know you are telling lies.

And that is... ?

*crickets chirping*