Normal

Ok.

Could you give me a source, either on or offline, that says where neurology has claimed free will exists and then explains how it works? And could you then send that source to Wolfram?

I don't ignore that possibility because it must be metaphysical. I ignore that possibility because it is not true, has not been confirmed, and people are pulling that conclusion out of the air.

My definition of the soul is different from those other abstract concepts in that it is constantly in action.

And if you're asking me how a soul can go to heaven, I'm flattered that you think I have the qualifications to answer that.

Normal

The only logic that's gone to hell is the people who bring over neurology arguments to try to explain free will.

Wounded King

Perhaps you should start a thread on the topic of free will Normal. Your definition of the soul seems distinctly unorthodox and you seem to have changed the subject of the thread to evidence both of the existence of free will and of the lack of a naturalistic explanation of free will. Do you have any compelling evidence of the existence of free will, there is some research done on the illusion of free will which is quite interesting.

There are a lot of possible definitions of the soul which may correspond to things know to exist empirically, if we allow all definitions of soul equal standing we are going to be swamped pretty quickly.

Obviously if your definition is not falsifiable then it cannot be falsified, that does not mean that there arent other people who have definitions for, or ascribe properties to, the soul that can be falsified.

I took the purpose of the original post to be trying to reach some consensus of opinion on a reasonable definition of what the soul was, as far as that goes the thread has been a bit of a dead loss.

Normal

Of course my definition could be falsified. If you can show there is no free will, obviously there is no "operator" of free will, and my definition of the soul obviously does not exist.

And there's interesting research on the possibility of illusionary free will (ala Wolfram, who I've brought up a few times), but that's all it is, interesting research on a possibility.

And I never changed the subject of the thread. Someone wanted a definition of a soul and I gave it to him. Just because it's heavily related to free will and you can't prove it wrong does not mean the definition is unreasonable.

Cojana

I had the distinctive ability to see my Soul, and all it are, are another entity exactly like one's self, a Soul are a duplication, it are two into 'one', it functions with one mind, it are awesome to see the beauty in one's self

Wounded King

Dear Normal,

Could you give me some reference on this research by Wolfram?

thanks.

Goober

WTF is free will then, normal? Do you have any idea?

I already said it is the ability to freely make our own decisions based on the circumstances we find ourselves in. Since you have not provided your own definition, it is the one I will use. If you have another one, provide it.

The brain takes in information and makes decisions based on that information. It is free to make any decisions it wants to based on the information it has. Sounds like free fucking will to me!!!

Your post adressing my points is totally useless. You did not provide any reasons saying why the 'operator of free will' must be metaphysical, you just said 'because it is'. I want REASONS why it is. You mention Wolfram completely offhand without any explanation. If you want to quote some research, do so. Just dropping names is really an argument from authority. And as to a source that says free will exists, I JUST SAID IT, according to my definition, and showed there was nothing metaphysical about it. Did you read the post or just quote it? Perhaps you could try a second time and ACTUALLY adress the points I raised.

Lastly, how can an abstract concept be in action???

Normal

I'll define free will to be the presence of choice, and the power to choose.

I'd prefer my defintion of free will, as it makes more sense with my definition of soul.

Sounds like it, although no neurologist in their right mind would contest the assured presence of free will. Are you a neurologist?

Your points were that the brain contains free will (this is unproven). Maybe YOU should provide some sources that say neurolgists have proven without a doubt that humans have "free will", and I'll accept it.

Wolfram's book can be purchased from amazon, it's called "A New Kind of Science".

When you are in love, isn't that an abstract concept in action? Logic is "in action" during the process of logic.

Normal

Wolfram's book can be purchased from amazon, it's called "A New Kind of Science".

Wounded King

I rather feared it might be Stephen Wolfram you were referring to. If a book about cellular automata constitutes the most effective research into the neural aspects of free will in your opinion then I might as well give up.

I had hoped against hope that this might just be an error in spelling as I couldnt get any results from a literature search on Wolframs in the field of cognitive science. Presumably you also feel that Wolfram has done interesting research in the fields of Fundamental physics and developmental biology.

Many people, myself included, consider what gets into peer reviewed journals as research rather than the contents of an effectively self published book about mathematical modelling, however novel. Have you actually read any peer reviewed neural research on the topic of free will?