If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Big Questions Online)   Neuroscience hasn't undermined free will or claimed it doesn't exist. It just explains how it all works. For example, modmins will probably greenlight this   (bigquestionsonline.com) divider line 128
    More: Interesting, Neuroscience, organic chemistry, Big Questions, supernatural powers, Roy Baumeister, Jerry Coyne, laws of nature, neural correlate  
•       •       •

2052 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Aug 2012 at 2:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-17 01:15:46 PM
I believe we have free will, to a certain extent. However, their are social impacts on it, as well as internal strictures. Ever been to a staff meeting? Or have a phobia?
 
2012-08-17 01:20:00 PM
 
2012-08-17 02:41:06 PM
Technically, free will doesn't exist, but the ability to predict someone's actions with perfect accuracy will require far more advanced technology than we have now. 2030 at the earlier end of the scale. But by that point, cognition will have been improved by more advanced neural augmentation technology, raising the bar for predicting outcomes. It remains to be seen whether one trend will inevitably outrun the other.
 
2012-08-17 02:55:38 PM
One reason it is easy to move from the assumption that neural processes cause behavior to the presumption that consciousness does nothing is that neuroscience still lacks a theory to explain how certain types of brain processes are the basis of conscious or rational mental processes.

Oh, wonderful, a god of the gaps fallacy.
 
2012-08-17 03:02:39 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Technically, free will doesn't exist, but the ability to predict someone's actions with perfect accuracy will require far more advanced technology than we have now. 2030 at the earlier end of the scale. But by that point, cognition will have been improved by more advanced neural augmentation technology, raising the bar for predicting outcomes. It remains to be seen whether one trend will inevitably outrun the other.


Point 1, how does it technically not exist? Do you mean lack of empirical data?
Point 2, no we can't predict someone's individual actions, but those of people in groups can be.
Point 3, neural augmentation? Presumably by computer augmentation, but computers are completely deterministic devices, so they would lower the bar for predicting outcomes.
 
2012-08-17 03:16:17 PM
Define "free will" in a way that lets us test for it. "Free will", so far as I can tell, is a meaningless phrase.
 
2012-08-17 03:16:46 PM

simplicimus: Point 2, no we can't predict someone's individual actions, but those of people in groups can be.


This one kind of sounds like gravity to me: we don't know how it works on very small things, but put a bunch of very small things together and all of a sudden, predicting how gravity affects the new massive object and the surrounding space-time is very easily done.

Or quantum particles: we know that we can't really tell how they get from Point A to Point B, but for a huge clump of subatomic pieces (a grain of dirt), it suddenly becomes very easy to predict its motion.
 
2012-08-17 03:23:03 PM
Free will exists. Actions are influenced by biological and chemical processes, but, ultimately, those can overridden. Self-control may be a term that in undefinable/unquantifiable in neuroscience, but people resist urges, which would be an exercise of free will.

And, as a lay man applying rational thought, the placebo effect would be another proof of free will, seeing as perception is forcing the body to do something it wouldn't have. It's not necessarily conscious free will, but it is a sign that outward stimuli that lead to a belief of some form of treatment can force the body to react as if it were treated rather than as it naturally would(and not be a survival mechanism/reaction like adrenaline).
 
2012-08-17 03:28:11 PM

t3knomanser: Define "free will" in a way that lets us test for it. "Free will", so far as I can tell, is a meaningless phrase.



I'm pretty much with you here.  Did I make the decision to type this paragraph, or was it "meant to be" in some way shape or form?
 
2012-08-17 03:32:25 PM
simplicimus:
Point 2, no we can't predict someone's individual actions, but those of people in groups can be.


Not yet. That was the point.


But from a deterministic standpoint, consider this: he brings up that the fMRI study only beat chance by 10%. Statistically significant, but not foolproof. Per Heisenberg, such prediction can approach 100% asymptotically but never reach it. So, how far from chance must the predictive routine deviate before free will (for a humain being whose brain has not been altered in some way) before it can be proven to not exist?


And regarding augmentation, yes, computers are deterministic. Assuming that all devices involved employ the most efficient algorithms possible and that P=NP Complete remains conjecture, any computer that can simulate the output of another deterministic device must be at least as computationally powerful as that device. To provide prediction, it must be faster. An endless spiral of competition will begin in a natural attempt to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between those who wish to read minds and those who wish their minds not be read.

I could go completely Kurzweil on this thread, but that would take all day.
 
2012-08-17 03:32:59 PM

bhcompy: Free will exists.


Problem solved, thread's over!
 
2012-08-17 03:34:05 PM
What I've observed is that most of the tests have been about defining free will as this specific thing (example: "Choose between an apple and chocolate cake" with the control group receiving no stimuli and the experimental groups receiving stimuli) and then hooking up an fMRI machine to someone to see what their brain activity looks like.

The problem with this methodology is that it might be measuring the mechanics of how thoughts go through the brain rather than the decision process. Drawing the conclusion that this creates the illusion of free will because these systems kick into gear before we'd expect them to seems like a simplistic interpretation.

My understanding is that the brain is made up of various systems that have evolved for different purposes. Two of those systems (the prefrontal cortex, which governs thought, and the naCC, which governs our desire) are in a constant struggle with each other, and this friction governs our ultimate actions. The naCC says "gimmee gimmee gimmee!" to everything it sees and the prefrontal cortex kicks in and offers reasons why the naCC shouldn't be listened to. So free will is really an extension of what goes on in that prefrontal cortex programming, which is shaped by our life experiences, moral values, and so forth.

Of course, I developed that understanding in part from reading Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide," so it might be complete bunk now that he's been outed as a self-plagiarist and inventor of quotes.
 
2012-08-17 03:34:06 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: But from a deterministic standpoint, consider this: he brings up that the fMRI study only beat chance by 10%. Statistically significant, but not foolproof. Per Heisenberg, such prediction can approach 100% asymptotically but never reach it. So, how far from chance must the predictive routine deviate before free will (for a humain being whose brain has not been altered in some way) before it can be proven to not exist?


Dammit.
 
2012-08-17 03:35:13 PM
Oops, I capitalized the wrong part -- it's NAcc (nucleus accumbens, the pleasure center), not naCC. My mistake.
 
2012-08-17 03:38:25 PM

downstairs: Did I make the decision to type this paragraph, or was it "meant to be" in some way shape or form?


Personally, I don't think "I" exist; there's no self that makes decisions, rendering the discussion of free will utterly irrelevant. "Self" is a perception that the human brain creates.
 
2012-08-17 03:38:32 PM

t3knomanser: Define "free will" in a way that lets us test for it. "Free will", so far as I can tell, is a meaningless phrase.


From what I gather from most people, it's somewhat SCOTUS like. They know it when they see it.

My central question used to be whether conscious thought required free will. Now I realize I have to define 'conscious thought' first.

It's all very SCOTUS-like: we know it when we see it.
 
2012-08-17 03:40:42 PM

t3knomanser: Define "free will" in a way that lets us test for it. "Free will", so far as I can tell, is a meaningless phrase.


Free will means the will is not bound or impaired by habit or attachment. It responds freely and appropirately to the relatoinships it becomes a part of. It doesn't mean indulgence or imposition, which are bound and prejudicial, respectively.
 
2012-08-17 03:41:24 PM

bhcompy: Actions are influenced by biological and chemical processes, but, ultimately, those can overridden. Self-control may be a term that in undefinable/unquantifiable in neuroscience, but people resist urges, which would be an exercise of free will.


Okay. Attempt to hold your breath, and see how long you can resist that urge.
 
2012-08-17 03:42:20 PM

secularsage: "Choose between an apple and chocolate cake" .


An Apple and Chocolate Cake sounds kinda good, though I'm not sure how you'd decide between it...

/I sound fat
 
2012-08-17 03:43:12 PM
Determinism is ego suicide. You might as well finish the job and stop wasting our time.
 
2012-08-17 03:43:47 PM

t3knomanser: downstairs: Did I make the decision to type this paragraph, or was it "meant to be" in some way shape or form?

Personally, I don't think "I" exist; there's no self that makes decisions, rendering the discussion of free will utterly irrelevant. "Self" is a perception that the human brain creates.


Far out dude, preach it brother.
 
2012-08-17 03:44:01 PM

barefoot in the head: Free will means the will is not bound or impaired by habit or attachment


Well, we know that's not true- much of human behavior is bound by habit and attachment. I wouldn't use the term "impaired", because that's a value judgement. Most of our habits are beneficial.

Also, you're presupposing will, so now I need you to define that.
 
2012-08-17 03:45:03 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: t3knomanser: Define "free will" in a way that lets us test for it. "Free will", so far as I can tell, is a meaningless phrase.

From what I gather from most people, it's somewhat SCOTUS like. They know it when they see it.

My central question used to be whether conscious thought required free will. Now I realize I have to define 'conscious thought' first.

It's all very SCOTUS-like: we know it when we see it.


I think tests have proven that conscious thought is generally just background noise in decision making, or a means to rationalize (heh) actions.
 
2012-08-17 03:48:24 PM

idsfa: Determinism is ego suicide.


Determinism is a question distinct from free will. While a deterministic universe precludes free will in most definitions, a non-deterministic universe doesn't guarantee it. The problem with determinism is one of parsimony. A deterministic universe is, by definition, not parsimonious.
 
2012-08-17 03:49:27 PM
For a modern and interesting take on free will as it relates to scientific materialistic philosophy, see Daniel Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves". It's fairly in-depth, but it manages to square a sensible definition of free will that's meaningful with strict determinism (he also notes that quantum indeterminacy is irrelevant... empirically-proven-to-be-random process are just as uncontrolable as non-random ones).

There's a little linguistic trickery going on in there (there's a lot of unpacking of what "inevitable", "could" and other such words really mean), but in the end I think he does a fairly good job.
 
2012-08-17 03:50:43 PM

simplicimus: I think tests have proven that conscious thought is generally just background noise in decision making, or a means to rationalize (heh) actions.


This is very much true. The conscious mind serves to log experiences and provide feedback into the agent-function that drives behavior. It generally doesn't get involved in decision-making until after the decision is already made. On the flip side, it's good for making quantitative decisions involving a small number of variables. If you're trying to pick out which spatula is best for your kitchen, that's a good job for your conscious mind. If you're trying to buy a house, that's a good job for your pre-conscious mind (although your conscious mind obviously needs to sanity check that!)
 
2012-08-17 03:53:59 PM

t3knomanser: barefoot in the head: Free will means the will is not bound or impaired by habit or attachment

Well, we know that's not true- much of human behavior is bound by habit and attachment.

That behaviour is not free. Most human behaviour is highly abstracted, and much is crazed outright.

I wouldn't use the term "impaired", because that's a value judgement. Most of our habits are beneficial.
Since no two moments are exactly the same, habit is the loss of beginner's mind.

Also, you're presupposing will, so now I need you to define that.
Will is the faculty that impels accurate judgment into the realm of manifest action.
 
2012-08-17 03:55:53 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: bhcompy: Actions are influenced by biological and chemical processes, but, ultimately, those can overridden. Self-control may be a term that in undefinable/unquantifiable in neuroscience, but people resist urges, which would be an exercise of free will.

Okay. Attempt to hold your breath, and see how long you can resist that urge.


Because that's not an urge. There is a specific piece of your brain that forces you to breath, with or without your conscious input. There is no part of your brain that forces you to fark hot chicks or eat chocolate.
 
2012-08-17 03:56:55 PM
I have always stuck to the notion that on a scale of infinity, chaos does not exist. Everything is linked. If I tip over this glass of water, the water will spill. Now, what led me up to tipping that glass of water is an infinite amount of previous actions that I can not comprehend.

/my 2 cents.
 
2012-08-17 03:57:21 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Technically, free will doesn't exist, but the ability to predict someone's actions with perfect accuracy will require far more advanced technology than we have now. 2030 at the earlier end of the scale. But by that point, cognition will have been improved by more advanced neural augmentation technology, raising the bar for predicting outcomes. It remains to be seen whether one trend will inevitably outrun the other.


You do realize, don't you, that you had no choice in making the above statement? The truth or falsity of your statement is irrelevant; by your own statement you HAD to make it.
 
2012-08-17 03:58:50 PM

t3knomanser: idsfa: Determinism is ego suicide.

Determinism is a question distinct from free will. While a deterministic universe precludes free will in most definitions, a non-deterministic universe doesn't guarantee it. The problem with determinism is one of parsimony. A deterministic universe is, by definition, not parsimonious.


Perhaps differentiating between Free Will vs. No Free Will and Determinism vs Indeterminism might help in discussions such as these.

Although this is fark, so let's just have at 'er and bust out the popcorn.
 
2012-08-17 04:07:43 PM
Things we know for sure:

1) The brain is a biological mechanism, subject to the same physical laws as any other biological mechanism. Like any other biological mechanism it has limitations: some people are mentally "quick" just like some people are fast runners.

2) Physical, biological structures in the brain correlate to many of the things we think of us making up the "self", including memory, and activity in the brain correlates to the things we do or think

3) Damage to the brain -- from strokes to hormonal imbalance to congenital disorders to physical injuries -- can cause changes in many of the things we think of as our "self", including memory and personality.

4) However much any of us wish to believe in "free will", we demonstrably do not, any of us, have unlimited free will. We are all limited by the physical brain. We can no more will ourselves to overcome mental tiredness or to resist temptation indefinitely or to understand quantum field theory (one or two farkers excluded) than we can will ourselves to win the New York Marathon.

From these things, and the more we understand the correlations between "thought" and brain activity, it's tempting to conclude that thought is purely physical, and that the sense of self is an accident, a story that the brain tells itself about itself. However, it remains possible that there is still a "ghost in the machine" that somehow initiates action in the brain and also somehow "reads" brain states, albeit constrained by the physics of the brain.

If free will exists, that "ghost in the machine" must, by definition, be something that falls outside the laws of physics, yet somehow is able to interact with physical systems. And to date, absolutely nobody has any coherent theory of what that even means, let alone what it would be.
 
2012-08-17 04:11:16 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Technically, free will doesn't exist, but the ability to predict someone's actions with perfect accuracy will require far more advanced technology than we have now. 2030 at the earlier end of the scale. But by that point, cognition will have been improved by more advanced neural augmentation technology, raising the bar for predicting outcomes. It remains to be seen whether one trend will inevitably outrun the other.


Free will doesn't exist, but the limitations to prove it aren't the result of a lack of technology they are the result of 1) our inability to identify the location of a qaurk/electron at its current state, and 2) our inability to predict where said quark/election/etc will be at the next point in time. In other words, it's a limitation of quantum mechanics. The best the human race knows how to do right now is predict where an electron MIGHT be at some point in time in the future. If you did this with every unit of mass in a human body, at best (even with super-super-super computers the size of the earth) the best you could do would be to say 1) Here is the highest probable location of every quark/electron etc in a human being at the given point in time, and 2) here is the highest probability of how those units will interact in the next point in time.

If we could overcome the quantum mechanics hurdle, there would be theoretically some equation that could predict me typing the paragraph starting with the state of the universe during the big bang.

Not to change the subject too much, but it is my biggest argument against athiesm. Besides the question of whether or not a God exists, why would you want to prove athiesm is true. It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock. the rock came to exist at its point in time the very same way that every action we make causes us to exist at some point in time. If a dandelion caught a strong wind and traveled from california to china, it is no more of an intentional or universally significant act than me typing this paragraph.

Fun stuff to discuss, no?!

This isn't really a philosophical discussion anymore, it's math and science.
 
2012-08-17 04:15:08 PM

barefoot in the head: Since no two moments are exactly the same, habit is the loss of beginner's mind.


Habit is a valuable abstraction. Life would be miserable if I had to think about brushing my teeth- instead I've built a habit. It's ingrained, from the cues that trigger the habit, all the way down to the motor control that executes the action. No two tooth-brushings are identical, but they're similar enough that they don't require conscious supervision.

barefoot in the head: Most human behaviour is highly abstracted


The level of abstraction does not have any relevance to the discussion. Tooth-brushing is an extremely abstract endeavor, yet it's still completely habitual.

barefoot in the head: Will is the faculty that impels accurate judgment into the realm of manifest action.


So, a falling rock has will, yes? Each moment the rock performs a million calculations to determine the details of its next action- how much farther it's going to fall.
 
2012-08-17 04:16:52 PM

plcow: 1) our inability to identify the location of a qaurk/electron at its current state, and 2) our inability to predict where said quark/election/etc will be at the next point in time. In other words, it's a limitation of quantum mechanics.


You misunderstand quantum mechanics. Quantum particles don't have a "current state" until they interact with something. It's not a problem of determining their state. They do not have a determined state- they have a state that can only be described as a function of probabilities. It's also largely irrelevant- neurons are far too large for quantum mechanics to have any meaningful input on their behavior.
 
2012-08-17 04:18:08 PM

plcow: Not to change the subject too much, but it is my biggest argument against athiesm. Besides the question of whether or not a God exists, why would you want to prove athiesm is true. It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock. the rock came to exist at its point in time the very same way that every action we make causes us to exist at some point in time. If a dandelion caught a strong wind and traveled from california to china, it is no more of an intentional or universally significant act than me typing this paragraph.



Well, all in all we want to prove everything we can so we have as close to a perfect model for how the universe (and beyond) works.
 
However, personally, when it comes to belief in God... my stance is "we're not meant to know".
 
 
 
2012-08-17 04:19:06 PM
Free will exists, but only for me.

I'd feel sorry for all you automatons, but it's not like you'd really know the difference.
 
2012-08-17 04:20:53 PM

plcow: Not to change the subject too much, but it is my biggest argument against athiesm. Besides the question of whether or not a God exists, why would you want to prove athiesm is true.


I'm sorry, but that is both dumb and cowardly. Truth is its own rationale. Ugly truths are no less true than beautiful ones.


If a dandelion caught a strong wind and traveled from california to china, it is no more of an intentional or universally significant act than me typing this paragraph.

I would argue it is more significant.
 
2012-08-17 04:22:48 PM

plcow: It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock.


To the contrary, believing that deities created us for their sport renders human life faaaaaar more meaningless than atheism. Atheism gives us the permission to create meaning. Religion gives god the power to define meaning, and humans don't get to participate.
 
2012-08-17 04:23:21 PM
I don't think humans (or any life) have what we think of as free will. As living beings we are the sum of our experience, which can be predicted if you know enough about the person.

A sci-fi book from the 80's called Nature's End has a plot device involving a powerful computer program called Delta Doctor. It was able to accumulate all of the known data about a person and not only predict their future actions, but also guess at formative events in a person's childhood. I always thought that it was a fascinating idea and the sophistication, processing, and data accumulation now common in the Internet-age - it seems all too possible.

Anyway, the idea of free-will involves accepting a lot of ideas about good and bad choices, ideas which are contrived solely from our current state of civilization. Populations are relatively easy to track and predict. The only reason that individuals are more difficult is the challenge in finding enough influencing data in a person's life. Knowing these events would like make prediction simple in the computer age. Google + Facebook could probably model the millennial generation fairly well now.
 
2012-08-17 04:25:36 PM

czetie: If free will exists, that "ghost in the machine" must, by definition, be something that falls outside the laws of physics, yet somehow is able to interact with physical systems. And to date, absolutely nobody has any coherent theory of what that even means, let alone what it would be.


It doesn't need to be a ghost in the machine. Human thought and human memory(recall and creation) are not processes that generate the same result every time, which indicates there is some randomness in those mechanisms. It could just be random firing pattern of neurons(different areas of the brains have different patterns, or lacks of patterns)
 
2012-08-17 04:28:07 PM

t3knomanser: plcow: It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock.

To the contrary, believing that deities created us for their sport renders human life faaaaaar more meaningless than atheism. Atheism gives us the permission to create meaning. Religion gives god the power to define meaning, and humans don't get to participate.


Excellent point. The point of purpose or meaning often come up when I wax philosophical with religious friends. They just don't grasp the idea that humans are capable of devising their own purpose, meaning, and morality without a deity. They don't usually care for my suggestion that religion acts as training wheels for people that aren't sophisticated enough to live moral lives and find a meaningful existence on their own.
 
2012-08-17 04:29:22 PM

madgonad: t3knomanser: plcow: It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock.

To the contrary, believing that deities created us for their sport renders human life faaaaaar more meaningless than atheism. Atheism gives us the permission to create meaning. Religion gives god the power to define meaning, and humans don't get to participate.

Excellent point. The point of purpose or meaning often come up when I wax philosophical with religious friends. They just don't grasp the idea that humans are capable of devising their own purpose, meaning, and morality without a deity. They don't usually care for my suggestion that religion acts as training wheels for people that aren't sophisticated enough to live moral lives and find a meaningful existence on their own.


Not every religious person believes that
 
2012-08-17 04:39:06 PM

simplicimus: I believe we have free will, to a certain extent. However, their are social impacts on it, as well as internal strictures. Ever been to a staff meeting? Or have a phobia?


Those social impacts are what you call "free will."

/neuroscientist
 
2012-08-17 04:44:46 PM

bhcompy: madgonad: t3knomanser: plcow: It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock.

To the contrary, believing that deities created us for their sport renders human life faaaaaar more meaningless than atheism. Atheism gives us the permission to create meaning. Religion gives god the power to define meaning, and humans don't get to participate.

Excellent point. The point of purpose or meaning often come up when I wax philosophical with religious friends. They just don't grasp the idea that humans are capable of devising their own purpose, meaning, and morality without a deity. They don't usually care for my suggestion that religion acts as training wheels for people that aren't sophisticated enough to live moral lives and find a meaningful existence on their own.

Not every religious person believes that


I've never found one. Seems to be the founding principle of religion (or at least Abrahamic religion).
 
2012-08-17 04:47:52 PM

digistil: simplicimus: I believe we have free will, to a certain extent. However, their are social impacts on it, as well as internal strictures. Ever been to a staff meeting? Or have a phobia?

Those social impacts are what you call "free will."

/neuroscientist


That's intriguing. I do not attend staff meetings because i want to, I have noticed a correlation between the number of attendees and the stupidity of the decisions made.
 
2012-08-17 04:48:08 PM

Hetfield: bhcompy: Free will exists.

Problem solved, thread's over!


I can conclude that we should behave as though free will exists using a Pascal's Wager-type argument:

If free will does not exist, then it does not matter whether we believe free will exists or not.
Life is harder to get through if you believe free will does not exist, plus it raises inconvenient philosophical questions about moral agency and stuff.
As far as I can tell, there are no upsides to believing free will does not exist (in either case).

Therefore, we should believe free will exists. If we're right, we're right. If we're wrong, nothing is affected.
 
2012-08-17 04:56:12 PM

madgonad: bhcompy: madgonad: t3knomanser: plcow: It very literally takes all meaning out of human life, and gives it the same value as a rock.

To the contrary, believing that deities created us for their sport renders human life faaaaaar more meaningless than atheism. Atheism gives us the permission to create meaning. Religion gives god the power to define meaning, and humans don't get to participate.

Excellent point. The point of purpose or meaning often come up when I wax philosophical with religious friends. They just don't grasp the idea that humans are capable of devising their own purpose, meaning, and morality without a deity. They don't usually care for my suggestion that religion acts as training wheels for people that aren't sophisticated enough to live moral lives and find a meaningful existence on their own.

Not every religious person believes that

I've never found one. Seems to be the founding principle of religion (or at least Abrahamic religion).


I would wager most deists, including Christian deists, would disagree, and probably Anglicans/Episcopals among other Protestant churches. It sounds like all of the religious people you talk to are fundamentalists.

"Life is what you make it. Always has been, always will be." - Eleanor Roosevelt, Episcopal
 
2012-08-17 05:11:30 PM

bhcompy: I would wager most deists, including Christian deists, would disagree, and probably Anglicans/Episcopals among other Protestant churches. It sounds like all of the religious people you talk to are fundamentalists.

"Life is what you make it. Always has been, always will be." - Eleanor Roosevelt, Episcopal


Actually, no. They are generally Jews, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons and Catholics. I don't know many Baptists. "Christian Deists" are really Unitarians - and I wouldn't really call them Christians since Jesus isn't totally mandatory. They also aren't fools and know what their faith is.
 
2012-08-17 05:13:23 PM

t3knomanser: barefoot in the head: Will is the faculty that impels accurate judgment into the realm of manifest action.

So, a falling rock has will, yes? Each moment the rock performs a million calculations to determine the details of its next action- how much farther it's going to fall.


That is willfully obtuse. It's not the first time either. I think you like danicing with yourself.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report