More evidence for it than free will

example?

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

That

Also the law of cause and effect

fMRIS show the impulses in our brains a full ten seconds before we are aware if having made a choice.

Every decision you make must be an effect of something else. It cannot be spontaneously generated. So it’d be foolhardy to assume that our decisions are anything other than a culmination of variables filtering through our brains

Exactly, @delta, thank you

I hate that btw

That exact argument I made sucks

It@logically sound

It just sucks

“We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,”

"Although subjects are free to choose when and which button to press, the experimental set-up restricts them to only these actions and nothing more"

I dont think there's any strong evidence to support either biological determinism or free will. and then again you have to contend with the definition of free will.

we just dont have a profound understanding of brain function to make a valid assumption even.

That's the thing that I have a problem with. It appears this study simply shows us that we still have a lot to learn about the brain and it's decision making mechanism

The working definition I have of free will is that the entity that is my self is able to be a cause without being restrained by effects

I think when people define free will sometimes they paint this picture of not being constrained by any limitations and not being influenced by anything, but I think that definition would make you a god if it were true.

Of course that kind of free will doesn’t exist

Influenced and determined are different

Obviously we’re influenced

But I think you could make a logical argument for completely dominated as well.

you could, but it doesnt mean it has to be rooted in reality.

So would impulse buying be an example of biological determinism?

no, its based in psychology. which marketing and advertisement exploits.

So here is a situation. I'm at store and I see a candy bar that I like. My impulse is immediately to buy it. I pick it up and then immediately decide I shouldn't and I drop it. Two decisions made about 1 second apart from each other.

How would one explain this relative to the study. Because this does happen

well the two decisions were based on two different lines of thinking. both of them have been considered by your mind at many points in the past. it would depend on which world view you subscribe to, for example "im going to treat myself yolo" or "too much sugar, i shouldnt."

I do understand that its not really speaking relative to the study structure. but in essence there's a lot more complexity that the decision is ultimately built upon.

there's no consideration to the effect of the subconscious on decisions you make and free will. No consideration to basal levels of brain activity, or basal levels of neurotransmitters, or possible gateway effects for amplification or neuronal signaling.

of*

So there is still a lot more research(if even currently possible) before we can truly determine if we can freely choose?

theres a lot more research needed to answer a lot simpler questions, before we ever have what it takes to tackle free will

So would you agree that siting this in an argument against a God given free will is actually futile because of its theoretical nature?

well, I wouldn't say its futile, but I don't think it will lead to a distinct result, it will have the benefit of it being an argumentative exercise i suppose

I just think that to lean on the side of biological determinism is to absolve yourself of the responsibility of making a choice. philosophically speaking I dont think its beneficial

What do you think of the Pangburn pleasure drive hypothesis?

I haven't looked into it or read

is there a link?

No but I'm sure if you ask Travis he'll gladly spell it out. I think he hypothesizes that the choice that you make will ultimately be the one that results in the most pleasure.

hmm, i wouldnt like to say what i think unless i know more about what he hypothesizes