The arguement for hard determinism supported by science can you refute this!?
P1: No action is free if it must occur!.
P2: Human actions result from wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc!.
P3: Human wants, wishes, desires, motivations, feelings, etc!. are caused in turn by specific antecedent conditions that ensure their occurrence!.
C: Human actions are not free!.
http://www!.pnas!.org/cgi/content/full/104!.!.!.Using a multivariate analysis approach, we determined the extent to which global and local signals could be used to decode subjects' subsequent behavioral choice, based on their brain activity on the preceding trial!. We found that subjects' decisions could be decoded to a high level of accuracy on the basis of both local and global signals even before they were required to make a choice, and even before they knew which physical action would be required!. Furthermore, the combined signals from three specific brain areas (anterior cingulate cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, and ventral striatum) were found to provide all of the information sufficient to decode subjects' decisions out of all of the regions we studied!. These findings implicate a specific network of regions in encoding information relevant to subsequent behavioral choice!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com
Well to start with, I don't think Doug's answer is a good one!. Whether or not your argument is original has no bearing on it's soundness!. Additionally, scientific merit is not based on originality, and disproving "original thought" (itself an ambiguous term that needs clarifying), if that is what you have done, is not necessarily scientifically groundless!. The fact that people react differently to different stimuli is no argument against your position, since different people have different "internal" states (wishes, history, biases, etc!.) Finally, the fact that it is not (yet!?) possible to predict how everybody will act is not an argument against determinism!. It is also impossible to predict the weather long-term, but we don't conclude from that the weather is not determined!.
Ok, with that out of the way, I think generally your argument is a good one!. A different version of this argument convinced me that free will does not actually exist!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Congratulations!. You've just disproved the existence of 'original thought'!. Which means that your 'proof' is not only -not- original, but lacks any scientific merit!.
And the reason is that no two individuals will ever react exactly the same way to any stimulus set!. Yes, you can predict with a fairly high degree fo accuracy how any -single- individual will make a choice!. But those data don't carry over to any other specific individual!.
DougWww@QuestionHome@Com
Every human has a will that is free, but as soon as this will is willed, it becomes entangled in secondary causes!. But the will itself remains necessarily free!.Www@QuestionHome@Com