/sci/ - Science & Math

higher a2 receptor density in ass/thighs signals for more efficient adipose storage which is a cue for healthy mothering

debunked?
dualism? ya
qualia? no

>>6238123
you are stupid

>>6238119
strawman

>>6238108
mothergoose you are stupid go back to fit
its called metaphysics for a reason

the moronic philosopher shouldve read wittgenstein instead of st augustine

If by "free will" you mean the denotative definitional concept which is "uncaused cause", then no, our causes for choices and actions are predetermined.
For something to be true or false, it must have an opposite. If you take the hypothetical of definitional free will such as in the 'agent causation model' which means that choices are indeterminate, it gives the agent alternate possibilities which is commonsensically viewed as freedom, but it only makes choices/actions random.
If you're not 'free' when your actions or caused because you dont have alternate possibilities, nor when they're uncaused, it's clear the the concept of 'free will' is metaphysically incoherent.
This does not mean we do not have any freedom which is required for moral responsibility.
Take for instance the 'frankfurt cases' where an agent is viewed to still be morally responsible without having alternate possibilities. Jones wants to shoot somebody, and you also want Jones to shoot the somebody - but Jones doesn't know you want this. Your plan is to allow Jones to act according to his own will without you coercing him or even knowing you exist. It's not confirmed whether Jones will shoot or not until the last moment, but if he withdraws the decision you will coerce him. It turns out that Jones shoots according to his own volition without being uncumbered by you. In this situation he acted freely even though he couldn't have done otherwise - you would have shot him.
It is therefore clear that the sort of freedom required for moral responsibility is an action in accordance with the will. If you blow air in my eye and I wink, that's not a free action, I didn't will it. If I will it and blink, it's free.

If by "free will" you mean the denotative definitional concept which is "uncaused cause", then no, our causes for choices and actions are predetermined.
For something to be true or false, it must have an opposite. If you take the hypothetical of definitional free will such as in the 'agent causation model' which means that choices are indeterminate, it gives the agent alternate possibilities which is commonsensically viewed as freedom, but it only makes choices/actions random.
If you're not 'free' when your actions or caused because you dont have alternate possibilities, nor when they're uncaused, it's clear the the concept of 'free will' is metaphysically incoherent.
This does not mean we do not have any freedom which is required for moral responsibility.
Take for instance the 'frankfurt cases' where an agent is viewed to still be morally responsible without having alternate possibilities. Jones wants to shoot somebody, and you also want Jones to shoot the somebody - but Jones doesn't know you want this. Your plan is to allow Jones to act according to his own will without you coercing him or even knowing you exist. It's not confirmed whether Jones will shoot or not until the last moment, but if he withdraws the decision you will coerce him. It turns out that Jones shoots according to his own volition without being uncumbered by you. In this situation he acted freely even though he couldn't have done otherwise - you would have shot him.
It is therefore clear that the sort of freedom required for moral responsibility is an action in accordance with the will. If you blow air in my eye and I wink, that's not a free action, I didn't will it. If I will it and blink, it's free.

I can barely make out what you're saying but I think you're talking about Libet's experiments.

Which indicator do you think could be made from bones that they were fat?

>>5495884
>1. Why does it take so long for the CNS to recover? My muscles weren't tired but I just couldn't get the bar to move
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9000155 ?

>2. Why is it ok to squat 2-3 times per week, when that uses most of the same muscle groups?
generally because one deadlifts a lot more than they squat due to the short rom

http://athleticperformancerevolution.com/2010/10/18/a-brief-review-of-the-possible-mechanisms-in-central-nervous-system-fatigue-during-exercise/

Depends on the question.
Ask away

Nothing is what you said, a concept, not an object in the material universe. Nothing is the absence of something.

desire for reproduction is a biological trick to keep our species perpetuating

>>5339257
hahhaahahahaha

>>5339296
hahhahahahahaha

I know who the grand magician is who makes the grass green

makes shitting feel good

>>5298826
sorry. misread OP
thought it said side effects of long term steroid use

>asking sci
such a study would never be conducted because it is considered unethical
although there have been 12 week ones etc
read the bhasin studies and llewyns anabolic

>>5284486
Actually, fiber isn't an essential nutrient contrary to popular belief
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures-broom.html
Although it has benefits and doesn't hurt.

>>5284414
and neuroplasticity

no. epigenetics.

didn't read the thread but ketosis puts undue stress on the body in long periods, rather than using glucose which is easily used by the brain for fuel