Talk:Determined will

A Topic With Risk of Bias
I hope my fellow humans enjoy: basically I wanted to write a literature review for school, but then my research amazed me. I hope I don't get in trouble for copying all my writing here before I even hand it in (imagine getting in trouble for "copying wikipedia" in this case). Still, I think you'll agree, these ideas had to be shared.

When I'm not exhausted, I'm going to add another cool experiment where participants are given as much time as they want to pick their favourite of 2 pictures. After the screen goes dark, the pictures are switched, and 2/3 times people don't notice. I know, so outrageous that they re-did it a few times with various controls. If participants are asked to describe their choice, they seem to make up reasons. Maybe that's what we're always doing, eh? Making all kinds of claims about our thought processes that will never be empirically tested, so we think we know what we're talking about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.17.197 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have to be very careful here. There are parts of this article that are well-referenced and neutral, but there are sections here that border on being a WP:SYN.  While this is what you need to do for your classes, this is manifestly not what we are trying to do on wikipedia.  Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, reports.  It does not argue for or against a position.  We can report on a debate, and cite sources to the positions in a debate, but we should not advance our own opinions. Edhubbard (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I hope I've succeeded to do mostly "reporting" here. Wiki-selection will tell though. The last section called "a world view using determined will" is the most in need of editing; I don't cite any sources. Mostly it is currently a seed of the section that I hoped would grow (by process of wiki-evolution??) to discuss or link to implications of a determined will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.17.197 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, while it is mostly reporting, it is also very gently taking the reader in a certain direction. What I worry about is this: if cut the over-arching narrative, then, won't it end up fairly identical to neuroscience of free will? Vesal (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually abandoned this page and have been revising/adding to neuroscience of free will. I'm personally confused about what a "Determined Will" should discuss. Certainly much of the information it might discuss is on the determinism page I would think? Tesseract2 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, given that this article was created from the Neuroscience of free will page, when we started breaking the section out from Free will, and given that all of the information is in other articles, we could probably request that this article be deleted. Tesseract, if you ever find that you want to create a dedicated page on determined will then, you could always recreate the article, but as Vesal notes, this article is more or less redundant with other stuff now.  Indeed, the neuroscience of free will article now is substantially better than this one.  Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)