Free play in Demo mode from Aviator SPRIBE

Play Aviator online games for free in demo mode. No download or registration is required.

Return to the player Crash game not clear Payment system not clear 6, 68 guru score Commentary

Aviator is a wonderful example of a successful developer trying to do something different. If you want something different from the conventional slot game or casino game, please try Aviator.

About game provider

Spawn

Aviator review

Theme and story

As the name suggests, Aviator is a slot on the theme of aviator SPRIBE. But this game is not a normal slot machine or casino game. The purpose of this game is to cash out before flying an airplane.

Graphic, sound, animation

There is almost nothing in the design style of Aviator games. The action is played mainly on airplanes flying along the screen, and looks more like a mobile game of horizontal scrolling rather than a traditional casino or slot machine game.

Simple sound effects flow during play, but there are few overall designs and soundtracks.

Once you bet, you can always cash out whenever you want, unless you fail.

Play

Aviator is not a traditional slot or casino game. Developed by Sprive, a small company that specializes in a unique game experience. Aviator is a s o-called crash game.

The concept is simple, displaying the magnification that increases as the plane crosses the screen and progresses. Your job is to cash out before the plane flies randomly. If you succeed in cash out, you will win. If you fly, you will lose. Of course, cash out does not always stop flying, so in some cases you may need to stain that the possibility of a prize is unfolding in front of you.

Before each round starts, you need to choose whether to play the bet amount and the round. If the plane take off, you will not be able to bed. You can also run two bets in one game.

This game is built based on the proven fairs, so it is always 100 % fair and players can control it. Players can control by clicking the green mark of the control panel.

Wild, bonus, free spin

Aviator has no special features. However, this game has a social element, which also spures a unique game experience.

This allows you to chat with other players while the game is being played, and you can also see the largest winner of the previous round. This is one of the factors that adds exciting elements to the game to make Aviator an exciting game.

If you have enough patience, the payout will be very wonderful.

Bet size, RTP and distributed

Aviator slots have unlimited mult i-pliers and are part of the charm of this game. The RTP of the game is also expensive. It is 97%, and we recommend that you try it with our strategic guide.

Aviator is $ 0, 10, and the maximum bet is $ 100.

Synaptic

Aviator is a new generation of entertainment of Igaming, and you have to admit that it is a very fun game playing. The concept is simple, but incredibly effective, and there is no doubt that you can have a different experience because you can interact with players. If you are looking for a different game, Aviator may be a perfect game.

Jet Casino The Dog Welcome

The Sidstar is paying attention to the wired researcher's description, suggesting that you can see your decision before you make a decision. "In a research published in Nature Magazine's neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners can predict people's decisio n-making 7 seconds before the subject has made decisions. This warning remains the door of free will.

Related link

Is the freedom of posting an illusion?

Predict human mistakes from brain activities

If we have free will, we have electrons

This debate has been archived. New comments cannot be posted.

More online articles that brain research questions free will

Brain research asks free will

Note: The following comments belong to the poster. We are not responsible for any responsibility.

prediction. (Evaluation: 5, with good insight)

01000100010011 (652467) post: April 13, 2008 Sunday 0:52 ( #23058326)

So there is a delay in 7 seconds from thinking to action. Call me when they start to predict what the scanner says.

Re: Please predict. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

by Simon Simian (694897) Wrote: April 13, 2008 Sunday @22: 11 ( #23058482) I decided to call, but I stopped.

Re: Please predict. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

by Infonograph (566403) WROTE: April 13, 2008 @22: 18 ( #23058524)Homepage I decided to call, but I stopped. I thought that

Re: Please predict. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

by Simon Simian (694897) WROTE: April 13, 2008 @ 22:27 ( #23058600) Donkeys of shingles

Re: Please predict. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

by Infonograph (566403) Wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 12:16 ( #23059352)Homepage Donkeys of shingles Well, this is the place to associate with.

A: (Evaluation: 3, interesting)

There is definitely the Bible rule!

Really simple (evaluation: 5, interesting)

by Anonymous Coward Wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 12:07 AM ( #23059294)

It is not surprising that there is no room to express free will when modeling human behavior from the perspective of determined principles (that is, physics law and metaphysical assumptions that control it).

If your first hypothesis is not "A," the following hypothesis to confirm "A" will be considered a logical contradiction.

As long as the reductionism is the king, it should not be expected that "free will" is lurking in the phenomena that appears. No matter where it appears, it is still returned to a decisive expression, and it seems to be decisive (and it is so ultimate).

The fact that brain analysis denies free will is the same as denying that English has a tense in English. Similarly, the mystic tradition does not prove it.

The important thing is how to model it and whether the model is useful. That's it.

Re: It's really simple (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

by Colmore (56499) Wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 01:24 ( #23059800)newspaper

Please tell me the scientifically meaningful definition of "free will".

In the defined experiment, the presence or absence can be verified.

If such a definition is not found, questions about "free will" are unsemic and to be entrusted to philosophy and religion.

The mysterious association that people hold against the words related to knowledge research are a major obstacle that hinders meaningful research.

MARVIN MINKSY talks a lot about this.

Re: It's really simple (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

From FBJON (692006) Wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 03:16 ( #23060340)Homepage Magazine

I think the definition is very simple. If the universe is completely predictable, there can be no free will. If truly random events are possible, then "free will" is not necessary but possible.

Re: It's really simple (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

Posted by ProfessionalFurryele (877225) on Monday, April 14, 2008 @04:06am ( #23060556)

What if you're a dualist and believe that every "soul" had a say in the initial conditions of the universe, enough to affect the decisions they make while bound to mortality?

However, unpredictability does not mean free will. I don't believe that random events are more likely to be free will than non-random events. What free will requires is the ability to change events. If the universe always follows certain fixed laws and I have no say in them, and I can't choose the initial conditions of the universe, then I don't have free will.

Re: It's really simple (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

It's not that simple.

If events are really truly random, then they are also not subject to your "will".

"Free will" requires that events are not predetermined, and not random. That's tricky.

Re.

I think the definition is very simple. If the universe is completely predictable, there can be no free will. If truly random events are possible, then "free will" is not necessary but possible.

So define "truly random". :-) Here's my definition of free will: behavior that no one (including the agent) can predict much in advance, but that is recognizable as the result of a decision-making process (allowing the agent to learn). The first point excludes non-chaotic deterministic behavior.

Re: It's really simple (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

I've always hated when COG-SCI artists (mainly Dennett) attack free will as if it were a personal invocation. I find the argument itself pretty stupid.

If the transference of free will is not real, then it doesn't matter, and we must subjectively act as if it were. If free will is real, then we must also act as if it were real, and we must in all cases treat others as having free will (which is the basis of law, society, and most of human empathy and morality). The idea of ​​free will is hardwired into our minds and all of our actions, even if it isn't.

I think the free vs. unfree argument is the same as the "God does not exist" argument. It's a valid argument, but it doesn't have much truth to it. One thing is not to be misleading.

With our results (not new), we can argue that the act of free will occurs with a 7 second delay, or that certain latent centers are activated before the act of choosing a branch. FYI. I also think there is a big cultural component to this argument. The current trend in cultural interpretation is to remove all personal responsibility and accountability (just look at the rise of prescription psychotropic drugs and the "Twinkie" defense).

As a philosophy, it's up to religion. I don't get into any arguments.

Re.

More openly Any argument seems reasonable to me.

Both the free will argument and the argument for whether God exists seem challenging. It's not just food for amateurs, since many people have a hard time understanding their existence.

Re: Really Simple (Score:4, Insight)

Posted by Jotok (728554): Mon Apr 14 2008 @05:57am ( #23061018)

Since you seem to know what you're talking about, here are some questions.

I have a friend who is an aeronautical engineer, and he truly believes that any free will boils down to deterministic particle motion. But there are two problems with this. First, he seems to be making the philosophical error you point out: you can't find free will if you assume that free will doesn't exist (I think we're talking very simply about a "NULL BUNDOSTESS" caution here). Second, chemistry can be reduced to atomic interactions, but is it useful/meaningful to discuss chemistry in this way? Is it useful to reduce biology to Newtonian motion? By useful, do you mean "helps us understand what's going on"? What do you think?

Secondly, I've noticed more and more people attacking the concept of "free will" lately. Amanda Murcott, a feminist and Battlestar Galactica fan, has pushed the idea that free will is a useless concept, at least not useful, and probably doesn't exist. Where does this come from? Or is it something new that came about with the scientific backlash against religious conservatives? I'd love to read any books you can recommend on the history of this debate.

So let's get straight to the point. Why do people committed to science have no understanding of its philosophical underpinnings? How many researchers do I know who denounce religion as "magical thinking" when they don't really know what "empiricism" is? It pisses me off when I meet people who have PhDs, who should have been taught experimental design and contributed to the body of knowledge, but who have become pretentious engineers.

Re.

I've been having this debate with my boyfriend for a few months now. Free will is the ability to change the course of the universe even if that choice is not the result of your inputs. There is no such thing as God. Everything we know about the brain shows that it is deterministic, a result of inputs and structure. Everything we know about the universe shows that it is probabilistic, based on true randomness based on inputs. There is no room for free will. It's not.

Re: Really Simple (Score:4, Insight)

Devin Jeanpierre (1243322) wrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 @08:12am ( #23061606)

In fact, only some scientists believe it. Some people think that science is based on skepticism. Even if you find the truth, you can't know if what we know is true or something similar. For example, what if we all dream? What if something like matrix is ​​happening more? It is completely possible, completely accidental, but also part of science philosophy. What a fortunate thing that science philosophy is not science. These scientists believe that the purpose of science is to model what we observe. It may not have any clues to the truth of things, and it may actually be the true model of things. But there is no way to distinguish it.

Re.

Not so. There are many things we do not understand about being determined. At least now. Just because of the collapse of the wave function, it is not a deterministic, but please do not hurry to conclude.

Re: It's really simple (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

RPRINS (1083641) wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 03:15 am ( #230603336)

No, of course not. I don't know why this is generally known, but there are only two things like the will:

-The perfect process, action -& amp; gt; reactio n-Dominated in a completely random process, random quantum effect.

Our brain is in the middle. I don't know how to define free will, but it is unlikely that these two are different. If so ... there will be some reactions without action, but not random! It is obviously impossible.

Everyone should know that there is no free will. There is no responsibility for your actions because you have no free will. All your actions are the consequences of your past, your environment, and your gene. < SPAN> In fact, only some scientists believe in it. Some people think that science is based on skepticism. Even if you find the truth, you can't know if what we know is true or something similar. For example, what if we all dream? What if something like matrix is ​​happening more? It is completely possible, completely accidental, but also part of science philosophy. What a fortunate thing that science philosophy is not science. These scientists believe that the purpose of science is to model what we observe. It may not have any clues to the truth of things, and it may actually be the true model of things. But there is no way to distinguish it.

Re.

Not so. There are many things we do not understand about being determined. At least now. Just because of the collapse of the wave function, it is not a deterministic, but please do not hurry to conclude.

Re: It's really easy (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

RPRINS (1083641) wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 03:15 am ( #230603336)Homepage

-The perfect process, action -& amp; gt; reactio n-Dominated in a completely random process, random quantum effect.

Our brain is in the middle. I don't know how to define free will, but it is unlikely that these two are different. If so ... there will be some reactions without action, but not random! It is obviously impossible.

Everyone should know that there is no free will. There is no responsibility for your actions because you have no free will. All your actions are the consequences of your past, your environment, and your gene. In fact, only some scientists believe it. Some people think that science is based on skepticism. Even if you find the truth, you can't know if what we know is true or something similar. For example, what if we all dream? What if something like matrix is ​​happening more? It is completely possible, completely accidental, but also part of science philosophy. What a fortunate thing that science philosophy is not science. These scientists believe that the purpose of science is to model what we observe. It may not have any clues to the truth of things, and it may actually be the true model of things. But there is no way to distinguish it.newspaper

Not so. There are many things we do not understand about being determined. At least now. Just because of the collapse of the wave function, it is not a deterministic, but please do not hurry to conclude.

Re: It's really easy (evaluation: 5, it's rich in insights)

RPRINS (1083641) wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 03:15 am ( #230603336)

No, of course not. I don't know why this is generally known, but there are only two things like the will:

-The perfect process, action -& amp; gt; reactio n-Dominated by completely random processes and random quantum effects.

Our brain is in the middle. I don't know how to define free will, but it is unlikely that these two are different. If so ... there will be some reactions without action, but not random! It is obviously impossible.newspaper

People say, "If I can't control my actions, then I can't do anything because I'm not responsible." They forget that "they" are part of the action-reaction process. Your choices are yours. It simply means that you know you are making a choice. But how you make that choice is determined by a variety of factors that are beyond your control. "Should I eat this?"-for, because it looks tasty (instinct)-no, because it will make me fat (logical, cultural knowledge)-etc. Your choice process considers and weighs factors, but these weights are not controlled by anything like free will. They are random, controlled by (neurotic) logic and cultural influences.

The phrase "I Can Do Fineaty" is just a loop back to the choice process, but as you consider the consequences of this new factor, you realize that your behavior is bound by external factors.

Re: Really simple (Rating: 4, Interesting)

By Sobrique (543255) wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @05:35am ( #23060922)

Homepage

But what if the universe is deterministic and unpredictable? If the universe is completely determined by a single event, and the same starting conditions lead to the same ending, then why is it a problem if we can't predict patterns? This means that we need something more complicated to analyze the system, and it's highly likely that we wouldn't be able to model the universe accurately even if it were completely deterministic.

Re. (Rating: 5, Interesting)

By Siddster (809752) wrote: Sunday, April 13, 2008 @22:35 ( #23058648)

Our brain is in the middle. I don't know how to define free will, but it is unlikely that these two are different. If so ... there will be some reactions without action, but not random! It is obviously impossible.

Actually, delays do vary. In another experiment by Benjamin Libet (not mentioned in the article), he stimulated different areas of the human brain (he had a brain surgeon friend who worked with him during the surgery) and asked subjects to press a button when they perceived the stimulus.Homepage Magazine

Here's the interesting part: a 500 ms delay in perception is incompatible with many human activities. Take tennis for example. If there's a 500ms lag between seeing the ball being hit and realizing that it's actually hitting you, it's already flown past you (assuming a ball hit at 200km/h travels 55m/s).

Our brain is in the middle. I don't know how to define free will, but it is unlikely that these two are different. If so ... there will be some reactions without action, but not random! It is obviously impossible.

Re: Forecast. (Evaluation: 5, insight)

FROM ZAPPEPCS (820751) WROTE: April 13, 2008 Sunday @23: 07 ( #23058920)

-The perfect process, action -& amp; gt; reactio n-Dominated by completely random processes and random quantum effects.

It is a decision made by the trained thinking circuit. We use the ball to some extent where the opponent will return the ball, at least for most professional tennis players. We already predict the trajectory that the ball is likely to return, so by responding to a visual signal based on other players' body actions, you can get a fairly long time to transfer in this process. can. When another player racket hits the ball, we are already in a high possibility that the ball will come back. In professional games, you can see the players completely omitted this process and just release the ball. The exciting sports is the hig h-tension accuracy of play / move / pass / move, attracting fans. For athletes, it's as much as a trained instinct.

I wrote the code and some of them depend on the predictable process of other code. That is the mechanism of things. We all make decisions with free will using the best information we have. What was a tough decision was a trained reaction process after time and practice. It seems that some people have "talent" for things, but they usually become professionals. This happens in every field of life. The salesperson and the engineer are different, and both are different from athletes. Each has a series of decisio n-making processes sharpened by specific tasks. There is a reason why athletes generally retire and become insurance salesmen.

Free will is the ability to use available information to provide good results in any decision. This is the most basic and found in survival. Survival situation is what I want to call failure analysis. It is effective for chords and anything. Analyze in failure mode and see what happens and how each element reacts. In sports, failure mode is repeatedly used. Tennis basically progresses through the game. All mistakes fail. All failures lead to either two results, further failure or success. This is survival mode.

In this way, we must use our free will. We must use the free will to confirm that we learned and learned successfully. If you just want to surrender, that is also a free will.

I do not exchange the main bearing of the car engine. If you have to do so, you can learn how to do it, but I do not.

Re.

The time of 500 milliseconds is long, but it is a very short time. It has been scientifically proven that adrenaline rises to faster the internal clock (sense of time). In other words, 500ms under physical stress is felt in 3 to 4 seconds, giving our brain a faster time than normally recognized.

The measured value of 500 milliseconds is common in words about the safety of automobiles. There is little pressure on this 1/2 second delay. In sports, everything is under pressure. By analyzing the current events, we can respond faster than the 500 milliseconds discussion.

Re: Predicted prediction. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

Re.

Homepage calendar

Our brain is in the middle. I don't know how to define free will, but it is unlikely that these two are different. If so ... there will be some reactions without action, but not random! It is obviously impossible.

Re. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

by Casius Colodes (1084513) WROTE: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 12:05 PM ( #23059280)~Interesting experiments are introduced in Steven Pinkers' book, The Blank Slate. (Due to the abuse of epilepsy), it was intended for patients who removed the connection between the two hemispheres in the brain, and instructed one side of the brain to do something (for example, exit the room), and why in the brain on the other side. Ask if you are. The other brain does not say "I don't know", but always makes a reason. Patients can be quite hot by claiming that there was a reason. This suggests that consciousness is a speech to explain our actions and is not a source of decisio n-making.

Re.

Ultra nova (717540): April 14, 2008 (Monday) 12:14 ( #23059340)

The general theory he wrote in this book is that human consciousness is 3. 500 years ago. He suggested that before the change (not immediately, over a long period of time), humans had separate hearts, and one had one of the information types to one through hearing and visual illusions. I am.

Well, this is an absolutely impossible theory for anyone to prove. After all, it is impossible for anyone to prove that it has a subjective consciousness, not a puppet manipulated by the illusion. Again, it may be easy to refute. If it happened so recently that today's main groups of human beings have fallen all the time, many people are still in a split consciousness. So, make predictions about us and their differences and go to find them.

The general theory he wrote in this book is that human consciousness is 3. 500 years ago. He suggested that before the change (not immediately, over a long period of time), humans had separate hearts, and one had one of the information types to one through hearing and visual illusions. I am.

Re: Prediction. (Score: 5, full of insight)

A: (Evaluation: 3, interesting)

The general theory he wrote in this book is that human consciousness is 3. 500 years ago. He suggested that before the change (not immediately, over a long period of time), humans had separate hearts, and one had one of the information types to one through hearing and visual illusions. I am.

Well, this is an absolutely impossible theory for anyone to prove. After all, it is impossible for anyone to prove that it has a subjective consciousness, not a puppet manipulated by the illusion. Again, it may be easy to refute. If it happened so recently that today's main groups of human beings have fallen all the time, many people are still in a split consciousness. So, make predictions about us and their differences and go to find them.

To support his theory, he lists the initial writing of a language that has no concept of will, let alone free will. He argues that this was not just a literary device, but actually represented human thoughts at the time. Interesting experiments are introduced in Steven Pinkers' book, The Blank Slate. (Due to the abuse of epilepsy), it was intended for patients who removed the connection between the two hemispheres in the brain, and instructed one side of the brain to do something (for example, exit the room), and why in the brain on the other side. Ask if you are. The other brain does not say "I don't know", but always makes a reason. Patients can be quite hot by claiming that there was a reason. This suggests that consciousness is a speech to explain our actions and is not a source of decisio n-making.

Re: Prediction. (Score: 5, full of insight)

Ultra nova (717540): April 14, 2008 (Monday) 12:14 ( #23059340)

The general theory he wrote in this book is that human consciousness is 3. 500 years ago. He suggested that before the change (not immediately, over a long period of time), humans had separate hearts, and one had one of the information types to one through hearing and visual illusions. I am.

Well, this is an absolutely impossible theory for anyone to prove. After all, it is impossible for anyone to prove that it has a subjective consciousness, not a puppet manipulated by the illusion. Again, it may be easy to refute. If it happened so recently that today's main groups of human beings have fallen all the time, many people are still in a split consciousness. So, make predictions about us and their differences and go to find them.

To support his theory, he lists the initial writing of a language that has no concept of will, let alone free will. He argues that this was not just a literary device, but actually represented human thoughts at the time.

Of course, the characters at the time may have been mainly used for bookkeeping, and philosophy may not have developed as much as this. And as far as I know, my dog ​​has a free will. This is because many old kingdom (like ancient Egypt) had already existed long before 3000 years ago. It is unlikely that you will be able to build and maintain a larg e-scale and complex society just by following the hallucinations without conscious foresight. On the contrary, it is hard to imagine how such a double spirit developed. It's not a good idea to suddenly see a hallucinations while chasing Woolly Mammoth.

What is the answer?

It may be better to read a book, not this simple summary. As you say, this book is essentially untrained, not science. (Note that most of history and anthropology are not science as well.)

If you try to list some problems you mentioned, it will be as follows:

A group with a split heart is virtually not on the earth, but in some cases it is isolated. For example, some kind of mental divisional disease is considered very similar to the split heart. The main reason is

answer

The general theory he wrote in this book is that human consciousness is 3. 500 years ago. He suggested that before the change (not immediately, over a long period of time), humans had separate hearts, and one had one of the information types to one through hearing and visual illusions. I am.

Re. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

by gibbs-duhem (1058152) WROTE: Sunday, April 13, 2008 @ 23:48 ( #23059182) < SPAN> Of course, the characters at the time may have been mainly used for bookkeeping, It may be that philosophy has not yet developed such a problem. And as far as I know, my dog ​​has a free will. This is because many old kingdom (like ancient Egypt) had already existed long before 3000 years ago. It is unlikely that you will be able to build and maintain a larg e-scale and complex society just by following the hallucinations without conscious foresight. On the contrary, it is hard to imagine how such a double spirit developed. It's not a good idea to suddenly see a hallucinations while chasing Woolly Mammoth.

What is the answer?

It may be better to read a book, not this simple summary. As you say, this book is essentially untrained, not science. (Note that most of history and anthropology are not science as well.)

If you try to list some problems you mentioned, it will be as follows:

What is the answer?

answer

"To support his theory, he uses an example of an early language language that has no concept of will, let alone free will, is more than just a literary device, in fact. I claim that it was accurately expressing human thoughts at the time. " Because, the text we have does not say, "And Pharaoh Ramses told the Hittite, I saw, I had a march for many days while eating dry and fig." From

Re. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

Re.

What is the answer?

It may be better to read a book, not this simple summary. As you say, this book is essentially untrained, not science. (Note that most of history and anthropology are not science as well.)

What is the answer?

A group with a split heart is virtually not on the earth, but in some cases it is isolated. For example, some kind of mental divisional disease is considered very similar to the split heart. The main reason is

answer

"To support his theory, he uses an example of an early language language that has no concept of will, let alone free will, is more than just a literary device, in fact. I claim that it was accurately expressing human thoughts at the time. " Because, the text we have does not say, "And Pharaoh Ramses told the Hittite, I saw, I had a march for many days while eating dry and fig." From

Re. (Evaluation: 5, interesting)

Re.

First, congratulations to the teacher who wrote this thread. Having a 7 second lag between making a decision and realizing you've made a decision is not at all like having no free will. It's easy to imagine that a person unconsciously (or even consciously) knows what their decision will be long before they "decide". Personally, I feel that most of "deciding" is not about deciding which choice is right, but about thinking about why that choice feels right. Second, about parents. I teach karate and have observed it closely during matches. When trying to decide what to do, there is always a very slow reaction time of 100ms (depending on the individual and experience level). One of the most important elements of training is to shift your mental reaction to an automatic reaction regime. This gradually reduces your reaction time while freeing up your conscious brain power for higher levels of instruction. For example, at lower levels, your body processes blocks and hits without you even thinking about them, and at higher levels, you observe the pace of the match, observe your opponent's stance and technique, and then "launch" your reaction so that you can take advantage of that particular opening as soon as it arises again. Usually you do this by repeating the technique over and over again, but eventually it happens. This capitalization definitely happens in under 100ms (I can hit about 6 times a second, but I need to be at least 4 times faster to break the pace). To explain this (maybe), imagine an opponent throwing a quick punch. If you realize that your opponent needs a little time to recover, a good strategy is to dodge and punch before they finish. You have to start your punch within 50ms of your opponent starting to punch (gender swap for the female karatekas at my club). Of course, I may be convinced that this is an anal issue, but......

Answer: (Score: 3, Dioratics)

I see that there is a delay of 500 milliseconds before the muscles are pressed after I want to press the button (if it is a recording method of the experiment when a person feels irritating). If you are playing a game and you know that the ruin is imminent, you will want to push shields and hyper space (and may have your finger on the button all the time in the game), but press in time. It's something you can't do. I'm sorry if not.

Re.

First, congratulations to the teacher who wrote this thread. Having a 7 second lag between making a decision and realizing you've made a decision is not at all like having no free will. It's easy to imagine that a person unconsciously (or even consciously) knows what their decision will be long before they "decide". Personally, I feel that most of "deciding" is not about deciding which choice is right, but about thinking about why that choice feels right. Second, about parents. I teach karate and have observed it closely during matches. When trying to decide what to do, there is always a very slow reaction time of 100ms (depending on the individual and experience level). One of the most important elements of training is to shift your mental reaction to an automatic reaction regime. This gradually reduces your reaction time while freeing up your conscious brain power for higher levels of instruction. For example, at lower levels, your body processes blocks and hits without you even thinking about them, and at higher levels, you observe the pace of the match, observe your opponent's stance and technique, and then "launch" your reaction so that you can take advantage of that particular opening as soon as it arises again. Usually you do this by repeating the technique over and over again, but eventually it happens. This capitalization definitely happens in under 100ms (I can hit about 6 times a second, but I need to be at least 4 times faster to break the pace). To explain this (maybe), imagine an opponent throwing a quick punch. If you realize that your opponent needs a little time to recover, a good strategy is to dodge and punch before they finish. You have to start your punch within 50ms of your opponent starting to punch (gender swap for the female karatekas at my club). Of course, I may be convinced that this is an anal issue, but......

What is the answer?

It is reasonable, but there are some muscles that do not require brain intervention. For example, the heart beats on its own. There is also a local loop reflection managed by the spinal cord. When the brain notices, the feet are already kicking the doctor's crotch. Many other reflections, including breathing, are managed by the brain. Speakingly, the brain stem is usually classified as part of the brain. Many of the wel l-learned muscle adjustment work is managed by the brain.

Re.

By Anonymous Coward wrote:

When closing the car door, when you see the key in the ignition, your brain is called STOP, but your hand keeps closing the door.

Ignisecond (Ignisecond), N: The brain overlaps the moment when the hand locks the door of the car while the brain says, "The key is there!" - Rich Hall "SNIGLETS"

7 seconds (Evaluation: 2, interesting)

In a study published in the Nature Neuroscience magazine on Sunday, researchers using brain scanners were able to predict people's decisions seven seconds before the subject noticed their decisions.

All kinds of things about brain activity

A: (Evaluation: 3, interesting)

Who takes 7 seconds to decide right or left? I wish everyone took the bus. Or a shuttle bus?

Answer: 7 seconds (score: 5, funny)

If you read the first quotes more carefully, the second quote would have been more meaningful. In other words, the scanner has detected the decisions that people are doing unconsciously. In this case, the decision was trivial, and the results were not (known), so the subject was probably consciously taken without hesitation. In other words, the subjects decided which one to choose unconsciously a few seconds ago, and the scanner saw it.

Re.Homepage

7 seconds: Well, that person is enough to grab the paper. I'm on my path. 6 seconds:/Me looks at about 5 seconds at a glance: second: See at a glance 5 seconds:/me looks at the glance

Re: (Evaluation: 2, interesting)

From the writing of anonymous cowards

It is the theory that your consciousness is only rational (and not a new one) that your consciousness has already made the decision that your subconscious has already made in a no n-Western way. I imagine that conscious mind is making a decision, but in fact, it is only organized as a consistent result. Our consciousness has been shown to sort events to "process" the effects of lon g-term reactions and other processing items.

The brain does that

Re: 7 seconds (evaluation: 5, rich in insight)Homepage

Also, this is a problem of sorting of the donation method (left or right), so the accuracy of 50 % is not more than speculation.

Re: 7 seconds (evaluation: 5, insight)

by Belial6 (794905) WROTEES: April 13, 2008 Sunday @11: 06pm ( #23058918)

I thought so too. You need to read the news article. "People unconsciously think about the future" This is not a big surprise, and I don't know what it has to do with free will.

Well, you really should read "Sometimes people unconsciously see ahead".

Re: (rating: 3, interesting)newspaper

Maybe so, but it's much more likely that last-minute changes in decision are due to something much smaller and harder to detect. True free will (in the philosophical sense) must depend on something that cannot be physically manipulated (and that is not something science can prove exists). Basically, free will is a religious idea, and a threatening one at that. Science doesn't leave much of a shadow here.

Re: 7 seconds (rating: 5, insightful)

Read at node 3(115640): Mon Apr 14 2008 00:55 ( #23059966)

But who's to say that unconscious decision-making isn't an exercise of free will? The whole premise of this article is that there can't be free will in the unconscious.

If it happens unconsciously, *it* can't be free will.

*Free will* means making a conscious decision.

Re: 7 seconds (rating: 5, insightful)

You're presenting it as fact, but this assertion is really just your opinion.

Some (if not most) decisions are made unconsciously. It's only the ability to override subconscious decisions that is "free."

Again, the terms conscious/subconscious (AFAIK) come from Freud and are only models.

Re.

You're presenting it as fact, but the assertion is really just your opinion.

Close. I present it as a definition. The idea of ​​free will is that we can make informed choices.

To illustrate what I mean, imagine that our will resided entirely in our subconscious and that once we know our choice, we can't change it. In that case, we would still have a will (after all, we still choose and act on it), but it wouldn't be free because we wouldn't have the freedom to consciously control it. The concept of freedom (in this context) is meaningless if I'm not free.

Re.

I don't think of the brain that way. So your argument falls apart :) Seriously, I don't like the I/O models that most people use. They are often misleading when you confuse models with reality. Models are useful as long as you understand that we're only dealing with abstractions. My brain is not like a computer. My brain is like a brain. It's like comparing horses and cars and trying to get useful information.

Answer: 7 seconds (Rating: 5, Interesting)

I did a research study at UPMC that did tests like this. Many of them were horrible tests like this:

Re.

Now, imagine doing this for over an hour with wet electrodes attached to your head. After about 10 minutes (at most), you have no choice but to mentally walk away completely and stop paying attention to what you're doing. Maybe that's the intention. Your goal is to do as much as you can because this is ultimately a "worthwhile" study of how the brain works. Things start flashing and you don't consciously pick up on what's flashing now and spend the majority of those 15 seconds digging through your memories of those 15 seconds. Maybe you should have been there. You don't want to know the torture of being in an MRI machine for hours on end.

A: (Rating: 3, Funny)

Oh, at about the 40 minute mark, a guy in a gorilla suit walked right in front of the MRI machine and you probably didn't notice.

Seriously, I think you answered the question yourself. If you want to study the subconscious, you have to somehow remove the conscious. The best way is to tire the mind to react instead of think.

I Have Free Will (Rating: 5, Funny)

by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) wrote: Sunday, April 13, 2008 @ 21:55 ( #23058340 )

Re.

I decided not to comment on this story. My free will. Wait, so I'll comment but not leave anything other than my opinion that I have free will. Hold on. Okay. I'm just leaving statements rather than opinions. Oh, forget it. I don't have free will.

Re: I have free will (Rating: 5, Funny)

by MightyYar ( 622222 ) wrote: Sunday, April 13, 2008 @23:03 ( #23058890 ) Enough already, that logic didn't hold up in front of the judge after the girl incident.

Will or Wii (Score: 5, Funny)

by blantonl ( 784786 ) on April 13, 2008 9:55 ( #23058342 )

HomepageHomepage

My "will" is hard. My Wii challenges me every day.

It may be better to read a book, not this simple summary. As you say, this book is essentially untrained, not science. (Note that most of history and anthropology are not science as well.)

I thought it was a question about a movie about 15 years ago. [IMDB.]

Will this eliminate free will? (Evaluation: 5, insight)

by Mudetroit (855132) Wrote: April 13, 2008 @ 21:57 ( #23058354)

It may be better to read a book, not this simple summary. As you say, this book is essentially untrained, not science. (Note that most of history and anthropology are not science as well.)

Just because the person notices the decision to make a decision does not mean that the decision was free. This is the difference between creating results and creating results in terms of words that programmers can sympathize with. Both are not necessarily directly connected.

Re: How is free will be excluded? (Evaluation: 5, insight)

by Anguirel (58085) WROTE: April 13, 2008 Sunday 22:08 ( #23058458)

In programming, that's exactly the difference. However, he thinks that conscious judgment is one second before the press. After the output is generated, we think that there is an I/ O-out request before that. I think that conscious mind (OS in metaphors) has made a decision to create something specific, but its decision is made by subroutine long before the OS involved. Speaking of the flowchart

(Unconscious decision is made in the background process)-& amp; gt; Actions that match)

According to this model, the free will is "excluded" because the ultimate result is the same as the activities that occur consciously about it and the activities that occur before being able to use conscious free will. 。 In essence, free will is a kind of unconscious process.

Re: How is free will be excluded? (Evaluation: 5, insight)

answer

My subconscious is still a part of "I", and if the subconscious is exercising free will, I am exercising free will.

If my subconscious is exercising free will, I will exercise free will.

Re: How do you lose your free will? (Evaluation: 5, helpful)

by Anguirel (58085) WROTE: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 01:05 ( #23059704)

That's actually the case. [UTM. EDU] Freedom must be conscious in order to make sense in all concepts in which philosophy is interested in, and if there is an act, it must be conscious. It doesn't. If some subconscious process, your "self" (here is a sel f-conscious consciousness here), "your decision is" your decision. If so, even if you consciously think about the possibility behavior, you will not actually have a free will, as it will not affect the actions you take.

If you haven't read it yet, we recommend reading books and essays on sel f-philosophy and heart philosophy.

It may be better to read a book, not this simple summary. As you say, this book is essentially untrained, not science. (Note that most of history and anthropology are not science as well.)

by Khallow (566160) WROTE: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 02:14 ( #23060052)

This is an opinion. I see a line like that:

A: (Evaluation: 3, interesting)

Unbounding beliefs, artificial distinction between animals and people. We haven't even started discussions on free will.

Re: Is this gone? (Evaluation: 4, insight)

Re.

I am opposed to the definition of this free will.

The problem here is not the existence of "free will", the lack of definition and our perception of it. Just because there is a definition does not mean that it will be redefined or declared that it is invalid.

So the headline may be "brain research is the current definition of free will", but that is not very impressive.

It's the Mist Sabriminal Cracks (Evaluation: 2)

They do not explain Insight, the same situation as the Halging problem failed. I ask the scanner what to do. Aside from the truly interesting aspects of troll free will. For example, Insight Full thinks that you have found a way to dodge a $ 1 million flying chair without catching it, but scan the brain of a person you are not convinced. How about? Will I get caught? Insight full.Homepage

No. There is a real problem here. In our normal understanding, personal decisions are conscious, and are made at the moment the decision-maker becomes conscious of the decision. This experiment is a major proof that the conscious experience of decision-making is unprecedented. Let's do a simple thought experiment. Let's hook you up to a machine that repeats the experiment and predicts almost every choice you will make at some point. How long will it take, persona?

"Free will" is not in the Christian faith. (Rating: 5, Interesting)

by Adaptux ( 1235736 ) * wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 06:10 ( #23061086 )

The only reason people believe in free will is because many of the religions make no sense without free will.

Re.

A: "Free will" is not part of the Christian faith. (Rating: 4, Helpful)

by susano_otter ( 123650 ) wrote: Monday, April 14, 2008 @ 15:10 ( #23067890 )

Homepage

In fact, the Christian religion is much more complicated in terms of overall. An infinite justice and infinite mercy. Complete fate and complete free will. Completely obedient to the law and complete freedom from the law. And so on.

Re: (Evaluation: 2)

I think so, but I think it would be more accurate to say that we can see a part of the results before redeeming and associate it with possible value. In other words, basically, they (in a new way) are that a specific situation is creating a base to make a specific decision. This is one aspect of how the neural network works. So this idea is not so new.

Not so (evaluation: 2)

Do you wonder why this debate lasts hundreds of years? That's because this question is almost the same ratio: "Is it particles or waves?

Re: (Evaluation: Good 2)

But if you decided before you realize it, was it really your free will? Rather, it sounds like you're not running, even if you know it in your brain, even if you know it in your heart.

(Evaluation: 5, with insight) (Evaluation: 5, with insight) by Nick Guton (974753) ★ I'm writing: April 13, 2008 22:01 ( #23058398)

Not a big news. The main monotheism was watching it. If God is al l-known, God knows what I am trying to do in my life and what I am trying to do. If God knows it, I can't have a free will. (Even if God has decided to make my future invisible, if it is known, it is a pr e-determined, so God is not al l-known. If you don't want to say, there is no free will, small universe.

I believe that my success or failure is hardly controlled and basically not a very complicated system that only experiences as a phenomenon of my heart, but a product of my own decision. It's certainly not fun for the average American. We think we are controlling, but most of them are just riding. < SPAN> In fact, Christian religions are much more complicated in terms of overall. An infinite justice and infinite mercy. Complete fate and complete free will. Completely obedient to the law and complete freedom from the law. And so on.

Re: (Evaluation: 2)

I think so, but I think it would be more accurate to say that we can see a part of the results before redeeming and associate it with possible value. In other words, basically, they (in a new way) are that a specific situation is creating a base to make a specific decision. This is one aspect of how the neural network works. So this idea is not so new.

Not so (evaluation: 2)

Do you wonder why this debate lasts hundreds of years? That's because this question is almost the same ratio: "Is it particles or waves?Homepage

But if you decided before you realize it, was it really your free will? Rather, it sounds like you're not running, even if you know it in your brain, even if you know it in your heart.

(Evaluation: 5, with insight) (Evaluation: 5, with insight)

Re.

Not a big news. The main monotheism was watching it. If God is al l-known, God knows what I am trying to do in my life and what I am trying to do. If God knows it, I can't have a free will. (Even if God has decided to make my future invisible, if it is known, it is a pr e-determined, so God is not al l-known. If you don't want to say, there is no free will, small universe.

I believe that my success or failure is hardly controlled and basically not a very complicated system that only experiences as a phenomenon of my heart, but a product of my own decision. It's certainly not fun for the average American. We think we are controlling, but most of them are just riding. In fact, the Christian religion is much more complicated in terms of overall. An infinite justice and infinite mercy. Complete fate and complete free will. Completely obedient to the law and complete freedom from the law. And so on.

Re: (Evaluation: 2)newspaper

Not so (evaluation: 2)

Do you wonder why this debate lasts hundreds of years? That's because this question is almost the same ratio: "Is it particles or waves?

Re: (Evaluation: Good 2)

The general theory he wrote in this book is that human consciousness is 3. 500 years ago. He suggested that before the change (not immediately, over a long period of time), humans had separate hearts, and one had one of the information types to one through hearing and visual illusions. I am.

(Evaluation: 5, with insight) (Evaluation: 5, with insight)

Re.

Not a big news. The main monotheism was watching it. If God is al l-known, God knows what I am trying to do in my life and what I am trying to do. If God knows it, I can't have a free will. (Even if God has decided to make my future invisible, if it is known, it is a pr e-determined, so God is not al l-known. If you don't want to say, there is no free will, small universe.

I believe that my success or failure is hardly controlled and basically not a very complicated system that only experiences as a phenomenon of my heart, but a product of my own decision. It's certainly not fun for the average American. We think we are controlling, but most of them are just riding.

I've heard this story from Horatish Argeras. "I grew up in a house without an indoor water supply, and now I have a doctorate, and I chose myself in the freshly renovated house (best. I did this kind of thing, If you think you have taken this wonderful throne, you will really feel good in your daily life. After realizing that I had no free will, I accepted my life under this illusion, and made my life navigated so that I could feel the "moral decision". I think that I have a free will and make a moral choice.

My head has hurt. no. Waiting, last Tuesday, I was destined to be attacked by the headache while the electron was rotating to the left in Portugal. Let's decide to drink Eve Profen.

What is the answer?

Not much news value. The main monotheism religion is taking it on the other hand. If God is al l-known, God knows what I am trying to do and what I am doing in my life. If God knows it, I can't have a free will. (Even if you try to say that God is going to close your eyes in my future, if you know it, it is decided in advance). So there is no free will, unless God is not al l-notified.

In fact, there is a debate that there is no contradiction between the gods of al l-yo u-ca n-t h-know and free will (I think it was the one of St. Augustinus). God is just an "observer." Even if God knows the results, all the decisions we make in our lives are ours. In essence, God is just "watching the replay" of what it actually happened, so even if you know what God is, God does not know "in advance". 。Homepage Magazine

93 Escort wagon (326346) Les: Sunday, April 13, 2008 22:49 ( #23058776)

In the early 1600s, Protestant religions, especially in the UK, about the presence or absence of free will.

Why is there a free will or not, why is this fact different in Britain than other countries?

Please answer.

News Flash many people do not believe in God. That is, there is no mystery there.

different. We are neither floating nor completely unable to control. There is nothing that we (USA) just stand up, leave and start over. You just have to be prepared to suffer from the results. The lack of free will depend on the supernatural and extreme penta.

Re.

Only in quantum mechanical strange things that we may have a free will, it is not a very free will, our success or failure can hardly be controlled by ourselves, and basically. It's not a very complicated system, but for the average American who believes that it is a product of his own decision, not a very complicated system to experience as a phenomenon of his heart. I thought so.

And I knew you were going to say it.

Re.

It is only quantu m-like strange that we may have a free will, and it is not a free will.

Here are some of the thinking experiments that I experienced in the past. I want people with more mathematical tendencies to discuss whether this is appropriate. Gedel's incomplete theorem is that a sufficiently complex formal system cannot be consistent and complete. As Einstein and Newton believed, assuming a decisive world, our universe is a stable formal system, the state of the universe is a statement in the system, and the physical laws are other effective laws. It is a rule to rescue the statement.

Where did this word "the universe is a stable format system" comes from? What is the formal system, in the context of Gernel's theorem?

But what if you don't decide? (Score: 4, interesting)

by sticks_us (150624) WROTE: April 13, 2008 Sunday 22:03 ( #23058406)

HomepageHomepage

(Score: 5, insight)

From Yomology (1251490) WROTE: April 13, 2008 Sunday 22:05 ( #23058434)

Personally, I don't think this experiment calls into question "free will". Free will and conscious rationality are pretty much the same thing. When choosing between the left and right buttons, there is very little information that counts as rational or conscious. The choice is actually unconsciously determined to facilitate prediction.

Re.

Not at all. "Conscious rationality" is the deterministic (or probabilistic) process of your brain's biochemical reactions. Why would your brain be exempt from the natural laws of the universe? I myself am acutely aware of this, as I suffer from a neurological disorder that occasionally (fortunately not permanently) affects the functioning of my frontal cortex. It is my a priori opinion that even my most conscious thoughts just feel spontaneous.

Most decisions are made automatically (Rating: 4, Interesting)

3ARWAX (808691) wrote:

I am a person who strongly believes that God has given the American people service and that service is essential to progress in life. I also believe that most decisions are made automatically. Our brains work like muscles. We train it and make decisions reflexively. But we often make decisions with a higher consciousness. But no one would blame Slashdot for over-compressing the headline.

Free Will (Rating: 2)

If the universe is ordered, that is, if there is a set of physical laws governing the outcome of particle-energy interactions, then isn't free will as currently defined impossible? Perhaps our energy is chaotic in the mathematical sense, but still deterministic. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Determinism does not invalidate free will. (Rating: 5, Insightful)

by Repossed (1117929) wrote: Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 22:49 ( #23058772)

The idea that natural forces control us is absurd unless you believe in dualism.

Default +5 (Rating: 5, Interesting)

by Shaitan Apistos (1104613) writes: Sunday, April 13, 2008 22:11 ( #23058474 )

If they don't fix it as the title says, I'll accept that they had no choice.

Report by Mat rix Obliq (Rating: 2)

You don't have a spoon in your matrix. Do you think it's your free will?