Category Archives: Meetings

Pub Quiz – 6pm Monday 19 August @ Shadows

pub quiz


Discussion Dinner and Annual General Meeting – 2013 Semester 2

pizza Monday 29th July,   5:30pm onwards,      School of Biological Sciences Tea Room     (Thomas Building)

There will be an AGM,    then we will hang out and have snacks and discussion,   followed by pizza dinner ($5 for paid members, $7 for non-paid members). 

5:15pm – Executive Meeting

6pm – Annual General Meeting (all members)

6:30pm – Discussion Dinner and Socialising



Science: What is the difference between science and pseudo-science? Why should we be skeptical of pseudo-science? Are we just being close-minded by rejecting pseudo-science?

Religion: In principle, could we ever prove the existence of God? What kinds of things would count as evidence? What is the difference between having evidence for something’s existence, and proving something’s existence?

Ethics: Do considerations of environmental concerns, and treatment of animals suggest that we should be vegetarians? Is agriculture damaging to the environment? Is it acceptable to kill an animal, supposing it is sentient just like a human?

Politics: What are the motivations for the GCSB bill surrounding public surveillance? What will be the positive and the negative effects of such a bill?

Science: Thousands of people believe they have had experiences with aliens and UFOs. Does their testimony count as evidence? Why or why not? When should someone’s testimony count as evidence?

Philosophy: Supposing we could predict the actions of some person, but were not in anyway causing that person to act in any way, can that person still be said to have free will?

Exec+ meeting for second semester 2013

Monday 24th June, 6pm, Shadows 

We will be having a meeting primarily for exec members on Monday 24th June at 6pm at the back of Shadows on campus. While this is an exec meeting if you would like to join the exec for second semester please come along to the meeting. We would also like to have more undergraduate students (to take over in future), more womenmore event organisers, and basically anyone who isn’t just more of the same (white male postgrads). 


Social Event ~ RSS Goes for a Beer

Tuesday 7th May

5:30pm onwards

Shadows Tavern (on Campus)

 This week we’re having a social event rather than a seminar. Come for a beer at Shadows after classes. Or coke, or chips, or whatever. If you don’t drink, or don’t know anyone, please still feel welcome to come along anyway. This is a chance to meet others from the group and just socialise a bit rather than having to listen to a presentation and think of smart questions to ask!


Meetings for Semester One, 2013

Meetings for semester one 2013 will be held on Tuesdays at 5:30-7:30pm in Arts 1 – Room 315, at the city campus of the UoA.

(Occasionally there will be meetings outside of our regular times for visiting speakers, or general meetings). 

For more news, discussions, and event invites, please join our Facebook group

David Attenborough, Population and Resources

On the Tuesday 9th October we didn’t have a guest speaker planned, so we watched a David Attenborough documentary and then discussed issues of population growth and the earth’s resources.


Review of “Free Will and NeuroScience” Talk

Robert Nola on Philosophy, Free will, and Neuroscience.

Review and Questions for reflection.

Cartesian Theatre:
Am I the same thing as my brain?

Nola began by first asking “What is free to be predicated of?” Do we want out actions to be free, or our decisions, or both? We can have free actions by being able to act as we chose (Nola calls this “first level freedom”), but there is a further question as to whether we can want and desire as we choose. We may want a beer because we are an alcoholic, but we might not want to want a beer. Nola suggested that a second level of freedom – freedom of choices and desires (or what some might call “the will”) – could perhaps be attained by critical reflection on ones beliefs and desires. Of course, the obvious objection to this thought is that perhaps our beliefs and desires that lead us to question our beliefs and desires are not free either!

Nola then asks us to consider an experiment by Libet and Feinstein (1983). A subject is told to move their finger when they feel the urge to do so. They are also asked to take note of when they felt the urge. A 200 millisecond delay was found between the awareness of the urge and the movement itself, but, more interestingly, the EEG electrodes attached to the scalp of the subject registered a signal in the brain up to (approx) 500 milliseconds before the action! This signal is called the readiness potential, or “RP”. Our folk intuition is that we decide to act before our brain begins to prepare for the action, but this experiment seems to suggest that it is the other way around!

More recently, in BBC Horizon’s “The Secret You” (2009), Haynes (BCAN) took a scan of du Sautoy’s brain while he was asked to push one of two buttons as soon as he felt the urge. The neuro-imaging showed that certain regions in the brain become more active when du Sautoy will chose left, and others when he will chose right. Amazingly, this happens up to 8 seconds before du Sautoy consciously feels the urge and pushes the button!

So, if Haynes can predict the likelihood of du Sautoy pushing one button or the other, up to 8 seconds before he pushes it, is du Sautoy still performing a free action? Nola points out that he correctly predicted we’d all sit down when we came to his lecture, but we still seem to think that we freely chose to sat down. Du Sautoy asks if he is a hostage to his own brain, given that his brain decides before “he” does what action to perform (think Karl Pilkington, the onion, and the shopping list). Such a question however only makes sense if one takes a dualist position in which “you” are not the same thing as your brain.

In a similar experiment, Trevena and Miller (Otago 2009) played a tone to a subject who was to then decide to either push a button or not. They wanted to remove the “urge” feature of Libet’s experiment, and instead replace it with a command to decide. It is important to note that there is a distinction here between not deciding (as is the case before the tone is played), and deciding to not push the button. T&M found that the RP was present regardless of the subject’s decision to push or not push the button! This suggests that the rising RP does not correlate with an action. Does it perhaps instead correlate with a conscious decision? Or something as simple as the brain paying attention? It is not clear.

So does Trevena and Miller’s experiment undermine Libet’s? Are they testing the same thing but in a different way, or are they really testing something else? What is the causal relationship between the RP, the urge/decision to act, and the action itself? Does the RP cause the awareness of the decision or urge to act? Does the urge cause the action, or is it the RP that causes that action (except when it is vetoed)?

This brings us on to vetoing. In another experiment, subjects were asked to record when they felt the urge to move their finger, but to not act on that urge. It was found that there was an RP build up before the urge, but that the subject was successfully able to veto that brain command. This might suggest that while the unconscious mind “decides”, as it were, to perform the action, the conscious mind can freely(?) decide to veto the action. It has been suggested therefore that perhaps we are not free to chose to do something (our brain decides for us), but we are free to not do something once our unconscious has decided to do it – we have “free won’t”. But why should it matter that the action to be initiated by the conscious rather than the unconscious brain?

How should we define free will – do we want it to be the ability to do otherwise, that a causal chain is initiated in the conscious brain, or simply that we make a decision and can act on it? If my brain decides my actions, is that “me” deciding, or am I different from my brain? Should I mind if Nola, God, or anyone else for that matter, can predict (or even know) my future actions? Do I really want free will, or will “free won’t” suffice, and is there a difference?

By Talia

For further reading/viewing:

Trevena and Miller (2002) Cortical movement preparation before and after a conscious decision to move.

Trevena and Miller (2009) Brain preparation before a voluntary action: Evidence against unconscious movement initiation.

Psychology Today: Free Won’t: It May Be All That We Have (or Need).

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Free Will. 

Wikipedia. Neuroscience and Free Will.

Karl Pilkington, the Onion, and the problem of Free Will.

Exert from BBC Horizon’s “The Secret You” (2009).

Dr Bill Cooke on the Christ Myth Theory

Dr Bill Cooke will be speaking with us next week about the Christ myth theory- that Jesus was not a historical person, a theory not uncommon among skeptics.

Dr Cooke, an atheist and a skeptic himself, will be arguing against this theory, arguing that Jesus is a real historical figure. He has previously given a talk on Jesus from a historical perspective available here:

This event will take place at 5:00 on Tuesday, 2 October in the Arts 1 building, room 206-209.

All welcome!


UPDATE: The audio from this talk can be found here:

Michael Walker on Tuakana: History, Results, and Affirmative Action

Mike Walker will be giving a talk on the Tuakana program at the university. The program has helped to improve equity and equality at the university and yet is often accused of representing ‘reverse racism’.

In this talk, Mike Walker will explain why such claims are inaccurate and will talk about the success the program has had in creating a fairer university for students involved.

This event will take place at 7:00 in room 206-209 of the Arts 1 building on Tuesday 25th September and, as always, all are welcome.

UPDATE: This talk can be viewed here:



Justice with Michael Sandel. Arguing Affirmative Action.

Same-sex Marriage Debate – For and Against

We will be holding a group discussion on whether to legalise gay marriage. Speaking against the law change will be Zachary while supporting gay marriage will be Joshua. The discussion will be moderated by Talia.

Each side will give a 10 minute opening statement and 10 minutes of questions for the opposing side. There will then be a general group discussion or question time until 7:00.

This event will take place at 5:00 in room 206-209 of the Arts 1 building on Tuesday 18th September.

All welcome!


UPDATE: You can view the debate here: