Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[scourge99]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the concept of free will or determinism indefinitely.

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

As for what evidence convinces me, consider the following snippet from a previous post:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in our brains produce consciousness. For now we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a working brain. I will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject: 

1) Increasing brain capabilities are directly linked with increasing brain complexity and brain structures. Evidence for this is available in the many animals the exist on this planet. 

2) Mental capabilities are directly linked with the state of the brain. Whether its the mentally retarded, medicine for schizophrenia, or brain damage, we see a direct link between the brain and mental abilities. Its not as though when someone gets brain damage that there mind is floating out there in a perfect state and they just can't operate their body correctly because their brain is damaged. We would expect to see mental capabilities undiminished because of brain damage if that were false. We don't. Its because your mind IS a manifestation of your brain. 

3) The universe is casually closed at the level the brain. That is, the brain/mind MUST be the result of complex interactions of matter because if it wasn't then that implies there is some new mysterious force in physics operating at the level of the brain that we haven't detected. And we have detected all the relevant forces at that level. And we know this to a very high degree of certainty. 




Lastly, what is "indefinite determinism"? Is that like" indefinite gravitation" or "indefinite evolution"? That these theories and ideas are presumed to be eternal or something?

I, myself, adhere to the philosophy of determinism. I am convinced that even though humans have the capacity to entertain other options, we are ultimately not capable of making different decisions.

Let's dissect that a bit. What does it even mean to make a different decision than the one you made? Does it imply that if circumstances were the same you could have chosen differently? What could account for that different decision? Magic? Randomness? A soul? How would those things account for a different decision exactly?

The decisions that we make are a product of who we are as people. We have absolutely no control over the circumstances or perceptions of the circumstances that have made us into the people we are. For instance, much of the way I perceive and think about the information that I take in from the world around me today can be attributed to my genetic background and my earlier experiences. I had no choice in my genetic make-up and I had no choice in the experiences that would ultimately mold my mind into what it is today. I don't get to choose who I want to be, I am stuck with who I am.

I agree in principle but we probably disagree on the details.

For example, do you think our choices are of our own making or are they independent from our mind?

As far as holding people responsible, I still find that there is no harm in pointing out when someone is a threat or danger to society and holding them accountable for that potential danger. I will use the example of a pedophile to illustrate my point. A person who is attracted to prepubescent children can not help that attraction. That person had no control over the events that took place in his or her life that would lead up to that perversion. But, this person may still be a threat to children. Some pedophiles are capable of understanding that, though they hold these attractions, acting on those attractions is immoral and so will not act on that attraction. Some pedophiles are compulsive and do not understand (or do not care) that acting on those attractions is immoral and will molest small children at some point in time. Neither of these people, in my view, have a choice in their attraction, urges, or compulsion because these traits were formed by factors outside of the control of the individual.

I do believe these people should be held accountable. But treating people like animals and throwing them in a cage with, often times, more violent creatures is not going to reduce the risk to the public when they get out of prison. At best, they have no changed at all and at worst, they are more likely to inflict pain upon others.

People may not be able to choose differently but they still are responsible for some of their actions. For example, we don't hold inanimate objects responsible for what they do. But we do hold people responsible for their actions when their intentions and motivations are wrong. Consciousness is what makes us "moral agents" .

I find the best way to address clear mental disorders is to work with people on an individual basis to curb their impulses and try to make them understand why acting on those compulsions can be harmful to others.

I don't think there is much hope for pedophiles. I'm fairly certain they know its unacceptable to act on their impulses and desires. I think the best we can hope for is that they can empathize with victims and remain aware of the consequences.

Holding people accountable for the threat they may pose to society and punishing them for desires they ultimately have very little control over are two very different things.

Having desires and acting on those desires are two very different things as well.

We should punish people who act on those desires because fear of punishment often prevents people from doing it and because punishment can correct behavior.

[arian]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the concept of free will or determinism indefinitely.

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

As for what evidence convinces me, consider the following snippet from a previous post:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in our brains produce consciousness. For now we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a working brain. I will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject:

Let's take a computer, (brain) then we plug it in (tell me how you start a brain?) and we have a working computer (brain). According to you, the computer starts programming its own consciousness/programs, by what the box/frame feels, sensations through the keyboard (remember no one is touching the keyboard here, but the 'working computer' creates these senses as if someone is typing) so the computer crates the sensation of someone typing thus creating it's own programs (free will)

Not likely. The brain needs an operator, a programmer that can monitor, and control brain storage and everything that is being sensed by the body. The brain cannot create its own operator, just like the computer cannot create its own programmer.

Having desires and acting on those desires are two very different things as well.

When the body gets hungry, it sends signals to the brain it is hungry, .. so you are saying that, then the brain creates consciousness/mind which decides what to do to get food?

I believe something must monitor the brain to decide what to do with all the sensations the body is sending it, just as a computer needs a operator to make any sense of what is going on in there. What's the use of a computer without an operator? And the computer will never create an operator, or a programmer, just as the brain could never create the mind.

We should punish people who act on those desires because fear of punishment often prevents people from doing it and because punishment can correct behavior.

The brain senses pain from the punishment, it wouldn't know why its being punished, or what to do about it. But the mind can and will. Just like if your computer acts up, you could zap, or smack the computer, it wouldn't know what to do about it, or why you are smacking it?

Our mind knows what is good and what is evil, what is bad to do and what is good to do. Now some people let the desires of the flesh (sees a good looking woman and want's to have sex with her) override the mind and he can rape the woman. Now when you punish the body, the brain senses the pain, and the mind interprets it and makes the proper adjustment to next time curb the bodies desires to preserve the body. It says: "Sure it may feel good, but it could cost my body pain and even death". So what happens next time the body sees a pretty woman? Same thing, it wants her, but our mind/spirit jumps in quicker this time and distracts the body

But you could beat the body to death, the brain would be sensing the pain, but would be unable to figure out why he is being beaten? And the desire to have sex with the pretty lady would still be present until he's dead. Just like a malfunctioning computer, you could bang it to death (guilty of doing that myself) but I tell you it will never say: "Oops, .. sorry I screwed up,! I promise I'll never do it again, I swear!"

Same like torturing a Believer to deny his God. The body is screaming in pain because that's all it knows, but the mind of the Believer allows the body to suffer refusing to deny his God, .. even to the death. If the body was creating the consciousness/mind, then you could bet it would deny his God to save itself.

Here is a perfect example of the spirit/mind and the flesh/brain:

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Now doesn't that make perfect sense?

[scourge99]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the concept of free will or determinism indefinitely.

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

As for what evidence convinces me, consider the following snippet from a previous post:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in our brains produce consciousness. For now we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a working brain. I will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject:

Let's take a computer, (brain) then we plug it in (tell me how you start a brain?) and we have a working computer (brain). According to you, the computer starts programming its own consciousness/programs, by what the box/frame feels, sensations through the keyboard (remember no one is touching the keyboard here, but the 'working computer' creates these senses as if someone is typing) so the computer crates the sensation of someone typing thus creating it's own programs (free will)

Not likely. The brain needs an operator, a programmer that can monitor, and control brain storage and everything that is being sensed by the body. The brain cannot create its own operator, just like the computer cannot create its own programmer.

Having desires and acting on those desires are two very different things as well.

When the body gets hungry, it sends signals to the brain it is hungry, .. so you are saying that, then the brain creates consciousness/mind which decides what to do to get food?

I believe something must monitor the brain to decide what to do with all the sensations the body is sending it, just as a computer needs a operator to make any sense of what is going on in there. What's the use of a computer without an operator? And the computer will never create an operator, or a programmer, just as the brain could never create the mind.

We should punish people who act on those desires because fear of punishment often prevents people from doing it and because punishment can correct behavior.

The brain senses pain from the punishment, it wouldn't know why its being punished, or what to do about it. But the mind can and will. Just like if your computer acts up, you could zap, or smack the computer, it wouldn't know what to do about it, or why you are smacking it?

Our mind knows what is good and what is evil, what is bad to do and what is good to do. Now some people let the desires of the flesh (sees a good looking woman and want's to have sex with her) override the mind and he can rape the woman. Now when you punish the body, the brain senses the pain, and the mind interprets it and makes the proper adjustment to next time curb the bodies desires to preserve the body. It says: "Sure it may feel good, but it could cost my body pain and even death". So what happens next time the body sees a pretty woman? Same thing, it wants her, but our mind/spirit jumps in quicker this time and distracts the body

But you could beat the body to death, the brain would be sensing the pain, but would be unable to figure out why he is being beaten? And the desire to have sex with the pretty lady would still be present until he's dead. Just like a malfunctioning computer, you could bang it to death (guilty of doing that myself) but I tell you it will never say: "Oops, .. sorry I screwed up,! I promise I'll never do it again, I swear!"

Same like torturing a Believer to deny his God. The body is screaming in pain because that's all it knows, but the mind of the Believer allows the body to suffer refusing to deny his God, .. even to the death. If the body was creating the consciousness/mind, then you could bet it would deny his God to save itself.

Here is a perfect example of the spirit/mind and the flesh/brain:

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Now doesn't that make perfect sense?

I've viewed quite a few posts of yours on other topics and its clear you are science denier when scientific findings conflict with your religious beliefs and presuppositions. For example, your responses to evolution and the big bang are quite telling. This topic, covering consciousness, the brain, and freewill is particularly reliant on the findings of scientific studies and research. There is no point in discussing this topic with someone who rejects science.

[Jashwell]

As I always respond to this kind of question, it depends what you mean by free will.
As you can probably see on the left, "Determinist, Believes in Free Will".

There are two main ideas of free will, which one you consider to be the meaning of free will determines whether an incompatabilist or not.

1. General dualist (inc. theist) free will;
I've never heard a good definition of this, but this is a clause the Oxford dictionary gives:
"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate"

2. Compatabilist free will;
As best expressed, ironically by Oxford dictionary under the same usage (they are clearly not the same):
"the ability to act at one's own discretion"

1 is no different from randomness. Rather annoyingly, the definition of randomness is " happening without method or conscious decision."
The latter excludes me from saying that this free will is random.
Though you should take heed that the only difference is arbitrary definitional exception.

1 does not actually appear to eliminate determinism. A deterministic Universe still has initial constraints; boundary conditions and the like. This Universe is perfectly described by U(R), a function of R (the initial conditions). Add in free will. A series of "dice rolls" (or free will choices, if you see a relevant difference) occur at points A, B and C. These rolls are 3, 4 and 2. This Universe is perfectly described by U(R, 3, 4, 2), a function of R and the free will choices that will be made (further "initial" conditions)
Choices can simply be thrown into the initial conditions and we're left with yet another deterministic Universe. (I would think this would make 1 incoherent, as 1 appears to simply be defined as "a lack of determinism/fate")

Under 2, free will is simply the act of making a specific kind of systematic choice; while I haven't got an exactly sufficient definition (it is a vague word), it is a subset of the same kind of choice that computers make. In order to preserve the usage of the word, it would exclude current computers (not because they're computers) and likely permit humans conscious decisions (not because they're humans) but not unconscious decisions.
Likely it would be something like "the act of a self-aware individual making a systematic choice within its awareness"

Once again, it is entirely definitional, and I don't see how indeterminism is coherent.

If indeterminism is true, the Universe is not described wholly by some function (or series thereof, though that could be put in the form of a single function) of some set of parameters R, as there are some occurrences X unpredictable by the function.
But now it's a function of (R, X)

[Divine Lies]

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

I have yet to find a single study that satisfied my peer review criteria for either free-will or determinism. So, until there is enough evidence for a vast amount of researchers to support the conclusion based on independent testing, I will leave this topic to philosophy.

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

As for what evidence convinces me, consider the following snippet from a previous post:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in our brains produce consciousness. For now we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a working brain. I will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject: 

1) Increasing brain capabilities are directly linked with increasing brain complexity and brain structures. Evidence for this is available in the many animals the exist on this planet. 

2) Mental capabilities are directly linked with the state of the brain. Whether its the mentally retarded, medicine for schizophrenia, or brain damage, we see a direct link between the brain and mental abilities. Its not as though when someone gets brain damage that there mind is floating out there in a perfect state and they just can't operate their body correctly because their brain is damaged. We would expect to see mental capabilities undiminished because of brain damage if that were false. We don't. Its because your mind IS a manifestation of your brain. 

3) The universe is casually closed at the level the brain. That is, the brain/mind MUST be the result of complex interactions of matter because if it wasn't then that implies there is some new mysterious force in physics operating at the level of the brain that we haven't detected. And we have detected all the relevant forces at that level. And we know this to a very high degree of certainty. 




Lastly, what is "indefinite determinism"? Is that like" indefinite gravitation" or "indefinite evolution"? That these theories and ideas are presumed to be eternal or something?

I, myself, adhere to the philosophy of determinism. I am convinced that even though humans have the capacity to entertain other options, we are ultimately not capable of making different decisions.

Let's dissect that a bit. What does it even mean to make a different decision than the one you made? Does it imply that if circumstances were the same you could have chosen differently? What could account for that different decision? Magic? Randomness? A soul? How would those things account for a different decision exactly?

The decisions that we make are a product of who we are as people. We have absolutely no control over the circumstances or perceptions of the circumstances that have made us into the people we are. For instance, much of the way I perceive and think about the information that I take in from the world around me today can be attributed to my genetic background and my earlier experiences. I had no choice in my genetic make-up and I had no choice in the experiences that would ultimately mold my mind into what it is today. I don't get to choose who I want to be, I am stuck with who I am.

I agree in principle but we probably disagree on the details.

For example, do you think our choices are of our own making or are they independent from our mind?

As far as holding people responsible, I still find that there is no harm in pointing out when someone is a threat or danger to society and holding them accountable for that potential danger. I will use the example of a pedophile to illustrate my point. A person who is attracted to prepubescent children can not help that attraction. That person had no control over the events that took place in his or her life that would lead up to that perversion. But, this person may still be a threat to children. Some pedophiles are capable of understanding that, though they hold these attractions, acting on those attractions is immoral and so will not act on that attraction. Some pedophiles are compulsive and do not understand (or do not care) that acting on those attractions is immoral and will molest small children at some point in time. Neither of these people, in my view, have a choice in their attraction, urges, or compulsion because these traits were formed by factors outside of the control of the individual.

I do believe these people should be held accountable. But treating people like animals and throwing them in a cage with, often times, more violent creatures is not going to reduce the risk to the public when they get out of prison. At best, they have no changed at all and at worst, they are more likely to inflict pain upon others.

People may not be able to choose differently but they still are responsible for some of their actions. For example, we don't hold inanimate objects responsible for what they do. But we do hold people responsible for their actions when their intentions and motivations are wrong. Consciousness is what makes us "moral agents" .

I find the best way to address clear mental disorders is to work with people on an individual basis to curb their impulses and try to make them understand why acting on those compulsions can be harmful to others.

I don't think there is much hope for pedophiles. I'm fairly certain they know its unacceptable to act on their impulses and desires. I think the best we can hope for is that they can empathize with victims and remain aware of the consequences.

Holding people accountable for the threat they may pose to society and punishing them for desires they ultimately have very little control over are two very different things.

Having desires and acting on those desires are two very different things as well.

We should punish people who act on those desires because fear of punishment often prevents people from doing it and because punishment can correct behavior.[/quote]

[Divine Lies]

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

I have yet to find a single study that satisfied my peer review criteria for either free-will or determinism. So, until there is enough evidence for a vast amount of researchers to support the conclusion based on independent testing, I will leave this topic to philosophy.

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

You begin by making an argument against free-will and then tell me that the term should not be used at all? Why would we avoid the word free-will? Because you've already formed your opinion on the topic?

I completely agree that we should clarify our definitions of words to stay on the same page and I apologize for not doing so at the begin. I tend to use Oxford English Dictionary because it provides simple, clear definitions.

Free-Will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

I also think it's important to understand the definition of the words within a definition.

Fate: The development of events beyond a person’s control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power

So I think that I am being reasonable, correct me if I am not, to say that free will can be defined as "the power, in any given situation, to acting without the constraint of necessity; having the capacity to make conscious choices that are completely independent of any external influence." I would also like to add that free-will can be defined, in a strictly religious sense, to be "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity and independent of the will of god."

As for what evidence convinces me, consider the following snippet from a previous post:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in our brains produce consciousness. For now we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a working brain. I will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject: 

1) Increasing brain capabilities are directly linked with increasing brain complexity and brain structures. Evidence for this is available in the many animals the exist on this planet. 

2) Mental capabilities are directly linked with the state of the brain. Whether its the mentally retarded, medicine for schizophrenia, or brain damage, we see a direct link between the brain and mental abilities. Its not as though when someone gets brain damage that there mind is floating out there in a perfect state and they just can't operate their body correctly because their brain is damaged. We would expect to see mental capabilities undiminished because of brain damage if that were false. We don't. Its because your mind IS a manifestation of your brain. 

3) The universe is casually closed at the level the brain. That is, the brain/mind MUST be the result of complex interactions of matter because if it wasn't then that implies there is some new mysterious force in physics operating at the level of the brain that we haven't detected. And we have detected all the relevant forces at that level. And we know this to a very high degree of certainty. 

I don't disagree that consciousness is the product of a working brain at all.

Lastly, what is "indefinite determinism"? Is that like" indefinite gravitation" or "indefinite evolution"? That these theories and ideas are presumed to be eternal or something?

I've never heard of indefinite determinism and when I did a brief search on Google I came up with no philosophy of "indefinite determinism". Even your questioning of it is faulty because you are linking it with known forces in the physical universe while this debate is strictly logical.

Let's dissect that a bit. What does it even mean to make a different decision than the one you made? Does it imply that if circumstances were the same you could have chosen differently? What could account for that different decision? Magic? Randomness? A soul? How would those things account for a different decision exactly?

You're attacking my position when we hold almost exactly the same position. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here but you're practically reinforcing my point. This point is simply this: When a person makes a decision, that decision is a product of a lifetime of external influences, from genetics to experiences, none of which the person had any control over. Even if you are deciding what kind of car to buy, your preferences are molded by a lifetime of conscious and subconscious factors that you don't even realize are influencing that decision. Because of this, we can not be making decision independently of any external influence and therefore can not logically be considered to have free will.

I agree in principle but we probably disagree on the details.

For example, do you think our choices are of our own making or are they independent from our mind?

I never said anything was independent of our mind because our mind is a product of our brain. Our brain's neurological structure physically changes based on the environment we are exposed and this change directly influences the way we think and behave.

People may not be able to choose differently but they still are responsible for some of their actions. For example, we don't hold inanimate objects responsible for what they do. But we do hold people responsible for their actions when their intentions and motivations are wrong. Consciousness is what makes us "moral agents" .

Of course we don't hold inanimate objects responsible for harm they do and it's a silly comparison. An inanimate object does not have a the ability to act or to think. Because of this, inanimate objects do not do anything. Yes, we punish intentions and motivations on the basis that the actions committed were considered detrimental to that specific society or group of people. Whether a person acts out of necessity is judged differently than those who act out of malice based on their capacity to further diminish the safety of the society or group. After all, we are programmed to preserve our species, and more specifically, our group within that species.

I don't think there is much hope for pedophiles. I'm fairly certain they know its unacceptable to act on their impulses and desires. I think the best we can hope for is that they can empathize with victims and remain aware of the consequences.

So, you're saying that you don't think trying to treat pedophiles for, in the least, compulsive disorders is an acceptable action because you "don't think there is much hope" for them? Is that your professional opinion, doctor? May I ask for your credentials?

Having desires and acting on those desires are two very different things as well.

As you seem to agree with me, the deterministic philosophy would also account for the compulsion which that person had no conscious ability to control. Do you understand what compulsion is? The irresistibleurge to act. They are not of the mental state to choose not to act, they have no choice based on their current mental state.

If the victim feels as though the person needs to be "punished" in the traditional sense then maybe that is reasonable but punishments based on emotional whim is almost always going to yield a harsher punishment than would be made without that irrational thought. What I am saying, and was pretty sure I was quite clear, is that this punishment is not going to repair the problem but may make the problem worse. It seems more reasonable to spend this time and money on making them less of a threat to society so they are not locked up for the rest of their lives over desires and impulses they had no direct conscious capacity to change. Unless of course every time a pedophile commits any act of pedophilia you suggest we incarcerate them for life or put them to death in order to completely remove the possibility of threat from our society indefinitely. Neither of which a reasonable individual would suggest because those punishments heavily outweigh any emotional damage done in a single incident.

[Divine Lies]

First, you present the question is there evidence of free will as if it was without some barrier? You know, .. like the earth without gravity?

First, I did not present the question, I answered the question with my philosophical take on the notion of free-will. So, you are disagree over literally nothing right here.

But, I will, out of respect of not disregarding your argument, respond nonetheless.

The scientific justification of free will is like the earth with its gravity. First you have to work hard to break free of Earths gravity, and the farther you go away from Earth, the less 'pull' you have of it.

There is no scientific justification for free will. As I have already explained, there have been some scientific studies focused around how our brain reacts to external commands of action and actions permitted based on the personal whim of the participant. There have been different outcomes that may indicate both free-will and determinism, but there has not been enough data collected or enough independent researchers collecting this data to reasonable accept any of these studies as reliable.

How does it make sense to compare the physical, observable, predictable effects of gravity to the almost completely scientifically untested realm of free-will vs. determinism? It doesn't. But, I'll play ball.

Well guilt has the same 'invisible effect' on our free will. First it's hard to break away from guilt, it takes a lot of energy to sin, but the more we distance away from the laws of nature, the lesser that 'pull', or the feel of guilt becomes.

I've tried and I can not logically make the comparison. Again, because you neglected what I actually said all together, you failed to realize that my argument is that free will is an illusion. That most people mistake the capacity to entertain several choices with the equal capacity to choose any option presented. Before you argue the point, please go back and read my post.

You can't see gravity just as you cannot see guilt, but 'everyone' is effected by both in the very same way I just described.

You can see the direct effect that gravity has on other objects in the universe. Guilt only has an effect on the person who is feeling the guilt and absolutely no measurable, testable, or predictable physical effect on any object beyond the brain of the person feeling the guilt. The point of an analogy is to make it easier for others to understand your position better. Your analogy seemingly had the opposite effect and I still don't really understand what argument you are making.

[Divine Lies]

[Replying to post 349 by arian]

Everything I have seen you write is absolutely off point and sometimes seemingly out of touch with reality. I won't hold the fact that you failed to recognize the difference between me and the thread starter since our names are so similar. Divine Insight uses this thread thread to ask us if we have read about any scientific research that strongly supports the notion of free-will or determinism. If there is research, show your sources and explain your position. This thread is not to discuss what sin is, how god is like a toaster, or any other absurd analogy that you want to throw out there that only makes your point more obscure. So, until you get back on topic, I regret to inform you that I can not and will not spend my time entertaining what is clearly two different arguments.

[Divine Insight]

Holding people accountable for the threat they may pose to society and punishing them for desires they ultimately have very little control over are two very different things.

I hope that helped to answer your question, at least from my perspective.

No, it doesn't really answer my question.

You are still suggesting that we should "hold people accountable" whilst simultaneously suggesting that they have no "Free will".

IMHO, if they truly have no "free will" then they aren't accountable for anything.

Does this mean that we should just let dangerous people roam the streets freely without incarcerating them to protect the innocent? No, I'm not suggesting that at all. We should definitely incarcerate dangerous people for the safety of others.

But incarcerating them to protect others is not at all the same thing as "holding them accountable" for those actions.

To "hold them accountable" implies that they had a choice in the matter.

And the idea that they had a choice in the matter implies "Free will".

But if we have no scientific reason to believe in "Free Will" then we have no scientific basis for holding anyone accountable for anything.

That does NOT mean that we can't incarcerate dangerous people to protect the safety of others.

We can also incarcerate a mad dog to protect the safety of others too. But that doesn't mean that we are "holding the dog accountable" for anything.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 355 by Divine Insight]

In a way we are, but dogs are not capable (to our knowledge) of sophisticated thought and learning. They can learn, hence the punishment.

We don't "punish people for their crimes because they deserve it" out of some unjust and misguided sense of retribution, we punish people to rehabilitate them to stop them from doing it in the future, and we have prisons to protect the safety of everyone else.

In exactly the same way that we punish a dog for barking at random people, or force a muzzle onto it to protect others from it.

Yes, they did have a choice in the matter. They (the complex combination of algorithms they are) decided to commit the crime (the act of making the choice), unless you're straining words to exclusively allow dualist free will (aka true randomness, or at least indistinguishable from it).

Just because there isn't a magical dice in their heads that lets them roll when it comes to decisions, as opposed to make complicated, algorithmic, deterministic judgements based on logical procedures does not mean that we can't meaningfully speak of their choice.

This version of free will is indistinguishable from a dice roll; "the power to change ones own fate" (or something of the like), aka indeterminisim.
What does it take to be indeterministic? True randomness, almost by definition.

You can say "why punish someone under a deterministic system when they're just in an unlucky situation", and I can say "because it changes their decision making process", but then I can ask you the same question.
Why do we punish someone under an indeterministic system when they're just in an unlucky situation?