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?

[instantc]

I think that we almost certainly have free will, and the concept of determinism isn't at odds with the idea.

Lets look at a simple choice where 'free will' may or may not play a role. Suppose I'm choosing which ice cream I want to buy today. Now, the outcome of the consideration is largerly predetermined by my taste for chocolate flavor, which is essentially a quality of the brain.

The brain or the consciousness is the one making the choice and also the one restraining it. Therefore if choices are predetermined by our qualities, my will is free from everything else but myself, in which case I think I can safely say I have free will.

If you think about the self as some mystical external observer, only then can you say that the brain is restraining the self in its choices. But, if the brain is the self, then it has completely free will.

[keithprosser3]

my taste for chocolate flavor, which is essentially a quality of the brain.

Did you choose to prefer chocolate? Can you - by act of will - decide that from now on you will prefer strawberry to chocolate? That is, not merely choose strawberry, but actually prefer it?

[instantc]

my taste for chocolate flavor, which is essentially a quality of the brain.

Did you choose to prefer chocolate? Can you - by act of will - decide that from now on you will prefer strawberry to chocolate? That is, not merely choose strawberry, but actually prefer it?

Suppose that I could choose which flavor I will prefer in the future, what would that choice be based on? Obviously not on any preferences. Excluding any potential economical benefits, the choice would perhaps be free but also completely trivial, I would go as far as saying that it wouldn't even count as a choice.

A choice has to be based on the qualities of the brain. A choice of the brain that is free from the brain itself is an absurd idea and wouldn't be a choice at all, just a random event.

[keithprosser3]

You didn't answer the question - can you choose to prefer strawberry over chocolate?
If you don't have that choice, what choice do you have? and without choice, how can there be free will?

[Peter]

And this is precisely why the Nazis were wrong, because they cannot make a cogent rational argument that killing jews is right and there are counter argument against killing jews that are rational.

If selection is the operative law, then how can one say what they did was wrong? It is just selection in process. Also, it was not illegal in Germany at that time to exterminate Jews. So, one cannot say it was wrong for them.

We can say that what they did was wrong because the human consensus was, and is, that they were wrong.

If a doctor decided that bleeding with leeches was right how do we know he's wrong? If I decided that vomiting all day was right how can you say I'm wrong? Is it because there's some objective standard for healthy practices floating around in the ether? No, it's because we mostly agree on what is healthy. It works the same for how we treat each other.

[scourge99]

.

Humans performing selective breeding, for example, such as eugenics, or to make tamer foxes, is NOT an example of natural selection.

In a deterministic world, human selective breeding is natural selection, because nature is all that there is.

There is a difference between natural selection and artificial selection. If you are unwilling or unable to recognize a difference then you will not be able to contribute to this aspect of the discussion.

Even when you are arguing against human free will, you feel it necessary to assume human free will.

Actually i don't. Please show where i have.

However, if an avalanche or bear kills someone, we view it much differently than if a person intentionally kills someone. The difference is that we naturally regard the person "responsible" in a different sense because we believe they are the complete authors of their actions. That they could have done otherwise. In a sense, murderers are different than bears and avalanches, because bears and avalanches don't have murderous intentions. We regard conscious beings differently than non-conscious or primitively conscious beings. In the grand scheme of things, this is a mistake because whether its an avalanche, a wild bear, or a murderer, each are completely subject to deterministic processes. However, the extra layer of consciousness can trick us into falsely thinking that the murderer could have somehow done differently than he did whereas the avalanche or bear could not have done differently. But, as explained above, the murderer is still the perpetrator of his actions and is still, nonetheless, responsible for them. Even if he cannot have chosen otherwise.

Are you determined to not see the contradiction in your reasoning or are you predetermined to not see it?

Please support your accusation by quoting the exact places where i contradict myself.

This is my first challenge to you to backup what you say or to retract it.

The standard opposing viewpoint is the libertarian version of freewill which is contradicted by evidence and makes other claims that are untestable.

Contradicted by what evidence?

1) experiments where scientists can predict simple human choices before the person even becomes aware of their choice.

2) experiments that demonstrate that all mental activity have corresponding brain activity that preceed them.

3) all evidence points to determinism at the macro level.

4) the "dilemma of determinism" .

[Peter]

IMO being Christian and being a battered woman are very similar mental states. Christians are expert masochists but why try to foist that mentality on everyone else?

Strong claim you're making. You'll need to back up such a claim, otherwise it is just flamebait.

Meh, maybe I'll start another thread...

What if the majority thought it was OK to kill someone just because of their ethnicity?

Then it would be "right" for that time and place. The fact that it would be considered wrong in this time and place is just personal bias.

I then rest my case.

What case? Can you summarize?

[olavisjo]

.

Humans performing selective breeding, for example, such as eugenics, or to make tamer foxes, is NOT an example of natural selection.

In a deterministic world, human selective breeding is natural selection, because nature is all that there is.

There is a difference between natural selection and artificial selection.

What is the difference?

[olavisjo]

.

Humans performing selective breeding, for example, such as eugenics, or to make tamer foxes, is NOT an example of natural selection.

In a deterministic world, human selective breeding is natural selection, because nature is all that there is.

There is a difference between natural selection and artificial selection. If you are unwilling or unable to recognize a difference then you will not be able to contribute to this aspect of the discussion.

Even when you are arguing against human free will, you feel it necessary to assume human free will.

Actually i don't. Please show where i have.

However, if an avalanche or bear kills someone, we view it much differently than if a person intentionally kills someone. The difference is that we naturally regard the person "responsible" in a different sense because we believe they are the complete authors of their actions. That they could have done otherwise. In a sense, murderers are different than bears and avalanches, because bears and avalanches don't have murderous intentions. We regard conscious beings differently than non-conscious or primitively conscious beings. In the grand scheme of things, this is a mistake because whether its an avalanche, a wild bear, or a murderer, each are completely subject to deterministic processes. However, the extra layer of consciousness can trick us into falsely thinking that the murderer could have somehow done differently than he did whereas the avalanche or bear could not have done differently. But, as explained above, the murderer is still the perpetrator of his actions and is still, nonetheless, responsible for them. Even if he cannot have chosen otherwise.

Are you determined to not see the contradiction in your reasoning or are you predetermined to not see it?

Please support your accusation by quoting the exact places where i contradict myself.

This is my first challenge to you to backup what you say or to retract it.

The standard opposing viewpoint is the libertarian version of freewill which is contradicted by evidence and makes other claims that are untestable.

Contradicted by what evidence?

1) experiments where scientists can predict simple human choices before the person even becomes aware of their choice.

2) experiments that demonstrate that all mental activity have corresponding brain activity that preceed them.

3) all evidence points to determinism at the macro level.

4) the "dilemma of determinism" .

[scourge99]

.

Humans performing selective breeding, for example, such as eugenics, or to make tamer foxes, is NOT an example of natural selection.

In a deterministic world, human selective breeding is natural selection, because nature is all that there is.

There is a difference between natural selection and artificial selection.

What is the difference?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... _selection

What is the difference between natural and artificial selection?

Answer:
Natural selection is the result of natural factors, which favour certain variations. Artificial selection is the deliberate selection of certain traits (by humans), for example a Poodle is the result of artificial selection.

Natural selection occurs when a particular feature gives an organism a survival or mating advantage-- so for example, giraffes with longer necks were better able to feed themselves than those with shorter necks. Over time longer necked giraffes were better able to survive and breed. So longer necks were selected for naturallly.

Artificial selection is when humankind chooses certain traits and breeds organisms for that trait. Example-- the domestic dog. The original organism was the wolf. Humans chose certain traits, such as size or temprement and bred together those with the desired trait(s). Hence the various breeds we have today.
Natural selection is largely determined by environmental factors, where nature chooses organisms with the best traits for survival.

*Tigers developed stripes so they could sneak up on their prey easier. The stripy tigers caught more prey, became healthier than tigers that have more trouble catching prey, and produced more stripy offspring.

*For example, long-necked giraffes are chosen by nature because they're tall and can reach higher leaves, while shorter-necked giraffes can't reach as high and might starve to death.


Artificial selection is controlled by humans, where a person chooses which traits of the organism that he wants it to have.

*Pug dogs have pug faces because people bred male dogs with pug-ish faces and female dogs with pug-ish faces to produce offspring with totally pug faces.
*People choose the fat cows to breed more fat cows because they've more meat. This decreases the eventual number of skinnier cows.