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]

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?

I don't obviously, but my point was that having that choice would be trivial and meaningless. Thus, we have all the free will worth having. In other words, my will is free from everything else but myself.

[olavisjo]

.

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.

Actually you do. See the word deliberate?

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.

A deliberate choice is different from a determined choice. A deliberate choice is an intentional willful free will choice.

Free will is so deeply ingrained into our psyche that we can't even reason without assuming that free will exists, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

[scourge99]

.

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.

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.

Actually you do. See the word deliberate?

Quote my contradiction word for word or retract your claim.

SECOND CHALLENGE.

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.

A deliberate choice is different from a determined choice. A deliberate choice is an intentional willful free will choice.

All this tells me is that YOU assume libertarian freewill with your use of the term "deliberate". That is YOUR problem not mine. I do not ASSUME such things. A "deliberate choice" to me is just a choice that someone consciously intends. I do not IMPLICITLY ASSUME freewill by using that statement. You do.


Therefore let me change my statement so as not to confuse you and your strange definitions.:

Artificial selection is the intentional and conscious selection of certain traits (by humans),for example a Poodle is the result of artificial selection.

Free will is so deeply ingrained into our psyche that we can't even reason without assuming that free will exists, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

You haven't demonstrated that at all. All you've demonstrated is that YOU are unwilling or unable to reason without believing that you must assume freewill. That is your personal failing. Do not project that failing onto others.

[scourge99]

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?

I don't obviously, but my point was that having that choice would be trivial and meaningless. Thus, we have all the free will worth having. In other words, my will is free from everything else but myself.

Your response is very confusing and doesn't make much sense. Who or what is this other "myself" who i am not free from? Are you claiming that there is two conscious beings in your head? 1 that decides that you prefer chocolate ice cream and another that obeys what the other has decided?

[instantc]

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?

I don't obviously, but my point was that having that choice would be trivial and meaningless. Thus, we have all the free will worth having. In other words, my will is free from everything else but myself.

Your response is very confusing and doesn't make much sense. Who or what is this other "myself" who i am not free from? Are you claiming that there is two conscious beings in your head? 1 that decides that you prefer chocolate ice cream and another that obeys what the other has decided?

Let me clear it up. First, the brain is the one making the choice, and the taste for chocolate that predetermines the outcome is a quality of that brain. Therefore the brain is restrained in its choice by its own qualities.

Second, do you see how it would be meaningless and trivial to be able to choose your preferences? That choice couldn't really be based on anything, since at that point you wouldn't yet prefer anything. Thus, it would be more like a random event. Suppose that some mysterious force would let you choose whether you are going to like chocolate or strawberry flavor in the future. Apart from some minor economical factors, what reasons could you possibly have to choose one way or the other? That's why I said that that is not a choice worth having. Is it more clear now what I'm trying to say?

[10CC]

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?

I don't obviously, but my point was that having that choice would be trivial and meaningless. Thus, we have all the free will worth having. In other words, my will is free from everything else but myself.

Your response is very confusing and doesn't make much sense. Who or what is this other "myself" who i am not free from? Are you claiming that there is two conscious beings in your head? 1 that decides that you prefer chocolate ice cream and another that obeys what the other has decided?

Let me clear it up. First, the brain is the one making the choice, and the taste for chocolate that predetermines the outcome is a quality of that brain. Therefore the brain is restrained in its choice by its own qualities.

Second, do you see how it would be meaningless and trivial to be able to choose your preferences? That choice couldn't really be based on anything, since at that point you wouldn't yet prefer anything. Thus, it would be more like a random event. Suppose that some mysterious force would let you choose whether you are going to like chocolate or strawberry flavor in the future. Apart from some minor economical factors, what reasons could you possibly have to choose one way or the other? That's why I said that that is not a choice worth having. Is it more clear now what I'm trying to say?

So what is a choice worth having? God or No god?

[keithprosser3]

Second, do you see how it would be meaningless and trivial to be able to choose your preferences?

I do see that if I don't/can't choose my preferences, who or what does choose them?

If I don't have any power of choice over my preferences, what power of choice do I have? It seems I am left with the power to choose what I did not choose to prefer!

It is not so much the power to choose preferences per se but I use that as an example of something over which 'the ego' has no actual control.

[instantc]

Second, do you see how it would be meaningless and trivial to be able to choose your preferences?

I do see that if I don't/can't choose my preferences, who or what does choose them?

If I don't have any power of choice over my preferences, what power of choice do I have? It seems I am left with the power to choose what I did not choose to prefer!

It is not so much the power to choose preferences per se but I use that as an example of something over which 'the ego' has no actual control.

I agree with you and Immanuel Kant that we have no actual control over those things, but I'd also say that that's not a power worth having. Having that power would be meaningless. Making that choice would be closer to a random event than a choice, since it wouldn't be based on anything.

[NoisForm]

I mostly avoid libertarian free will discussions these days, finding them (and it) totally incoherent. But this is odd and I need to respond out of curiosity if nothing else. You seem to be defending the notion of LFW, while providing a fairly damning argument against it?

First, the brain is the one making the choice, and the taste for chocolate that predetermines the outcome is a quality of that brain.

Yes, this. I assume here that you are making some sort of distinction between the conscious 'you' and your brain. You seem to acknowledge that your desires, wants, etc. are not something that you determine, but rather they are part of your subconscious, and simply 'are'. Is that correct?

Therefore the brain is restrained in its choice by its own qualities.

Agreed.

Second, do you see how it would be meaningless and trivial to be able to choose your preferences? That choice couldn't really be based on anything, since at that point you wouldn't yet prefer anything. Thus, it would be more like a random event.

Again, yes, completely agree if I'm reading you correctly.

Suppose that some mysterious force would let you choose whether you are going to like chocolate or strawberry flavor in the future. Apart from some minor economical factors, what reasons could you possibly have to choose one way or the other? That's why I said that that is not a choice worth having. Is it more clear now what I'm trying to say?

This has to be where things may go off course, but I'm not certain. Are you saying the 'choice is not worth having' due to the fact that one's taste in ice cream flavor is inconsequential?

Are you further implying by this, that when it comes to the more important or significant choices, that we somehow do choose are wants and desires? If so, how would this work any differently than the desire for a particular flavor?

How does one get 'behind' that initial desire, want, choice, and choose what that will be? You seem to have accepted that such a concept is incoherent with the statement, "...That choice couldn't really be based on anything, since at that point you wouldn't yet prefer anything. Thus, it would be more like a random event."

Again I agree. The choice made to bring about any particular outcome of any event or action, must be preceded by a desire or want that allows for it - and we have no say in any of this, i.e., we do not choose what we desire. But, as you've indicated, "That choice couldn't really be based on anything". How does one end up with anything remotely like LWF if this is the case?

[instantc]

Are you saying the 'choice is not worth having' due to the fact that one's taste in ice cream flavor is inconsequential?

Not really, I just brought it up as a simple example

Are you further implying by this, that when it comes to the more important or significant choices, that we somehow do choose are wants and desires? If so, how would this work any differently than the desire for a particular flavor?

I'm saying that the ability to choose any of our wants and desires would be meaningless. Thus, I don't see how one can use that as an argument against free will. Fine, we cannot choose our preferences, but having that choice wouldn't even be a choice, thus the whole idea of the of free will that we don't have is incoherent. Our choices couldn't in principle be anymore free than they are now, could they?

Again I agree. The choice made to bring about any particular outcome of any event or action, must be preceded by a desire or want that allows for it - and we have no say in any of this, i.e., we do not choose what we desire. But, as you've indicated, "That choice couldn't really be based on anything". How does one end up with anything remotely like LWF if this is the case?

I'm not defending libertarian free will, on the contrary, I'm saying that such free will would not be worth having in the first place. Thus, our will is as free as it could possibly be. We have all the free will worth having.