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]

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

My brain chooses? Brains are purely deterministic physical entities.

The verb "choose" really only makes sense in reference to a mind. After all, you were the one who made a huge hufflepuff about how the brain isn't identical to the mind in a different thread and now it seems you've gone and directly contradicted yourself here by equating the brain to the mind.

So your attempt to clarify is confusing right off the bat.

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.

We weren't talking about a brain's choice. That doesn't really even make sense. We were talking about a mind choosing.

I question your assumption that our choices are actually under our conscious control rather than the result of deterministic processes, thus, beyond our control. I can think of no examples where my choice can be anything other than what it is determined to be. That is, when i make a choice, it really wasn't a choice because i couldn't have chosen otherwise because my choice is bound by determinism. There is no way around this that is coherent without invoking magic or some new force.

Can you show that I could or couldn't have chosen otherwise?

Show? That's like asking me to show you that time moves forward. I can't show you determinism. All i can do is point out that everything we know about in reality is deterministic (at least at the macro level, which is all we care about in regards to freewill and brains.). All known evidence supports it and none contradict it. The only objections are philosophical musings.

What does it even mean that I couldn't have chosen otherwise?

If you could choose otherwise it would be the libertarian version of freewill. Libertarian freewill suggests that choice is not completely determined by the given circumstances. There is no experiment or physical evidence to support libertarian freewill. Only navel gazing arguments.

Future was always going to be what it was going to be, because even free choices are based on reasoning that is predictable, that doesn't mean they are not free choices.

How can a choice be considered free if you could not have chosen other than what the situation determines you will choose? How is that free?

For example, is there a difference between choosing between 5,000,000 options and only having 1 option if you are predetermined to choose only one particular option? There isn't.

It seems to me that my choice is predetermined by the reasons that the choice is based on.

ok, all you've done is kicked the problem down the road. So answer this: where did those reasons that the choice is based on come from? Did you choose them as well? If you didn't then how is your choice free?

For example, you claim you freely chose chocolate over vanilla ice cream because your choice is determined by reasons. Your "reasons" for choosing chocolate was that you prefer chocolate ice cream. Ok, so did you choose to prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla? If you didn't then you aren't actually freely choosing. You are just an automaton who is blindly following preferences you have no control over. How is that free?

I have three different flavors of ice cream in front of me, and I can freely choose which one I'm going to pick. By observing external circumstances one could tell which one I am going to pick, but as far as I can see, it is still a free choice based on my personal preferences.

You are starting to get it.

For those who do not understand determinism, it seems as though we can freely choose whichever flavor of ice cream we want. For those who understand determinism, we understand that our choice is not free but instead a result reached by deterministic processes beyond our control. Yes, we make a mental "choice" but there really was no FREE choice. As Sam Harris so eloquently puts it when chastising the word games of compatibilists, "a puppet is free as long as he loves his strings."


If you are predetermined by the situation to choose chocolate, then it makes no sense to say you FREELY chose chocolate.

[NoisForm]

...because even free choices are based on reasoning that is predictable, that doesn't mean they are not free choices. It seems to me that my choice is predetermined by the reasons that the choice is based on.

If you would, I'd like you to follow that thought backwards just a bit further. What is the reasoning itself that you speak of based on?

And second, if you can, could you tell me exactly what you mean by 'free will'? e.g., free from what, exactly?

...it is still a free choice based on my personal preferences.

I covered this in the last post I think, but... If a choice is in fact based on preferences (say, desire), and you already acknowledge that 'you' have no say in what you desire, how does one come to the conclusion that the choice is somehow 'free'? As above, free from what?

[NoisForm]

How can a choice be considered free if you could not have chosen other than what the situation determines you will choose? How is that free?
...ok, all you've done is kicked the problem down the road. So answer this: where did those reasons that the choice is based on come from? Did you choose them as well? If you didn't then how is your choice free?
...If you are predetermined by the situation to choose chocolate, then it makes no sense to say you FREELY chose chocolate.

Ha! I should really just let you take this. Some of these quotes are like reading my own post.

This person really does seem to get that the notion of a truly free will is incoherent (they even state it, really), yet at the end of the equation, gets a completely different answer. I don't get it?

[Nilloc James]

the problem is you guys are debating different notions of free will.

One side has free will defined as "you are free if your choices determine your actions"

one side has free will defined as "if you can act without any external influence from reality"

[Peter]

the problem is you guys are debating different notions of free will.

One side has free will defined as "you are free if your choices determine your actions"

one side has free will defined as "if you can act without any external influence from reality"

Bingo, that's the problem. Some people define free will simply as the ability to make a choice. Some people define it as the ability to make a choice without coercion. For me, the kind of Christian free will that unlocks the gates of heaven or hell must be a supernatural free agent that can analyze and understand every choice we make so that, when necessary, it can force us to make a choice we wouldn't make if left to our own electrochemical reactions. Clearly, this type of free will requires a "soul" so again we have a supernatural non-answer.

[Divine Insight]

Bingo, that's the problem. Some people define free will simply as the ability to make a choice. Some people define it as the ability to make a choice without coercion. For me, the kind of Christian free will that unlocks the gates of heaven or hell must be a supernatural free agent that can analyze and understand every choice we make so that, when necessary, it can force us to make a choice we wouldn't make if left to our own electrochemical reactions. Clearly, this type of free will requires a "soul" so again we have a supernatural non-answer.

Yes, this kind of free will absolutely requires a "soul".

In fact, it's actually meaningless to even speak of any other kind of "free will".

What in the world would "Free Will" even mean if every choice you made was nothing more than a result of electrochemical reactions?

What is it that would be "free" and what would it supposedly be "free" from?

There are actually quite a few atheists who are convinced that we can have no free will precisely because even they recognize that free will requires a "soul" beyond the physical which they refuse to even consider.

That's the whole point of this thread. It makes no sense to even speak of such a thing as free will from a scientific point of view because there can be no scientific justification for this concept. Free will is necessarily a spiritual or mystical concept.

[Nilloc James]

Im stilling looking for someone to explain what ability a free agent has as opposed to a not free one. What can the former do that makes it morally culpable?

[scourge99]

Im stilling looking for someone to explain what ability a free agent has as opposed to a not free one. What can the former do that makes it morally culpable?

I believe that its because a "free agent" is considered the author of its actions, whereas a "non-free agent" is just an automaton.

Personally, i don't think it matters whether the agent is the author of its actions or not. If its a threat/danger then it needs to be dealt with accordingly.

[olavisjo]

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

My brain chooses? Brains are purely deterministic physical entities.

The verb "choose" really only makes sense in reference to a mind. After all, you were the one who made a huge hufflepuff about how the brain isn't identical to the mind in a different thread and now it seems you've gone and directly contradicted yourself here by equating the brain to the mind.

So your attempt to clarify is confusing right off the bat.

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.

We weren't talking about a brain's choice. That doesn't really even make sense. We were talking about a mind choosing.

I question your assumption that our choices are actually under our conscious control rather than the result of deterministic processes, thus, beyond our control. I can think of no examples where my choice can be anything other than what it is determined to be. That is, when i make a choice, it really wasn't a choice because i couldn't have chosen otherwise because my choice is bound by determinism. There is no way around this that is coherent without invoking magic or some new force.

Can you show that I could or couldn't have chosen otherwise?

Show? That's like asking me to show you that time moves forward. I can't show you determinism. All i can do is point out that everything we know about in reality is deterministic (at least at the macro level, which is all we care about in regards to freewill and brains.). All known evidence supports it and none contradict it. The only objections are philosophical musings.

What does it even mean that I couldn't have chosen otherwise?

If you could choose otherwise it would be the libertarian version of freewill. Libertarian freewill suggests that choice is not completely determined by the given circumstances. There is no experiment or physical evidence to support libertarian freewill. Only navel gazing arguments.

Future was always going to be what it was going to be, because even free choices are based on reasoning that is predictable, that doesn't mean they are not free choices.

How can a choice be considered free if you could not have chosen other than what the situation determines you will choose? How is that free?

For example, is there a difference between choosing between 5,000,000 options and only having 1 option if you are predetermined to choose only one particular option? There isn't.

It seems to me that my choice is predetermined by the reasons that the choice is based on.

ok, all you've done is kicked the problem down the road. So answer this: where did those reasons that the choice is based on come from? Did you choose them as well? If you didn't then how is your choice free?

For example, you claim you freely chose chocolate over vanilla ice cream because your choice is determined by reasons. Your "reasons" for choosing chocolate was that you prefer chocolate ice cream. Ok, so did you choose to prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla? If you didn't then you aren't actually freely choosing. You are just an automaton who is blindly following preferences you have no control over. How is that free?

I have three different flavors of ice cream in front of me, and I can freely choose which one I'm going to pick. By observing external circumstances one could tell which one I am going to pick, but as far as I can see, it is still a free choice based on my personal preferences.

You are starting to get it.

For those who do not understand determinism, it seems as though we can freely choose whichever flavor of ice cream we want. For those who understand determinism, we understand that our choice is not free but instead a result reached by deterministic processes beyond our control. Yes, we make a mental "choice" but there really was no FREE choice. As Sam Harris so eloquently puts it when chastising the word games of compatibilists, "a puppet is free as long as he loves his strings."


If you are predetermined by the situation to choose chocolate, then it makes no sense to say you FREELY chose chocolate.

[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.

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.

SECOND RESPONSE.
Red color is mine but the rest is word for word...

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.

THIRD RESPONSE.

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.

I did not say that I had demonstrated, I said that you have so clearly demonstrated.

And, again you are assuming free will at the very moment that you are denying it. When you say unwilling or unable to reason, you are attributing my failure to reason to my free will choice to not reason properly. If the world were determined then you would only have said that I was unable to reason, because then my failure to reason would have been determined by what the universe gave me, namely the inability to reason, it would not have anything to do with my will or unwillingness.

FOURTH RESPONSE.

If the universe were determined, as you hold, then we would never be able to know if we are right about anything. We would not know if we have chosen our beliefs because they are true or if the universe had simply determined us to think they are true. Here is an example where you uttered a falsehood but you thought it was true...

Show? That's like asking me to show you that time moves forward. I can't show you determinism. All i can do is point out that everything we know about in reality is deterministic (at least at the macro level, which is all we care about in regards to freewill and brains.). All known evidence supports it and none contradict it. The only objections are philosophical musings.

Have you never heard of Schrödinger's cat? Or is this philosophical musings? The cat is clearly a macro level event whose future is not yet determined.

So, did the universe determine you to believe this falsehood? If so then how can you ever know if anything is true if your brain is ruled by determinism?