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]

Free will implies the ability to make a decision you would not have made based on your unconscious preferences

Then why would you make it? This doesn't make any sense to me.

and that is quite impossible without some separate (magical?) free agent that understands your unconscious preferences and is capable of overriding them.

This is where you lost me completely. Please, take my example of picking the color of my new car, and explain how the situation would be different with 'some separate magical free agent'. Would that magical free agent pick blue color even though it prefers red, just because it can?

[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.

You are probably right here, but I can't make any sense of your response.

I take the time to respond to your post explaining where the problems are and you make some dumb excuse that you "can't make sense of your response" so you can ignore everything I've said and start over. That's pretty dishonest instantc.

Let's start from the beginning.

Nothing is going to change. You're going to inevitably repeat the same arguments I've already addressed here.

An Einstein quote comes to mind: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What is it that our will could be free from but is not?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "will" and "free". Based on the responses above (which you've chosen to ignore) they seem like loaded words for this discussion. Please rephrase your sentence without using the word "will" and "free".

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

What does it mean to be author of one's choice?

I said "author of one's ACTIONS." Not "author of one's CHOICES" . Please read more carefully.

I've noticed you have a habit of switching words. Is it intentional?

[instantc]

I take the time to respond to your post explaining where the problems are and you make some dumb excuse that you "can't make sense of your response" so you can ignore everything I've said and start over. That's pretty dishonest instantc.

Great, you caught me, that's why I come to debating forums, to sneakily ignore people's posts, so that it's almost like I was never there.

As far as I can see, we agree that our choices are obviously predetermined by external factors. My main point is that our will couldn't be more free than it currently is, not even magic or souls would make any difference, would it? Whether we call it free or not free doesn't matter to me.

What is it that our will could be free from but is not?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "will" and "free". Based on the responses above (which you've chosen to ignore) they seem like loaded words for this discussion. Please rephrase your sentence without using the word "will" and "free".

In other words, how could we possibly have more free will than we have at the moment? How would magic or souls change the situation? To me the sentence 'we don't have free will' implies that we could have free will but we don't.

What does it mean to be author of one's choice?

I said "author of one's ACTIONS." Not "author of one's CHOICES" . Please read more carefully.

Did I quote you saying something that you didn't say, or did I ask you a simple question 'what, according to you, does it mean to be author of one's choice'? Feel free not to answer though, if you don't feel like it.

I've noticed you have a habit of switching words. Is it intentional?

You caught me again, good job! I tend to intentionally switch people's words to make a fake impression that I won an argument on an anonymous internet site. That's not my fault though, with no free will and all.

[JohnPaul]

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?

"Free Will" is a theological concept, not a scientific question. It traditionally means free from the will of God. From a scientific point of view, the biological functions of the brain are ultimately dependent on quantum effects in a few molecules in the synapses connecting the neuron cells of the brain, and in this respect can be said to be "random."

However, from a theological point of view, meaning "free from the will of God," Maimonides pointed out in the 12th century that human Free Will and the doctrine of an omniscient God are logically incompatible and contradictory. An omniscient, perfectly all-knowing God must know an eternity in advance exactly what choice a human will make at any time. Since God cannot possibly be wrong in his knowledge, how is it then possible for a human to make any choice other than the one choice God knew he would make before the human was ever created? It is not necessary to say that God "forces" the choice. The fact that God with his perfect knowledge already knows the choice is sufficient to make it inevitable.

Thus, from both a scientific point of view and a theological point of view, Free Will is impossible. Theologians have been struggling with the logical "Problem of Free Will" for centuries without finding a solution which does not in some way deny the perfect omniscience of God. So, have at it!

[Peter]

This is where you lost me completely. Please, take my example of picking the color of my new car, and explain how the situation would be different with 'some separate magical free agent'. Would that magical free agent pick blue color even though it prefers red, just because it can?

Let's concentrate on biblical free will, you know, the kind where your choices determine if you go to heaven or hell.

You've been told that people bound for hell drive red Ferraris and people bound for heaven drive white Ferraris but because of preferences you have no control over you don't believe that stuff. You choose red because of preferences you have no control over but your magical free agent(biblical free will) understands what drives your preferences and changes them so that you choose white for your Ferrari and end up going to heaven and everyone is happy.

You see, in the first case(without biblical free will) you can't really be blamed for choosing red because your preferences were out of your control but in the second case (with biblical free will) you will be severely, even inappropriately, penalized for choosing red.

Does that help at all?

[Peter]

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?

"Free Will" is a theological concept, not a scientific question. It traditionally means free from the will of God. From a scientific point of view, the biological functions of the brain are ultimately dependent on quantum effects in a few molecules in the synapses connecting the neuron cells of the brain, and in this respect can be said to be "random."

However, from a theological point of view, meaning "free from the will of God," Maimonides pointed out in the 12th century that human Free Will and the doctrine of an omniscient God are logically incompatible and contradictory. An omniscient, perfectly all-knowing God must know an eternity in advance exactly what choice a human will make at any time. Since God cannot possibly be wrong in his knowledge, how is it then possible for a human to make any choice other than the one choice God knew he would make before the human was ever created? It is not necessary to say that God "forces" the choice. The fact that God with his perfect knowledge already knows the choice is sufficient to make it inevitable.

Thus, from both a scientific point of view and a theological point of view, Free Will is impossible.

Absolutely correct, unless we can surprise God there is no such thing as biblical free will.

[instantc]

This is where you lost me completely. Please, take my example of picking the color of my new car, and explain how the situation would be different with 'some separate magical free agent'. Would that magical free agent pick blue color even though it prefers red, just because it can?

Let's concentrate on biblical free will, you know, the kind where your choices determine if you go to heaven or hell.

You've been told that people bound for hell drive red Ferraris and people bound for heaven drive white Ferraris but because of preferences you have no control over you don't believe that stuff. You choose red because of preferences you have no control over but your magical free agent(biblical free will) understands what drives your preferences and changes them so that you choose white for your Ferrari and end up going to heaven and everyone is happy.

You see, in the first case(without biblical free will) you can't really be blamed for choosing red because your preferences were out of your control but in the second case (with biblical free will) you will be severely, even inappropriately, penalized for choosing red.

Does that help at all?

It seems to me that the first example was someone making a choice based on his preferences (he likes red), and the second example was the person making a choice based on rational consideration (he likes red but realizes that buying a white one will get him to heaven). I can do both of those things, do I have free will?

[JohnPaul]

This is where you lost me completely. Please, take my example of picking the color of my new car, and explain how the situation would be different with 'some separate magical free agent'. Would that magical free agent pick blue color even though it prefers red, just because it can?

Let's concentrate on biblical free will, you know, the kind where your choices determine if you go to heaven or hell.

You've been told that people bound for hell drive red Ferraris and people bound for heaven drive white Ferraris but because of preferences you have no control over you don't believe that stuff. You choose red because of preferences you have no control over but your magical free agent(biblical free will) understands what drives your preferences and changes them so that you choose white for your Ferrari and end up going to heaven and everyone is happy.

You see, in the first case(without biblical free will) you can't really be blamed for choosing red because your preferences were out of your control but in the second case (with biblical free will) you will be severely, even inappropriately, penalized for choosing red.

Does that help at all?

It seems to me that the first example was someone making a choice based on his preferences (he likes red), and the second example was the person making a choice based on rational consideration (he likes red but realizes that buying a white one will get him to heaven). I can do both of those things, do I have free will?

Not if an omniscient God already knows what choice you will make.

[scourge99]

I take the time to respond to your post explaining where the problems are and you make some dumb excuse that you "can't make sense of your response" so you can ignore everything I've said and start over. That's pretty dishonest instantc.

Great, you caught me, that's why I come to debating forums, to sneakily ignore people's posts, so that it's almost like I was never there.

What's the point of taking the time to respond to your posts if you just want to ignore the responses and start over by rephrasing the same thing every couple of posts?

Can you tell me why anyone should bother to respond to someone who does that?

As far as I can see, we agree that our choices are obviously predetermined by external factors.

I'm hesitant to use the words "predetermined" as opposed to just "determined" (i used the word before but it was probably a poor choice). "Predetermined" implies that events can be predicted. Whereas determined just presumes that the outcome could not be different given the circumstances. Its a subtle but important difference.

Also, our choices aren't determined by purely external factors. There are internal deterministic processes that affect the choices we make as well as external.

My main point is that our will couldn't be more free than it currently is, not even magic or souls would make any difference, would it? Whether we call it free or not free doesn't matter to me.

in my last post i asked you to rephrase without the terms "free" and "will" because they are ambiguous in this discussion. You ignored my request (as you seem to do with lots of my responses). Until you do I'm uncertain what exactly you actually mean when you use them.

What is it that our will could be free from but is not?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "will" and "free". Based on the responses above (which you've chosen to ignore) they seem like loaded words for this discussion. Please rephrase your sentence without using the word "will" and "free".

In other words, how could we possibly have more free will than we have at the moment?

I asked you to rephrase and not use "free" and "will" so you use both?

How would magic or souls change the situation? To me the sentence 'we don't have free will' implies that we could have free will but we don't.

Same response as above.

[scourge99]

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?

"Free Will" is a theological concept, not a scientific question. It traditionally means free from the will of God.

Agree. Its an attempt to resolve the problem of evil and justify heaven/hell reward/punishment and some other things you point out.

From a scientific point of view, the biological functions of the brain are ultimately dependent on quantum effects in a few molecules in the synapses connecting the neuron cells of the brain, and in this respect can be said to be "random."

The workings of the brain have nothing to do with quantum mechanics anymore than anything else in the macro world does. All this nonsense about quantum mechanics and the brain got started by a small group of religious scientists who were desperate to invent some explanation that would allow freewill (as Christians view it) because scientific evidence about the brain was conflicting with their religious beliefs. So they hypothesized all these silly and stupid ideas involving quantum mechanics and such things as "microtubules" in the brain. Millions of dollars later and to no one's surprise, the research has not panned out. No experiment or hard evidence could be produced to support it. Its all just conjecture.

If you ever hear or read "quantum mechanics" and "brain/mind/soul" in the same sentence, chances are the person is full of it.