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?

[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?

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?

You understand that your preferences are out of your control so while you may rationally consider a choice at the 40,000 foot level the underlying preferences are a complete mystery to you. So no, you do not have biblical free will.

[NoisForm]

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

That's what I wanted to ask you, what is it that our will could be free from but is not?

I've made it pretty clear that I find the entire concept (and I use that term very loosely) to be entirely incoherent - doesn't make a lick of sense. For this reason, I don't find any truth in it whatsoever, and I wouldn't attempt to define it for you.

You on the other hand, I thought, were defending its existence. Did I get that wrong - are you defending free will or no? If so, then I ask what precisely is it you are defending - again, what is it you think you are free from?

I couldn't begin to tell you what you think you are free from, as I find the whole thing to be utter nonsense.

[NoisForm]

To me the sentence 'we don't have free will' implies that we could have free will but we don't.

Well that may go a little ways in explaining some of the confusion in this thread. Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?

I don't have twenty mile wide arms.

I don't have an invisible pet dragon.

I don't have bones made of diamond.

I don't....

...you get the idea. Do you really think that I mean to imply that I 'could' have any of the above, simply because I state that I don't have them? That would be a truly odd way of thinking in my opinion!

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

I can help you with that one actually. Traditionally in the free will debate, it means freedom from causality, both internal and external. It is the act of 'deciding' ex nihilo - an endless string of literal uncaused causes.

From your various responses here, it appears that you find this to be as ridiculous an idea as I do, yet you, for some reason, still wish to defend it at the same time? This is what's perplexing me. Yes, of course it's a nonsense 'concept' - that's the point. This is why I argue against free will.

Some references to chew on;

"...free from the determination or constraints of human nature ...if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. ...the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires."

"...require neither that a free action be caused by anything nor that it have any internal causal structure. Some views of this type require that a free action be uncaused;..."

"...able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes."

"For human reality, to be is to choose oneself; nothing comes to it either from the outside or from within which it can receive or accept...Thus freedom…is the being of man, i.e., his nothingness of being."

“nothing other than the will is the total cause�

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 217 by scourge99]
scourge99 wrote:

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.

I was referring to a recent article in Scientific American magazine which described the structure of a particular molecule in a brain synapse in which a hydrogen atom could flip=flop randomly between two different positions in the molecule. The position of the hydrogen atom at any given time determined whether the synapse would pass or block a neuron pulse. The article made no mention or hint of any connection with Free Will or even macro quantum effects on the brain as a whole.

My knowledge of chemistry is more than a few years old, but surely you are not denying that quantum effects can influence the internal structure of molecules?

[help3434]

[I don't have twenty mile wide arms.

I don't have an invisible pet dragon.

I don't have bones made of diamond.

I don't....

...you get the idea. Do you really think that I mean to imply that I 'could' have any of the above, simply because I state that I don't have them? That would be a truly odd way of thinking in my opinion!

You couldn't have them in real life, but unlike free will the idea of someone having those things is coherent and something I could imagine.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 211 by JohnPaul]

From a theological point of view I think that it is not just God's omniscience alone that conflicts with free will, but the fact that this omniscient being supposably created us.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 211 by JohnPaul]

From a theological point of view I think that it is not just God's omniscience alone that conflicts with free will, but the fact that this omniscient being supposably created us.

Yes, it doesn't make much sense for a God to create a human soul with full knowledge that the soul is inevitably destined for hell. Why deliberately clutter up the earth with more sinners? Obviously the theologians who created the doctrines of omniscience and of human free will didn't talk to each other or think things through very carefully.

[instantc]

To me the sentence 'we don't have free will' implies that we could have free will but we don't.

Well that may go a little ways in explaining some of the confusion in this thread. Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?

Well, if free will doesn't exist even as a concept, then saying that we don't have free will makes as much sense to me than saying that the color of fear is not yellow. If to have free will doesn't mean anything, then not to have free will doesn't mean anything either.

So I'm not disagreeing with what you say, nor am I defending free will that would make our choices free from external/internal causes. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that with soul or magic we could have this free will.

Peter for one seems to think that with some magical force we could have more free will than we do, which he has failed to demonstrate with an example. He says that a mystical free will agent could make choices that are not based on his preferences. But then, what would the choices be based on?

[NoisForm]

Well, if free will doesn't exist even as a concept, then saying that we don't have free will makes as much sense to me than saying that the color of fear is not yellow. If to have free will doesn't mean anything, then not to have free will doesn't mean anything either.

Actually, in essence, I agree with this as well. Unfortunately, now and throughout history there are those that insist that such a thing exists, makes sense, and is even a proof of divinity in some cases. I feel compelled occasionally to object. You're right that it puts one in an awkward position of arguing against something that (I believe) isn't even a coherent concept. I feel quite the same way about this god I keep hearing so much about.

Because of this I try as often as possible (and fail, I'm sure) to discuss these things as 'incoherent concepts', 'non-things', 'things without definitions', etc., rather than claiming such things 'don't exist', since speaking of a thing 'not existing', as you rightly point out, implies that the thing being discussed is understood, or means anything at all! But alas, language is a pain sometimes and can make that difficult. One can slip into very engrained habits.

So I'm not disagreeing with what you say, nor am I defending free will that would make our choices free from external/internal causes.

Fair enough.

What I am disagreeing with is the notion that with soul or magic we could have this free will. Peter for one seems to think that with some magical force we could have more free will than we do, which he has failed to demonstrate with an example. He says that a mystical free will agent could make choices that are not based on his preferences. But then, what would the choices be based on?

No, I quite agree that no amount of magic would erase the need for an impetus for a choice - I don't find any way around that (and believe me, I've tried). Even just theoretically or conceptually, such a thing cannot be. It will always result in infinite regress as best I can tell. Even the special pleading of a soul, god, etc. don't truly do anything to escape causality (which is why they are special pleading I suppose), it only places an unjustified period, in reverse, where there can only logically be elipsis.

[JohnPaul]

To me the sentence 'we don't have free will' implies that we could have free will but we don't.

Well that may go a little ways in explaining some of the confusion in this thread. Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?

Well, if free will doesn't exist even as a concept, then saying that we don't have free will makes as much sense to me than saying that the color of fear is not yellow. If to have free will doesn't mean anything, then not to have free will doesn't mean anything either.

So I'm not disagreeing with what you say, nor am I defending free will that would make our choices free from external/internal causes. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that with soul or magic we could have this free will.

Peter for one seems to think that with some magical force we could have more free will than we do, which he has failed to demonstrate with an example. He says that a mystical free will agent could make choices that are not based on his preferences. But then, what would the choices be based on?

From a purely scientific point of view, if a human is nothing more than a bag filled with gurgling chemicals, then how could it have will of any kind, free or otherwise? Any movements the bag makes, such as typing on a keyboard, are simply the result of flatulent chemical processes inside the bag.