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?

[Divine Insight]

If you think we can't hold people responsible for their choices without free will, what makes you think we can with it?

I'm not sure that we could.

I think we need to acknowledge that these two different scenarios require totally different realities.

In this thread, I'm addressing solely the notion of "Scientific Justification for Free Will", and currently that falls under the fundamental worldview of pure secular materialism. A world that is simply physical phenomena obeying set laws in a deterministic fashion.

All I'm saying is that in that world, there can be no such thing as Free Will or a "Free Will Agent". So holding people responsible for their choices may ultimately be irrational in that world.

Now if you want to move over to a world there there exists a "Free Will Agent" that is guiding the ultimately choices of a brain, then that's a different world. I'm not sure how to even address that world. That world cannot be addressed scientifically because science is entirely about observing, measuring, and predicting behaviors in a purely secular materialistic world.

We can't really even begin to discuss how a "Free Will Agent" could actually have "Free Will" in any scientific sense. But that topic is an altogether different topic.

I'm not suggesting that such a thing as Free Will could not exist in some reality. Maybe it can, and maybe it can't. All I'm addressing here is the concept of a purely secular world and why it makes no sense to even consider "free will" in this paradigm.

Incompatibilist free will is qualitatively the same as randomness. Why hold someone accountable for what the dice in their head rolls?

I personally wouldn't call randomness "free will", although I must concede that if randomness is part of the secular materialistic world (which I'm willing to accept that it potentially could be), it would represent a "Freedom of choices" to be free from pure determinism. However, if they are only free to be blown around by a magical wind of randomness, that doesn't seem to imply that anyone should be held responsible for that either.

On the other hand, compatibilist free will is merely a recognition of the fact that choice exists as a subjective perception, similar to possibility. Similarly, free will exists, it just refers to a shared concept that only exists subjectively. "I chose to write this post" and "I had no choice but to write this post" can be compatible provided the context is not the same (there must be some difference to maintain inequality).

I see a problem with this is the fact that the choice to write or not write a post was actually borne long before the post was ever written. It may seem to us that we are making choices instantaneously, but actually we aren't. All the previous choices that led up to the current choice have clearly already played a role. And this necessarily has "no beginning". Even when the brain first realizes consciousness many things have already been set in place to determine what the first thoughts of that conscious brain are going to be. And everything that follows from that is also going to be deterministic.

I don't see how determinism remotely affects moral accountability at all.
The most immediate response I can give is that under a deterministic Universe, we still can't predict the future and so we act as we would under an indeterministic Universe anyway. If it's more of a "the result will be the same regardless", then this is no more a reason for no morality than it is for morality.

Being able to predict the future doesn't matter. In a purely secular materialistic universe the only way the future could be unpredictable is if randomness is a part of the natural processes. (many people even argue that true randomness is impossible). But even if we allow for true randomness, that still doesn't imply that a brain has a choice that isn't determined (even if determined randomly).

The morality of holding people accountable is all about rehabilitation; changing their behavioural patterns; not about retribution.

WHOA!

I agree that's what it SHOULD be, but that is most certainly not what moral accountability is. Moral accountability holds people responsible for having purposefully done bad things. And moral accountability is expressed in terms of "punishments". And of course, that whole mentality comes from the Bible (although the Bible may not be the only source of this mentality). But who can deny that the Bible is all about punishing people for not being morally responsible?

In fact, that's my whole point. We need to move away from the mentality of retribution and more toward "rehabilitation, changing behaviors, and curing people by helping them to change the way they think"

And so we shouldn't be talking about "moral responsibility" at all. Morality is a judgement of "blame". And especially quite often associated with a concept of "Absolute Morality" like as if there is such a thing and that people should "Know better" than to chose otherwise.

"Why blame them?" is already the wrong question - it makes sense given context, but fundamentally morality is not about finding who to blame. That is merely a pragmatic solution; a question of ethics.

Now you are talking ethics. Ethics and morality are two different things.

Morality is a theistic concept. You can't even speak of morality without an ultimate source of moral authority and judgement.

Ethics on the other hand is recognized as a human subjective invention.

I'm not saying that we can't teach brains to choose ethically. I'm just saying that we can't hold them responsible when they don't. At least not in a sense of "blaming" them for being "immoral".

I completely disagree with scourge99 that there causality and morality may be tied together let alone that causality is necessary for morality.
For instance; I take it you believe that a culprit of accidental homicide is less accountable than one of a failed murder attempt. Yet the former is 'causally responsible' while the latter is not.
The important thing is what they intended to occur, not what occurred as a result.

Absolutely. Intent is everything in morality! Which is why listing actions as "sins" of immorality as the Bible does is actually quite stupid.

Intent can also play a major role in ethics. Understanding intent is paramount to understanding why decisions were made in the first place. Intent does play a large role in the decision making process.

But what is "intent"?

In a purely secular materialistic world "intent" is nothing other than the deterministic configuration that led up to the current choice. Therefore people may ultimately not even be responsible for their "intent".

They have no more "Free Will" over their intent than they have over their actual choices.

However, in a spiritual universe where there is a "God" and people supposedly are souls that are "Free Will Agents", then perhaps it makes sense to hold the "soul" responsible for both the intent and the choice.

And again, I'm not arguing that therefore life must be spiritual. Not at all.

All I'm arguing for is that IF life truly is secular materialistic physics, then holding people responsible even for their "intent" makes no sense.

Their "intent" is already nothing more than a previous choice. So they can't really even be held responsible for that.

They may be able to be "cured" from this deterministic cycle by rehabilitation (reprogramming how they think). But the question of holding them responsible for the previous mess their brain was in, is questionable.

How could anyone be held responsible for any intentions, choices, goals, desires, or anything else they have if pure secular materialism is true?

It seems to me that if we want to go down the road of holding people responsible for their thoughts, intentions, desires, and choices, the only road that makes any sense to go down would be the mystical road of considering that humans are actually some sort of "Free Will Agents" who are simply controlling physical brains.

~~~~

I have no clue what the truth of reality is. I'm open to either one.

We are either responsible for our thoughts and choices (which implies that we are some sort of mystical Free Will Agents).

Or the world is just a materialistic deterministic accident and we cannot possibly be held responsible for the freak accident that we are.

I'm open to both of these realities. All I ask is that we be consistent when we chose to believe one. If we chose to believe in a purely secular materialistic world, then we can't be responsible for the accidents we turned out to be.

[Jashwell]

If you think we can't hold people responsible for their choices without free will, what makes you think we can with it?

I'm not sure that we could.

I think we need to acknowledge that these two different scenarios require totally different realities.

In this thread, I'm addressing solely the notion of "Scientific Justification for Free Will", and currently that falls under the fundamental worldview of pure secular materialism. A world that is simply physical phenomena obeying set laws in a deterministic fashion.

All I'm saying is that in that world, there can be no such thing as Free Will or a "Free Will Agent".

You're saying there can't be incompatibilist free will.
Free will can be meaningfully defined as being anything other than simple indeterminism in choice (which is qualitatively the same as randomness - and would be literally the same if it weren't for a trivial 'not conscious choice' statement in the definition of randomness)

So holding people responsible for their choices may ultimately be irrational in that world.

This doesn't follow - not only are their choices a part of them, not only are they the main influence on their choices, but there is no requirement for indeterminism.
Choices are only perceived, exactly the same as possibilities.

Incompatibilist free will is qualitatively the same as randomness. Why hold someone accountable for what the dice in their head rolls?

I personally wouldn't call randomness "free will", although I must concede that if randomness is part of the secular materialistic world (which I'm willing to accept that it potentially could be), it would represent a "Freedom of choices" to be free from pure determinism. However, if they are only free to be blown around by a magical wind of randomness, that doesn't seem to imply that anyone should be held responsible for that either.

True randomness is indeterminism, and vice versa..
Randomness is all about unpredictability; true randomness is not only unpredictable but is 'fundamentally probabilistic', a source of indeterminism. (Like certain QM interpretations)

Incompatibilist free will; the free will of theology; is not only randomness by the fact it is unpredictable, but by the fact it is indeterministic.
I say qualitatively because there is in fact a clause in the definition of randomness that omits concious choice - though that is a trivial difference.

I'm not saying there can't be some logic or selection in the idea of free will - just that the actual primary factor of free will IS randomness (bias or otherwise), else you have a deterministic program. It's the required part.

On the other hand, compatibilist free will is merely a recognition of the fact that choice exists as a subjective perception, similar to possibility. Similarly, free will exists, it just refers to a shared concept that only exists subjectively. "I chose to write this post" and "I had no choice but to write this post" can be compatible provided the context is not the same (there must be some difference to maintain inequality).

I see a problem with this is the fact that the choice to write or not write a post was actually borne long before the post was ever written. It may seem to us that we are making choices instantaneously, but actually we aren't.

The perception is the choice; not the predetermined nature of it. (In compatibilist free will)

Incidentally, as an eternalist (I don't believe time literally flows, I just believe it's another (fairly standard) dimension), to me it makes no more sense to say "it was born long before the post ..." than to say "it was born long after the post ... " or at the same time.

I don't see how determinism remotely affects moral accountability at all.
The most immediate response I can give is that under a deterministic Universe, we still can't predict the future and so we act as we would under an indeterministic Universe anyway. If it's more of a "the result will be the same regardless", then this is no more a reason for no morality than it is for morality.

Being able to predict the future doesn't matter. In a purely secular materialistic universe the only way the future could be unpredictable is if randomness is a part of the natural processes.

I meant unpredictable to individuals, or even intelligence in general, not indeterministic. You need near-omniscience for it to be anything except unpredictable.

(many people even argue that true randomness is impossible).

At the moment the concept to me not only seems impossible but nonsensical.

But even if we allow for true randomness, that still doesn't imply that a brain has a choice that isn't determined (even if determined randomly).

I don't believe it does have a non-determined choice, I simply believe requiring choice to be literally indeterministic is a silly manipulation of language. There are plenty of concepts that, given some context, don't make sense, but often that's because those concepts are meant to be local to that context and that's where they find their meaning.

The morality of holding people accountable is all about rehabilitation; changing their behavioural patterns; not about retribution.

WHOA!

I agree that's what it SHOULD be, but that is most certainly not what moral accountability is.

I don't mean that's what everyone thinks it is right now, I mean that's what it is in my opinion.

And so we shouldn't be talking about "moral responsibility" at all. Morality is a judgement of "blame". And especially quite often associated with a concept of "Absolute Morality" like as if there is such a thing and that people should "Know better" than to chose otherwise.

The idea of blame or responsibility and the idea of accountability are separate, in my opinion, or at least accountability is the best word for escaping the meanings of the other words.
When I say accountable I mean they ought not have intended what they did, to put it one way.

"Why blame them?" is already the wrong question - it makes sense given context, but fundamentally morality is not about finding who to blame. That is merely a pragmatic solution; a question of ethics.

Now you are talking ethics. Ethics and morality are two different things.

Morality is a theistic concept. You can't even speak of morality without an ultimate source of moral authority and judgement.

Yes you can - a god does not benefit morality one iota.
Morality, noun, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour"

Ethics on the other hand is recognized as a human subjective invention.

I'm not saying that we can't teach brains to choose ethically. I'm just saying that we can't hold them responsible when they don't. At least not in a sense of "blaming" them for being "immoral".

It's a personal fault but I generally use ethics to refer to practical ethics and applied ethics, a kind of pragmatic or practical morality. I generally use morality to refer to an (almost) ideal scenario, or the ideal intended result.

In a purely secular materialistic world "intent" is nothing other than the deterministic configuration that led up to the current choice. Therefore people may ultimately not even be responsible for their "intent".

Intent is a real concept, and once again a subjective one.
Individual's emotions, feelings and perceptions are of course compatible with a deterministic Universe - and the individual's subjectives are certainly what matters with intent of all things.

You're going back to responsibility, in fact causal responsibility.
You're trying to say that the fact this was caused by something else, that wrongdoing must be shifted back.

The fact that wrong was intended is the fact that imperates accountability (or incites a kind of moral goal of rehabilitation, though I find this hard to phrase - accountability is likely the wrong word). Regardless of what caused them to intend what they did, or why they are what they are, if they intend bad, then they are doing wrong.

If you're a sentient computer program, you ought not do wrong. If you do wrong, you ought be rehabilitated.
If you're a sentient computer program, and you are programmed to do wrong, you still ought not do wrong and ought still be rehabilitated. (If your programmer intended you to exist and do wrong, they are additionally accountable, not solely accountable)

However, in a spiritual universe where there is a "God" and people supposedly are souls that are "Free Will Agents", then perhaps it makes sense to hold the "soul" responsible for both the intent and the choice.

Spiritual is ill-defined (as are souls incidentally) and a free will agent is one with a speck of true randomness.

They may be able to be "cured" from this deterministic cycle by rehabilitation (reprogramming how they think). But the question of holding them responsible for the previous mess their brain was in, is questionable.

How could anyone be held responsible for any intentions, choices, goals, desires, or anything else they have if pure secular materialism is true?

Are you referring to the feeling of them being responsibility?
The mix of disdain and disapproval?
That would be a natural, social reaction that may be pragmatically justified, or not (though I don't currently consider individual to be able to be morally wrong), but either way is nothing to do with determinism as, once again, it is a feeling; a specific kind of subjective concept.

If by responsible you mean they ought be rehabilitated, or they did wrong, then because it is clearly factually true (given that the intent was wrong) - they need not be some kind of 'causal source'.

I'm open to both of these realities. All I ask is that we be consistent when we chose to believe one. If we chose to believe in a purely secular materialistic world, then we can't be responsible for the accidents we turned out to be.

People can blame us, and be pragmatically justified in doing so, and socially justified too.

While we might not intend what we will be, what we will be will itself intend and that is where the responsibility comes from - not from being the source of the intent. It doesn't matter if we're a series of accidents - even with free will we still would be, not only would there be the question of how our free will chooses, but the question of "are our choices influenced" (which is trivially true).

[Divine Insight]

Jashwell,

After reading you post I feel that we are far more on the same page then you may realize. Because ultimately I am not arguing that there needs to be a "Free Will Agent" or a "soul" or anything like that. I do have arguments for those concepts but that's a totally different topic, and I confess that even then my arguments are not that there is such an entity, but rather that they are arguments that such an entity could be plausible, given a lot of unprovable assumptions, many of which don't even make sense to me.

But that's not important to this conversation, because I'm not arguing that a Free Will Agent must exist. I'm simply arguing that if one doesn't exist, then it's meaningless to point "blame" at individuals for the choices they make. Especially "blame" in the sense of having purposefully chosen to do "bad" or "wrongful" things.

The morality of holding people accountable is all about rehabilitation; changing their behavioural patterns; not about retribution.

WHOA!

I agree that's what it SHOULD be, but that is most certainly not what moral accountability is.

I don't mean that's what everyone thinks it is right now, I mean that's what it is in my opinion.

We seem to be on the same page here to a large degree. I have no problem at all with restraining dangerous individuals. We would do that with any dangerous animals, but we don't hold the animals responsible for morality. We never think that a bear should be punished for being an "evil" bear.

And I'm all for, productive "rehabilitation", or reprogramming, or helping people to change their behaviors. In fact, I hold that in a purely secular materialistic world that's the only rational thing to do.

So potentially in the end result, you and I may be very close to being on the "Same Page".

But at the same time, you make other statements that cause me to think that you aren't fully on the same page entirely:

For example you say:

And so we shouldn't be talking about "moral responsibility" at all. Morality is a judgement of "blame". And especially quite often associated with a concept of "Absolute Morality" like as if there is such a thing and that people should "Know better" than to chose otherwise.

The idea of blame or responsibility and the idea of accountability are separate, in my opinion, or at least accountability is the best word for escaping the meanings of the other words.

I agree. Our conversation isn't about "accountability" in general.

It's about the difference between:

1. Moral Accountability
and
2. Causal Accountability.

Like I just pointed out above, we hold bears "causally accountable" for their actions, but we don't hold them "morally accountable".

When I say accountable I mean they ought not have intended what they did, to put it one way.

But now you are bringing in two more qualifiers: "ought" and "intention".

I imagine by "ought" you simply mean that they "Should have known better".

And by "intent" you mean, "They actually did know better but did what they knew was wrong anyway""

While both of these seem innocent enough, and fairly straight-forward, in truth they are neither. On the contrary they can actually be quite naive concepts depending on the brain (the individual) they are being aimed at.

Obviously this can appear to work quite well. Say you have children who tell you that they understand what's right and wrong as you have laid out for them. And they openly state that the fully understand the whole concept and they choose to do what is right.

You could use these children as examples to show that the concept appears to work quite well.

But what about in the children where it clearly isn't working? What went wrong?

It's easy to simply say, "Well those children simply chose to do things that they know is wrong, so clearly they made wrong choices, and therefore they must be held responsible for having made those wrong choices".

But already this implies that you are viewing the children are being "Free Will Agents", who used their Free Will to chose what they "ought not to have chosen".

There problem I have with this is that if we live in a purely secular materialistic world where the only thing that ultimately drives it are the laws of physics, then what was it that "caused" these naughty children to chose what they "ought not to have chosen".

And the only thing you can apparently point to is their "intent". But where did their intent come from if not the very same secular materialistic accident?

You seem to be automatically giving "Intent" a free pass into the domain of being a "Free Will Agent" without even realizing that this is what you are doing.

There problem here is that "intent" can't be anymore "free" than the choice itself.

Morality is a theistic concept. You can't even speak of morality without an ultimate source of moral authority and judgement.

Yes you can - a god does not benefit morality one iota.
Morality, noun, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour"

But who decides what is right or wrong, or good or bad behavior?

It can't be an absolute. It can only be a subjective opinion. Potentially supported by a large social consensus, but still subjective none the less.

Ethics on the other hand is recognized as a human subjective invention.

I'm not saying that we can't teach brains to choose ethically. I'm just saying that we can't hold them responsible when they don't. At least not in a sense of "blaming" them for being "immoral".

It's a personal fault but I generally use ethics to refer to practical ethics and applied ethics, a kind of pragmatic or practical morality. I generally use morality to refer to an (almost) ideal scenario, or the ideal intended result.

But who is the judge of what constitutes an "ideal scenario" or "the ideal intended result"?

Who's ideals represent morality?

Actually this question is a totally separate issue anyway. The real question in this thread is the concept of free will choice (or even free will intent) if you want to shift the "blame" to "intent".

It seems to me that in the end all you are doing to proclaiming that we have "Free Will Intent".

[FarWanderer]

Regarding the discussion of "intent", I don't think intent even exists in a purely scientific world. Intent is part of the "other" language of reality- the one in which free will exists.

The thing is, we can coherently speak of anything in terms of intent. A storm can be said to have intent to destroy a town. A rock can be said to have intent to go to the center of the earth (although it's thwarted by all the other rocks being in the way).

Now, is this kind of thinking wrong in any kind of objective sense? Or is it just a way to communicate that most people would (subjectively) find odd?

[FarWanderer]

However, there would still remain a problem if a society is "based upon science" and continues to hold people "morally responsible" for their actions.

Science is nothing more than a tool we use to accomplish goals. Society uses science; it's not founded on it.

[Jashwell]

When I say accountable I mean they ought not have intended what they did, to put it one way.

But now you are bringing in two more qualifiers: "ought" and "intention".

I imagine by "ought" you simply mean that they "Should have known better".

And by "intent" you mean, "They actually did know better but did what they knew was wrong anyway""

While both of these seem innocent enough, and fairly straight-forward, in truth they are neither. On the contrary they can actually be quite naive concepts depending on the brain (the individual) they are being aimed at.

Obviously this can appear to work quite well. Say you have children who tell you that they understand what's right and wrong as you have laid out for them. And they openly state that the fully understand the whole concept and they choose to do what is right.

You could use these children as examples to show that the concept appears to work quite well.

But what about in the children where it clearly isn't working? What went wrong?

It's easy to simply say, "Well those children simply chose to do things that they know is wrong, so clearly they made wrong choices, and therefore they must be held responsible for having made those wrong choices".

But already this implies that you are viewing the children are being "Free Will Agents", who used their Free Will to chose what they "ought not to have chosen".

There problem I have with this is that if we live in a purely secular materialistic world where the only thing that ultimately drives it are the laws of physics, then what was it that "caused" these naughty children to chose what they "ought not to have chosen".

And the only thing you can apparently point to is their "intent". But where did their intent come from if not the very same secular materialistic accident?

You seem to be automatically giving "Intent" a free pass into the domain of being a "Free Will Agent" without even realizing that this is what you are doing.

There problem here is that "intent" can't be anymore "free" than the choice itself.

By ought I mean are morally wrong to do have intended so, or should not have intended so, not should have known better - you can intend bad things without realising you're wrong.

I'm also not of the view that doing bad things is universally unacceptable, we're human beings with individual value judgements and personalities, with all sorts of pragmatic problems that make being perfect impossible - just that the whole point of calling something bad is to say it's better off not happening.

Morality is a theistic concept. You can't even speak of morality without an ultimate source of moral authority and judgement.

Yes you can - a god does not benefit morality one iota.
Morality, noun, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour"

But who decides what is right or wrong, or good or bad behavior?

It can't be an absolute. It can only be a subjective opinion. Potentially supported by a large social consensus, but still subjective none the less.

It can be universally true, say maximising the actualisation of desires - and incompatible desires make for less than compatible ones, so the incompatible ones should be discouraged and reformed. To put it one way.

Naturally, actualising desires is of course literally good for any individual by definition.

Usually I'd speak in terms of maximum long term happiness or something else.

A god doesn't give 'ultimate morality' or anything like that.

Ethics on the other hand is recognized as a human subjective invention.

I'm not saying that we can't teach brains to choose ethically. I'm just saying that we can't hold them responsible when they don't. At least not in a sense of "blaming" them for being "immoral".

It's a personal fault but I generally use ethics to refer to practical ethics and applied ethics, a kind of pragmatic or practical morality. I generally use morality to refer to an (almost) ideal scenario, or the ideal intended result.

But who is the judge of what constitutes an "ideal scenario" or "the ideal intended result"?

Who's ideals represent morality?

Actually this question is a totally separate issue anyway. The real question in this thread is the concept of free will choice (or even free will intent) if you want to shift the "blame" to "intent".

It seems to me that in the end all you are doing to proclaiming that we have "Free Will Intent".

As I've made clear before, I'm no incompatibilist. Generally that means I have a different definition of free will.

I consider choice and free will to only exist subjectively.

Regarding the discussion of "intent", I don't think intent even exists in a purely scientific world. Intent is part of the "other" language of reality- the one in which free will exists.

Psychology is a broad science, and intent is not unscientific.
You can be reasonable in being sure that someone intends something.

The thing is, we can coherently speak of anything in terms of intent. A storm can be said to have intent to destroy a town. A rock can be said to have intent to go to the center of the earth (although it's thwarted by all the other rocks being in the way).

Now, is this kind of thinking wrong in any kind of objective sense? Or is it just a way to communicate that most people would (subjectively) find odd?

Most people don't believe storms are sentient enough to have intent, or to want anything in general. Storms can't do any level of computation/don't have anything like a brain.
However, those who believe in disembodied souls have literally distanced themselves from any evidential means of saying storms aren't sentient.

[Divine Insight]

Regarding the discussion of "intent", I don't think intent even exists in a purely scientific world. Intent is part of the "other" language of reality- the one in which free will exists.

I think "intent" can be shown to exist objectively and scientifically. Just as choices can be shown to exist objectively. But the question still remains for both of these. Can either of them be show to be "Free" from physical determinism? Scientifically there's really no way to "free" them up from physical determinism.

So while 'intent' can be a scientifically verifiable objective behavior (i.e. observed by recordable actions leading up to an event), it still can't be shown to be 'free' from physical determinism.

I don't deny "intent". I just don't see that as a valid place to shove "free will".

Science is nothing more than a tool we use to accomplish goals. Society uses science; it's not founded on it.

That may be true in our current societies but then what is the basis for those societies?

Clearly in the ancient world religious beliefs were often the basis for societies. In that case the religious dogma was the "Book of Law" and an imagined God was the ultimately law-giver.

Sometimes a simply monarchy or dictatorship is the basis. In this case whoever is in charge just gets to make the laws however they so choose.

In a "Free Democracy" supposedly "We the People" make the laws by social consensus. However, in the case of something like the USA we have historically seen a lot of religious laws being pushed in by social consensus that way. That's how we end up with the "Blue Laws" and things like that. Or laws on the books against homosexuality, etc.

I don't think there is a society in the world today that is actually founded on pure scientific secularism. So you're right there. But obviously with the rise in atheism these questions come up. How do you go about building a society based upon a philosophy of pure scientific secularism?

This is the question that the theist put to the atheists all the time.

I personally have no problem with the idea of a society that is based upon pure secularism, science, reason, and logic, and of course human compassion as well.

I think almost all atheists would also want a secular society to be a "Free Democracy" since that is in harmony with reason and logic.

The question is, how do we deal with the concept of "Free Will"? I think there are valid ways to deal with it. And Sam Harris has written an entire book on the subject. But at the same time I think there are certain things that need to be fundamentally changed from "traditional views" that were previously based on theism and the idea of punishment as the main thesis in dealing with "Free Will".

In fact, if you look at a religion like Christianity, they keep screaming that it's all about "Free Will" and God giving us "Free Will Choice" so that when he throws his temper tantrums and slams us into eternal punishment we have no one to "blame" but ourselves.

That is the mentality that we need to move away from. And secular scientific materialism does offer a way to move away from that mentality.

The problem I have is that a lot of secularist don't seem to recognize this like Sam Harris does. Many secularists seem to think that we can toss religion out and still hold people responsible for their Free Will Choices in a way that makes the person personally responsible, not unlike religion. It's like, "Well they still had free will choice and therefore they are only getting what they deserve".

As long as we keep that attitude we haven't truly shaken off the religious baggage.

If we're going to move into a society based on pure secular materialism then we need to recognize that the "Free Will Blame Game" also has end. Otherwise we end up with a contaminated system that isn't true to itself.

We have to realize that people who do things that we do not approve of are truly nothing more than what we might call "Defective Secular Accidents".

We call them "defective" because as far as we are concerned they can't seem to understand and follow a socially acceptable program.

But viewing them as being "defective" instead of being "guilty of intentional sin", we can actually potentially offer them far better treatments and chances to be reprogrammed (rehabilitated).

In short, a lot of our current legal system would hardly need to change at all. The only thing that would change is how we "view" these criminals. We would now start to view them as defective (or sick) people instead of intentionally bad or evil people.

I've actually view criminals this way for most of my life, because I rejected the religious picture of reality a very long time ago.

But what I notice today that bothers me is that many "secularists" who reject religion still cling to the "Blame Game" when it come to the concept of Free Will.

They somehow think that "Free Will" still makes sense in a purely secular materialistic world, when in fact, it doesn't.

[scourge99]

Nowhere did I say that a human brain is a DIGITAL computer.

I didn't say that you did. I said that comparing the brain to a computer can be misleading in some cases because its an imperfect comparison.

Yes, it can be misleading if a person is thinking in terms of how a digital computer works. But it may be spot on in terms of how an analog computer works.

The human brain most certainly is NOT a "Digital Computer".

However, it clearly is an "ANALOG COMPUTER".

Only if you ASSUME something like the Computational theory of the mind. Which i tend to agree with. Others do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatio ... ry_of_mind

Well, I personally reject the theory that you pointed to at Wiki. And the reason being that they are indeed thinking in terms of how a digital computer works, and not an analog computer:

From the Wiki Article. Right off the bat at the beginning of the article they describe the fundamental basics of how a digital computer works:

Computational theory does not claim the mind is a digital computer. Just that the mind is an information processing system. A digital computer as an example of an information processing system. But not all information processing systems are digital computers. Likewise, a dog is a type of animal, but not all animals are dogs.

The computational theory of mind is the theory that the mind/brain is a computer. The theory can be elaborated in many ways, the most popular of which is that the brain is a computer and the mind is the program that the brain runs.[3] An algorithm is an effective procedure: a step-by-step set of instructions that always results in an output (the same output every time), based only on the form of the input, and not what it means. Algorithms terminate in a finite number of steps, and they work for any admissible input. A program is the instantiation of an algorithm in a particular computer language. So the computational theory of mind is the claim that the mind is a machine that derives output representations of the world from input representations in a deterministic (non-random) and formal (non-semantic) way.

I've highlighted in red the descriptions they offer that are the same as how a digital computer works. They claim that the brain is merely a computer, whilst it requires a program to run it. They even go further to suggest that the program is a set of step-by-step instructions. And they even stat that the program is the instantiation of an algorithm in a particular computer language.

That's is NOT how an analog computer works at all. They are definitely thinking in terms of how a digital computer works.

So their "Computational Theory of Mind" is actually modeled after how digital computers work. I personally reject that theory as it appears to me to be obviously wrong.

Analog computers do not have programs that are separate from the computer. The current configuration of the analog computer is its programming. To change the programming of an analog computer you must change the configuration of the computer itself. And conversely if you change the wiring of the analog computer you necessarily change its programming. The analog computer is the program. There is no separation between the computer hardware and software. The configuration of the hardware is the program (i.e. the software). So actually an analogy computer has no "software" at all. There is no distinction between the hardware and the program in an analog computer.

And this is a quite important difference between analog and digital computers.

i do not agree with the wikipedia articles description or your interpretation of it.

Here is quote from Steven Pinker, a well known and respected cognitive scientist, who supports the Computational theory of the mind and seemingly rebukes this comparison to of it as "just" a digital computer:
http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/fi ... d_work.pdf

‘Computation’ in this
context does not refer to what a commercially available digital computer does
but to a more generic notion of mechanical rationality, a concept that Fodor
himself has done much to elucidate (Fodor, 1968; 1975; 1981; 1994).
In this conception, a computational system is one in which knowledge and goals
are represented as patterns in bits of matter (‘representations’). The system is
designed in such a way that one representation causes another to come into
existence; and these changes mirror the laws of some normatively valid system
like logic, statistics, or laws of cause and effect in the world. The design of the
system thus ensures that if the old representations were accurate, the new ones are
accurate as well. Deriving new accurate beliefs from old ones in pursuit of a goal is
not a bad definition of ‘intelligence’, so a principal advantage of the computational
theory of mind (CTM) is that it explains how a hunk of matter (a brain or a
computer) can be intelligent.

well its not OBVIOUS at all that when you say the mind is a computer that its an analog computer. Perhaps you THINK its obvious to you, but it wasn't to me.

It would seem to me that it should be obvious to anyone who truly understands how an analog computer works. I think the problem may actually reside in the fact that most people don't genuinely understand how an analog computer actually works.

And i don't agree that the brain is an analog computer. The analog/digital distinction is senseless in this regard except perhaps to say that you think the brain is a computer but its not a digital one. I.E., saying the brain is an analog computer is just to say that the brain isn't a digital computer but still a computational machine (a computer) of some sort. In other words, you are SPECULATING that we can reproduce consciousness in a "computer" and hedging your bets by calling it an "analog computer" (IE, a computer that is not digital)

But the distinction between an analog computer and a digital computer is quite real, and quite profound.

And YES, I most certainly do hold that if we want to create a truly sentient and conscious being the only way to do it is by building an analog computer.

In fact, I hold that this could never be accomplished with a digital computer. You might be able to program a digital computer to simulate the appearance of consciousness to an external observer, but that's precisely what it would be. A simulation that isn't itself actually having any experience of consciousness.

addressed above by providing a better source than wikipedia for the Computational theory of the mind.

What would have become conscious? The hardware? Or the Software? The computer, or the program?

What you are asking is as misguided and wrong as asking "where does the fire go when you put out a candle?"

In an analogy computer there is no difference between the hardware and the software. The hardware is the software. If an analog computer is configured to exhibit sentient consciousness, than that's what's it's doing. It's not merely "simulating" this as a step-by-step algorithm, but instead it has taken on the entire configuration of "being in this state of mind".

The entire analog computer becomes the "Mind".

And this is actually what secular atheist are predicting!

They are predicting that "Mind" is an emergent property of a configuration space (i.e. the configuration of the analog neural network).

So this is in complete harmony with the secular view that mind is an emergent property of a complex configuration.

well its easy to wave your hands and talk a big game about how an "analog" computer is the best way to go about completely producing artificial consciousness.

What is more likely? That the entire field of neuroscience and experts are misguided, or perhaps you, a non-expert and arm-chair cognitive scientist are being a bit presumptive about this "analog computer" idea you've invented in your head in the last day/month/year?

And this would be absolutely no different from holding an analog computer responsible for its thoughts and intentions.

I know of no analog computer that has thoughts or intentions. Thus its nonsense to hold a computer, rock, or ant MORALLY responsible for its actions. The only way its RESPONSIBLE is that its CAUSALLY responsible for its actions.

And how many analog computers have you seen that are as complex as the human brain?

In terms of technology, analog computers fell by the wayside when it became apparent that digital computers were far superior for "our purposes". Digital computers are extremely easy to program, and the mere fact that the hardware and software are entirely separate make programming them a snap.

You only need one digital computer, and you can write as many different programs you like to run on it.

When you build an analog computer, what you build is what you get. To reprogram it you need to rewire it. Or at least reconfigure it in terms of it's hardware.

Now we are actually doing this today by using "Programmable Array Logic" circuits also call PALs. These are electron logic networks that can be reprogrammed on the fly without having to rebuild them physically.

This is actually how our brain works. And we know this.

But you say that you've never seen an analog computer that you would hold responsible for being self-aware. So what? We just haven't ever built an analog computer that sophisticated yet.

Do you realize that the human brain has as many neurons as our galaxy has stars? And each neuron is basically an op-amp circuit (in a sense) that has thousands of connections to neighboring neurons.

Where have you ever seen an man-made analog computer that complex?

I'm not surprised at all that you have never seen a man-made analog computer that you would hold responsible for being self-aware. I haven't either.

Its a bit silly to have me explain away problems and contradictions that you find in my arguments that only arise from your SPECULATIONS about analog computers.

You are making grandiose assumptions that a computer can become self aware as humans are. Such speculations have no basis in realty, only in science fiction at this time.

They are not speculations. They are sound hypotheses based upon what I know about how analog computer, or neural networks actually work.

They are speculations. Otherwise, please point to an EXPERT and quote him. If oyu do please list clearly the idea he is supporting and which idea of yours you think he is agreeing with so there can be no doubt. And please try not to write an essay in the process because i don't have the time nor desire to read and reply to it. This post is far too long as it is.

In short Scourge, if you could program a digital computer to simulate self-awareness I might be impressed with your programming skills, but I would still be unconvinced that the digital computer is actually having an experience of self-awareness?

I've made no claim that a digital computer could fully reproduce consciousness.

In a STEP-BY-STEP algorithmic program that is being executed one step at a time by a CPU, the question of what is it that is actually "Self Aware" becomes highly problematic. In fact, to me, it appears that the answer it NOTHING. In this scenario nothing is actually self-aware. All that's happening is that a STEP-BY-STEP algorithmic program is just simulating self-awareness.

This is a continued problem you demonstrate. The inability or unwillingess to comprehend emergence and abstractions. Its fine if you don't think that the mind is emergent or an abstraction, but you seem unwilling or unable to even concede these ideas as a logical possibility..

But if an analog neural network became self-aware, then it's doing this as a whole because it is the configuration that has "become" self aware.

So the analog computer is the only way to achieve this. Doing it with a digital computer is just an algorithmic simulation that may produce results that appear to be self-aware, but clearly there would be nothing to there actually be aware?

so its the only way because its the only way you can think of? Textbook example of an argument from incredulity.

What would be "Aware"? The Hardware? Or the STEP-BY-STEP software program?

As a logical possibility, (not saying its certain or likely true) the mind is an emergent property of a working brain. If the mind is an emergent property of a working brain then asking if the hardware or software is "aware" is as misguided and wrong as asking "where does the fire go when you put out a candle?"

Regardless of whether you agree that the mind is an emergent property of the brain or not, if you can't comprehend the idea of the mind an an emergent property of the brain then there is no further point in us discussing this aspect of the topic.

In the analog computer it's clear that the whole configuration has become aware.

But then the question comes up: Can this configuration be held responsible for being in the configuration that it has found itself? Can it be held morally responsible for anything?

So ultimately if you held it responsible for it's thoughts and intentions, you would basically be holding it responsible for merely being in the configuration that it just happens to currently be in.

Assuming that a computer can become self aware such that its IDENTICAL or very similar to a human mind, then yes, its intentions and thoughts would play a large role, just like in humans, in determining morally culpability.

But WHO would be responsible for its thoughts and intentions if those very thoughts and intentions are a result of its "programming" (i.e. it's physical configuration)?

If a concious being intentionally commits an immoral act then he is MORALLY responsible. He is also CASAULLY responsible. If a concious being unintentionally commits an immoral act then it may or may not be morally responsible. He would still be CASAULLY responsible.

It doesn't matter if the mind/body that performed an immoral action was a self aware computer or a human. The only thing that matters is that the being has immoral intentions and acted upon them. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about sentient rocks, dinosaurs, or robots. The moral calculus is IDENTICAL.

I absolutely AGREE! There would be NO DIFFERENCE!

And that's my point.

Whether we are talking about an analog computer, or a human brain, the thoughts and intentions that it has are a result of its configuration.

How can you hold a human responsible for the current configuration of their brain?

Because MORALITY is about the right and wrong actions of conscious beings. it makes no sense to talk about MORAL CULPABILITY ("responsibility") if you deny the existence of morality. if you concede the existence of morality then it makes perfect sense.

Are you trying to suggest that there is a FREE WILL AGENT involve somewhere in this process that can be held responsible for how the brain become configured?

No. i'm saying that regardless of the existent of freewill, morality is about the right and wrong actions of moral agents. And only conscious beings are moral agents. SO you must be either denying that morality exists or conceding that there is "responsibility".

Whether you are a good person or a bad person would be a result of the configuration of your brain.

Not necessarily because consciousness is a process, not a state.

Most of that was given to you by DNA (something totally beyond your control).

actually most of what you learn and know and make decisions based upon is not hereditary.

Quite a bit of it was given to you during development as a small child (again totally beyond "Your Control").

Which is why "mens rea" plays an important part in our justice system.

And finally, at what age do you ever take over the reigns? At what age can "YOU" claim to have finally become the "FREE WILL AGENT" who is now in control of how your neural network should continue to develop?

i doubt its any set time. Just as there is no set time when an adolescent becomes an adult or consciousness emerges.

At what exact point does a struck match become "lit". We can point to instances before and after to clearly demarcate what a lit match is from an unlit match. But the exact time period at which the match is being struck is a gray area. Its a gradual process. I imagine its far far far more complicated for something with billions of workings parts like a brain.

What is in charge of your neural network OTHER than the neural network itself?

The question is what do you mean by "in charge of"? Matter and the laws of physics are "in charge" of how every piece of matter works whether it be a match, a hurricane, or the brain. We clearly understand that even though hurricanes are just complex configurations of matter acting in a certain way it nonetheless has unique properties which we describe as "rain", "wind", etc. The brain is similar except it manifests properties like intentions, desires, goals which are part of a mind.

Well, of course, we already know that there are many physical things that can cause your neural network to develop in ways that are even beyond the control of the neural network itself. So the brain can't even be held responsible for its own development. At least not entirely.

i agree. For example, we don't choose our sexual orientation or what foods we find pleasing.

And even if we claim that it can be responsible for its own development to some degree, at WHAT POINT, does this occur? At what point does the brain move from just being a physical neural network configuration to having become a totally "FREE WILL AGENT" that can make choices and decisions that are independent of the the very configuration that it is?

And if that never happens, then what is ultimately being held responsible for moral integrity? Nothing more than a configuration that no one ever had any control over at any time.

I'm not saying that you can control the physics which your "neural network" is subject to. I'm saying that your thoughts, motivations, and intentions are the product of your "neural network".

You would need to argue that this analog computer has become a "Free Will Agent".

a vague and obscure term. You'll have to actually define what you mean by "free will agent" if i'm to answer your challenge. Given that you have penchant for talking gobbledygook, i expect it will take several posts to nail down an agreed upon and coherent definition.

For me the term is extremely simple to define:

A "Free Will Agent" is the agent that would be required to change the configuration of a neural network that itself gives rise to consciousness, thoughts, and decisions.

I agree that it's and "obscure term" because the concept is absurd. There can be no such thing as a "Free Will Agent" in a purely secular materialistic world.

well if you've already decided its absurd and meaningless then i guess we can no longer use the term "frree will agent". No point in using a term that is obscure and absurd.

So unless you claim that such a thing actually EXISTS, then why should I even need to define it?

I can't agree or disagree unless you make it unobscure/absurd. Your unwilligness or inability to makes further use of your term "freewill agent" pointless. Please stop using it in the future so our discussions aren't sidetracked by the obscure/absurd term.

I'm claiming that in a purely secular materialistic world a "Free Will Agent" cannot exist.

And therefore I'm asking you the question, "WHO are you holding responsible for morally?"

If there is no such thing as a "Free Will Agent", then who's responsible for moral actions? The neural network?

as usual in your responses you have the following pattern which is very irritating
1) state an opinion or conclusion as a fact
2) present a question assuming the opinion is fact
3) repeat the same opinion and question throughout the post

I've directly addressed your opinion and question several times in this very post already. You don't need to repeat it.

But what sense does that make if the Neural Network itself only came to be by the standard laws of physics and cause and effect. The neural Network itself can have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for it's current configuration.

already addrtessed

How could it? The only way it could be held responsible is if it was indeed a "Free Will Agent" that could somehow rise above the laws of physics and rewire itself in spite of the fact that it only exists in the first place because it has been wired by nothing more than the causal laws of physics.

YOu used a term you concede is absurd and obscure. No point is answering this question. Rephrase without the obscure/absurd term and perhaps i can answer it if i haven't already.

At what point does someone become responsible for having evolved to become a "Free Will Agent" that has risen above the laws of physics? Because that's what you would need to have become if you are now going to take control of how your own neural net continues to evolve in SPITE of the laws of physics.

Answered above.

But where was that line actually crossed? At what point did the analog computer change from being nothing more than a configuration of neural networks to becoming a "Free Agent"?

1) You are once again assuming a computer can even become conscious. The stuff of science fiction, not science, at the moment.

But in a purely secular materialist worldview that's the Hypothesis that we are working under. We are nothing more than biologically evolved brains.

So I'm trying to work within the secular worldview here. If you want to call that science fiction then I can only assume that you believe the secular world view to be science fiction.

the best working model that explains the evidence is that the mind is the product of a working brain which is a computational system. Not that its digital computer or an analog computer. I cannot comment on SPECULATIONS about artificially producing consciousness via an analog computer or digital computers.

2) If I knew exactly how all the 100 billion+ neurons in our brain manifested consciousness, i'd have a Nobel prize. But we know it does despite not knowing exactly how just like we know all life on earth is related despite not having a fossil or evidence of the first lifeform(s).

You don't need to now how the brain works to understand what I'm saying.

All you need to realize is that without a "Free Will Agent" (something that can be totally independent from the causal laws of physics) it doesn't matter how the brain works. It could never evolve to be held responsible for what it had become, because the brain itself is nothing but a hodgepodge result of the causal laws of physics.

How could a brain ever be held responsible for what it has become when it wasn't in charge of designing itself?

It will forever be at the mercy of the configuration that it has currently evolved to be.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying that this can't be the truth of reality. Perhaps this is the truth of reality. All I'm saying is that if it is the truth of reality, then it's absurd to hold anyone morally responsible for anything. That's all I'm saying.

How can you be held responsible for what you have evolved to become from millions of years of evolution that you had no say in?

And unless you are a "Free Will Agent" (i.e. can change what you are with total disregard to the deterministic laws of physics and cause and effect) then how can you be held morally responsible for anything?

Ultimately all I'm arguing for here is that if there is no such thing as a "Free Will Agent", then the concept of moral responsibility has no basis.

And that may very well be TRUTH. In fact, I have no problem at all with that being true. If that's the truth of reality it's not a problem. But it is something that we need to recognize and address.

You've decided to use the term you've described as "absurd and obscure". So i can't make sense of this paragraph or answer it unless you use a non-obscure, non-absurd term because most of it is dependent on that term.

Was the awakening of sentience the line that has been crossed between not being a free will agent to having become a free will agent? Is self-awareness the key element and fundamental definition of Free Will?

i can't answer these questions until you accurately define "free will agent" and "freewill". These terms are as nebulous and vague as "god" and "spiritual".

They are not as nebulous and vague as "god" and "spirit" because I'm not claiming that any such thing as a "free will agent" exists.

All I'm saying it that if you are going to hold anything "morally responsible" then it's you that needs to invent these things as actual entities.

In the meantime these words make perfect scientific sense in a secular materialistic worldview:

Free will - to have a will (or power to decide) that is FREE from laws of physics, or the physical configuration which constitutes your materialistic brain.

i reject you definition of "freewill" as free from laws of physics. I would say "freewill" is more like the ability to make choices, to contemplate outcomes, and otherwise pursue goals we consciously desire.

This is what we mean by "Free". Free from the deterministic laws of cause and affect. If it's not FREE from the standard deterministic laws of physics, then it's not a "Free Will" but instead it a deterministic will.

If that is your definition of freewill then we do not have freewill. But either way that is irrelevant to morality. Unless of course you slyly define morality by requiring freewill.

That doesn't mean you are wrong but its means we are using very different definitions and thuds NOT talking about the same thing when we discuss morality and freewill.

I don't see why you have such a problem with these terms. They seem pretty straight-forward to me.

i explained why.

A "Free Will Agent" would be the "Mysterious entity" that is actually capable of making choices that are FREE from the deterministic laws of physics, or the deterministic configuration of the neural net of the brain.

I agree that our choices are not free from deterministic laws of physics. But that doesn't make them any less our CHOICES, our WILL. And when those choices are immoral we hold the person MORALLY responsible. Its really that simple.

I am not claiming that a Free Will Agent actually exists. I'm merely pointing out the fact that if you want to hold anyone morally responsible then you are the one who is assuming that they are FREE from deterministic physics. You are the one who requires that they are indeed a "Free Will Agent".

no because we have differing definitions which is why in was so adamant you define your terms upfront. We could have saved a lot of time.

That seems a bit controversial. The reason being that you can have two analog computers, neural networks, or biological brains. One of these can have been wired to generate all manner of negative and hostile "thoughts". The other one can have been wired to generate all manner of positive and loving thoughts.

Once again, pure speculation and science fiction. We have no idea what it takes to produce consciousness besides an organic brain.

And that's exactly what I am addressing. No science fiction required.

Assuming the computational theory of the mind is accurate then yes, it MAY be possible to reproduce a human-like mind via a computer. Then again, it may not be because of some technological hurdle or fundamental difference or something else.

If secular materialism is true, then it absolute must be possible because that's necessarily what we are. We don't need to even worry about "the computational theory of mind", because that particular theory may be totally wrong in the details.

But clearly if secular materialism is true, then our brains are without a doubt nothing other than evolved biological machines.

Yes, but the TYPE of machine makes a BIG BIG difference.

The only way to avoid that would be to move away from secular materialism and be open to some other possible worldview.

No other worldviews to my knowledge are consistent with the evidence hence why in the academic world its pretty much unanimously agreed that the mind is the product of the brain.

Now when you turn both of these brains on they both become sentience (self aware). But one brain keep generating negative and hostile thoughts and decisions, whilst the other brain keeps generating positive and loving thoughts and decisions.

You proceed with even more grandiose assumptions. Not only do you claim that we reproduce minds with computers, but that once we do we can finely tune them to have positive and negative hostile thoughts.

What do you suppose a unicorn's favorite food is?

You are being irrationally hostile in this conversation. I am not proposing anything beyond pure material secularism in our conversations. I've been speaking to you entirely as a secular scientist in all our conversations thus far.

No you are speculating. We are going to have to agree to disagree. ALl i can say is that i can't answer detailed questions about speculations and science fiction,.

If you are going to hold humans in a purely secular universe morally responsible then it is you that I should be asking, "And what do you suppose a unicorn's favorite food is?" Because you are the one who is demanding that a human must be something more than just the result of a purely mechanistic brain that has evolved solely by the deterministic laws of physics.

A human brain is something more than a mechanistic brain. Just like a hurricane is "something more" than a bunch of atoms. And a painting is something more than "smears of paint".

If you can grasp why a painting is "more" than smears of paint and why a hurricane is more than a bunch of atoms, then maybe, just maybe, you'll understand why the mind is something more than just the brain.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to favor a purely secular world view whilst simultaneously holding people morally responsible for their actions. That, my friend, is a totally inconsistent and unsupportable position to take.

You are demanding that humans can be held morally responsible whilst simultaneously confessing that you don't even know how their brains work.

That makes no sense at all.

addressed above

So how does it make any sense to hold the "Sentience" or "Self Awareness" responsible for the thoughts and decisions it's making when fundamentally it really has no Free Will Choice because it has already been wired at a fundamental level to be innately good or bad.

"free will choice"... what does that mean????

Free from the deterministic laws of physics.

I agree that the brain, and thus our choices, are not free from the deterministic laws of physics.

Its logically contradictory to say that someone makes a choice and doesn't have freewill.

No it isn't. Even my simple digital laptop computer make decisions and "choices" based on external inputs all the time. So are you claiming that it has "Free Will"?[/quote] Your laptop has a mind? If not then its factually wrong that your laptop makes "decisions" in the same sense a human makes "decisions" unless you are EQUIVOCATING.

I used to program industrial robots, and trust me those robots were making lots of decisions and even "choices" based on the current situations they were in.

But never once did I think of them as having "Free Will".

And it would be absolutely silly to hold them morally responsible for anything.

You are equivocating with the term "decision". I'm not going to get bogged down playing word games. I'll dismiss future instances of it.

If we're going to hold sentience, or self-awareness responsible for making decisions we must first eliminate any possibility that it has NO REAL CHOICE in the matter.

So sentient beings can;t make choices now? So when i choose between coke and pepsi, i'm not making a choice? I'm lying when i say i deliberate between the two and choose one?

The question now is, "Are you making choices for any other reasons that the robots that I programmed had made their choices?"

You may think that you have a choice in the matter, but if pure secular materialism is true, that may be entirely an illusion. In fact, it has to be an illusion if pure secular materialism is true.

how can it be an illusion if i am MAKING the choice?

Are you saying my mind did not choose coke? Who chose it then? God? Magic elves? anthropomorphic "nature"?

The only way it could not be true is if some kind of mystical or spiritual philosophy of reality is truth.

I'm well aware that is the conclusion you are trying to lead the evidence to. You don't need to repeat it.

You seem to want the best of both worlds. But pure secular materialism does not allow for true free will. If you chose a coke over a pepsi there must have been something in the configuration of your neural net that caused you to make that choice.

My choice for pepsi was a deterministic process. If the universe was rewound and everything played out the same i would ALWAYS choose pepsi. THIS IS THE KEY POINT: regardless of whether my choice was the result of purely deterministic processes or not, its still the choice MY mind made. I did indeed want pepsi, not coke.

That has to be the case if the world truly is nothing more that pure secular materialism. There is nothing else that could be the case.

i disagree. We don't know enough to say that there is something in particular in our NEURAL NETWORK that "made" us choose coke anymore than there is something in particular in a hurricane that made it have winds of 100mph. Many many many many variables and dependencies may be involved as oppossed to some individual thing you can point to and blame as you suggest.

Simply recognizing that biological brains are indeed nothing more than neural networks (i.e. Analog Computers), then how can science blame the sentience of these computers for how they have been innately fundamentally wired?

I've said this repeatedly: because the sentient beings have intentions and thoughts. And we hold people MORALLY accountable for their actions oftentimes based on their intentions and motivations.

The are only one way i can think of to get around this and that is to argue for moral nihilism. The morality doesn't actually "exist". Good lcuk wiht that. because of morality does "exist" then morally culpability certainly does and ONLY applies to conscious beings.

If pure secular materialism is the truth of realty then morality does not exist. Especially not in any absolute form. All that can exists are subjective ethics.

i never claimed absolute morality.

Secular morality is not an absolute morality. Secular ethics is based on some subjective things like a desire for well being and empathy. But its also based on factual things like how the world actually works. For example, that getting vaccinated is generally less harmful than not getting vaccinated.

So if you buy into the idea that "morality actually exists", then you're not on board with a pure secular materialistic worldview.

No, you're just ignorant about secular morality. Which is made glaring obvious by your claim that you think its "absolute".

Here is a primer course for you:

What can exist is socially subjective ethics. But that's a far cry from "morality".

Once again, it probably boils down to a difference in terminology as hinted by your parsing of the word "morality".

So I don't see where you have even begun to address the issue at all. Instead you seem to be just "jumping" to the conclusion that if a brain is self-aware then it must also have FREE WILL CHOICE.

Well it depends on what you MEAN by that term you keep repeating without accurately and precisely defining: "free will choice".

Free from the deterministic laws of physics that would be all that exists in a purely secular materialistic world.

addressed above

Sam Harris would argue that we don't have "freewill". Arguing that "a puppet is only free as long as he loves his strings".

I agree with Sam Harris (at least in terms of a secular worldview). If the world truly is purely materialistic just following the laws of physics, then there can be no such thing as "freewill". I agree with Sam Harris. And I believe that he would agree with what I've been saying in our conversations thus far.

So I consider myself to be in harmony with Sam Harris concerning the nature of a secular worldview. That doesn't necessarily mean that I accept that this is the correct worldview. It may or may not be. But I do agree with Sam Harris concerning this worldview.

Sam Harris argues that moral responsibility exists regardless of freewill.

Dan Dennet spins this arguing that compatabilist freewill is the only coherent and form of freewill worth having. So both of them actually agree with one another but DISAGREE on terms. Perhaps this is similar to our disagreement. You want "freewill" to be something more than it logically can be.

I'm not sure that I agree that Dan Dennets "Compatabilist Freewill" actually represents free will at all. In fact, the compatabilists argue that a person's reasons, motives, and desires, are involved in their "Free Will" choices. But the problem with that is that a persons reasons, motives, and desires, may already be a result of the hard-wiring of their brain. Therefore to claim that they have "Free Will" because they are basing current choices on current reasons, motive, and desires, looses sight of the fact that the person may not be the slightest bit responsible for having those fundamental reasons, motives, and desire in the first place.

In fact, I hold this up all time in arguments of morality. I have NO DESIRE to sexually molest young children. Did I make a free will choice not to have that desire?

having a desire, and acting on that desire are very different.

I don't think so. I think I was just lucky enough to have a brain that doesn't automatically think that way. And because of this I must take into consideration the very real possibility that people who do have brains that have that desire may also have that desire through no fault of their own.

And therefore what sense does it make for me to say that they had a free will choice to become a child molester or not? Maybe because of the pure secular materialistic nature of their brain, they never had a choice.

I have a desire to have lots of money. I could rob a bank or con my elderly relatives. But the potential consequences of that (among other things) deter me. No different than a pedophile, or any other potential criminal.

So I'm with Sam Harris on this one. But I'm not prepared to agree with Dan Dennet on this particular issue.

I think it's better to just say that we have no free will as Sam Harris does.

well you are FREE to do so. Just make sure you define your terms upfront for the next person.

I don't see you can call something "conscious" unless it possesses intentions and motivations. Just like don't see how you can remove all the atoms of a rock and still call it a rock.

I don't deny that we have intentions and motivations. My only concern is that if we truly do live in a purely secular materialistic world, then how can we be held responsible for the intentions and motivations that we do have? We didn't chose to have them. We just have them.

When I was quite young I made a conscious choice to be a "Good Person". This was a quite profound event for me because it was a major decision of how I "intended" to live out the rest of my life.

But what was it that made that choice? Was this just a choice that my neural net happened to make because of it's configuration on that day?

Or can I take "Personal responsibility for having made that choice totally independent of the configuration of my brain on that day?"

This is a very powerful question Scourge, because if I made a choice that was independent of the configuration of my brain on that day then "WHO am I?" that I made a choice that was totally independent of my own brain?

This actually implies that *I* must be something other than my brain. I must be a "Free Will Agent" that is running a brain.

This is of course what many spiritualists and mystic belief.

But I'm not arguing for mysticism here. I'm willing to stick with the purely secular materialistic worldview and discard the idea of any mystical "Free Will Agent". But in that case my decision to life my life as a "good person" was nothing more than a decision that was made by my brain. I had no control over that decision at all really. Because if I'm not a separate "Free Will Agent" then I have no control over my brain, I simply am my brain.

So yes, my brain made what we consider to be a morally acceptable decision. But how could that have been anything more than a pure stroke of LUCK for me?

I certainly couldn't have been telling my brain what to do if I am nothing other than my brain.

addressed above

Its not like we have a device which can detect consciousness. We determine something is conscious based on how it acts similar to ourselves (we assume others are conscious like we are and aren't philosophical zombies or something else)

Being conscious and having free will are two different things.

But then you are already suggesting a "mysterious soul" of sorts. You are already suggesting that the mere emergence of sentience or self-awareness has itself become a "FREE WILL AGENT" that then has total control over the underlying neural network that gave rise to it.

I have no idea what these sentences even mean.

You certainly should understand what they mean by this point of the conversation.

If sentience and self-awareness are nothing more than an "emergent property" of an underlying neural network (biological analog computer), then surely that sentience and self-awareness is totally dependent upon the configuration of that neural network or brain.

Not necessarily true. The environment, conditions, and state of the brain, to name a fw examples, may play a role.

So what if they do? Those are still all deterministic cause and effect.

because it CONTRADICTS your claim that its JUST the configuration of the "neural network". There is potentially more to it such as the things i described.

Once again, we don't know exactly how the mind manifests from the billions of neurons. But we do know the mind is produced by the brain.

That's not the issue. The issue isn't whether or not a brain produces a sentient experience of awareness, the issue is whether or not that awareness can make choices that are FREE from the brain from which it arose.

addressed above

So all you are doing is pointing at an emergent property of an analog computer and saying, "Hey I think we should hold that emergent property responsible for whatever the analog computer that gave rise to it does!"

No, i'm saying that
1) morality exists
2) conscious beings are moral agents
3) humans are conscious

I'm not in agreement with your list.

1) morality exists

I absolutely disagree with this. There is no such thing as absolute morality, all that exists is subjective social ethics. Absolute morality is a theistic concept.

2) conscious beings are moral agents

Again, a theistic concept. I disagree that consciousness automatically equates to a moral agent. In fact what do you even mean by "Moral Agent"?

3) humans are conscious

I will agree with number 3, but since I've already rejected 1 and 2 I'm not going to be drawing the same conclusions that you might draw.

addressed above.

You think there is a dilemma because you are implicitly arguing that freewill and determinism are incompatible. If freewill and determinism are compatible (which they are) then there is no dilemma.

I agree, but I don't feel that you have resolved that freewill can be compatible with determinism.

Well i think you need to read up on that matter or present your reasoning why its incompatible. I can't prove its not incompatible except to say that it is compatible..

Well, I'm with Sam Harris on this one.

Free Will means "Free from determinism". Therefore a mind that is not free from determinism cannot be said to have free will. It's pretty straight-forward I think.

No mind can be free from determinism is a purely secular materialist worldview.

Addressed above. We are using different definitions of "freewill".

I don't even see how you can connect intentions with "deterministic processes". To say so is to say you've figured out how exactly neurons manifst "mind, intentions, desires, and goals".

It's not necessary to know how the brain works in detail. We are working under the hypothesis of a materialistic worldview. Period. So it doesn't matter how the brain works, in a purely secular materialist worldview. The bottom line is that it can be nothing other than a mechanistic machine following the laws of physics.

no it doesn't, there is more nuance than that. addressed above.

We know minds like ours have intentions, thoughts, goals desires, etc.

So? All of those intentions, thoughts, goals, and desires can be totally deterministic. In fact in a purely secular materialistic worldview they MUST BE! There is nothing else they can be.

It makes no sense to talk about "deterministic choices, goals, and desires" any more than it makes sense to talk about the color of atoms or the atomic number of a person. You are confusing two very different levels of understanding. A problems i've pointed out to you on several occasions on this topic.

We know our mind is a manifestation of a working brain.

That is the secular materialistic hypothesis. (we actually know know if that's truth) But for the purpose of discussing a secular materialistic world view we can assume this as a premise.

We know brains are bound by purely deterministic processes (physics, chemistry, etc).

Well, there you go. There can be no room for free will (i.e. a will that is FREE from those purely deterministic processes)

You just summed up the secular materialistic worldview right there.

addressed above

What are intentions, desires, goals, etc, if not the current configuration of the neural network that is the brain?

I don't know. neither do you. If we knew that we'd have a Nobel prize.

Well, that's the secular materialistic worldview.

Are you conceding that we don't know that the secular materialistic worldview is true? I'll certainly accept this.

However, everything I have been discussing thus far was based upon the assumption that the secular materialistic worldview is true.

And this physical configuration had to have been the result of nothing other than the cause and effects of the natural laws of physics with a little bit of randomness sprinkled in.

So where is there anyone to "Hold Responsible" for that?

Because morality exists.
Do you not think morality exists? Are there not wrong and right actions for a conscious being to choose from given a situation?

No I reject the concept of absolute morality. Especially in a secular materialistic worldview. What would be the ultimate judge of morality in a purely secular materialistic world?

All that can exist in a purely secular materialistic world is social subjective ethics.

addressed above.


[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 639#687639]Divine Insig

[scourge99]

If I CHOOSE to do an immoral action, doesn't that make me RESPONSIBLE for it? (yes)
If the universe were rewound and circumstances were identical and i chose the same immoral action everytime, does that somehow make it amoral or morally okay? (No.)

Apparently you have a totally separate problem from our discussion here. You're trying to imagine some sort of absolute morality in a purely secular materialistic world. That makes no sense. If reality is nothing more than a purely secular materialistic world, then there can be no such thing as absolute morality. All that can exist is subjective opinionated ethics.

I personally have no problem with this. If the secular materialists are right, then morality is a meaningless concept. But subjective opinionated ethics can exist.

addressed above.

You cannot be the slightness bit responsible for the current configuration of your neural net UNLESS, you are some sort of mysterious mystical or spiritual FREE AGENT that is totally separated from the physical laws of physics to the point where you could make choices unrelated to the current configuration of your neural network or brain.

We aren't separated from the physical laws of nature. Given determinism, we cannot make a different choice than the one we made. No matter how many times the universe is rewound and played. That doesn't mean we are somehow not morally responsible for that choice because we nonetheless MADE the choice.

As far as I'm concerned, if you agree that no matter how many times we rewind the universe and replay it we would make exactly the same choices, then as far as I'm concerned you are in agreement with Sam Harris that there is no such thing as Free Will.

And you are also in agreement with every point I've made since our conversation began.

addressed above.

You want to support the idea of a purely secular materialistic existence that unfolds solely by the laws of physics, whilst simultaneously holding an emergent property of sentience responsible for having shaped its own thoughts and decisions.

There is NOTHING contradictory about having thoughts and making decisions despite them being rooted and bound by determinism.

For example, suppose you are given the choice between coke and Pepsi. You choose coke. If we rewound the universe and everything was identical (no randomness either) then you would make the same decision EVERY SINGLE TIME. You CAN'T CHOOSE otherwise because your choice is deterministic. But you still had the SENSATION of choice. You still deliberated. You still made a choice in your head and acted upon it. That is freewill. You make choices but your choice cannot have been otherwise because of determinism. Sam Harris doesn't think that should be called "freewill". Dan Dennet disagrees saying its the only form of "freewill" worth having.

I agree with Sam Harris.

It would seem to me that even the emergent property of "self awareness" would be just as deterministic as anything else. From whence would it obtain "Free Will"?

The ability to choose is an exercise of freewill. That your choice cannot have been otherwise does not make it any less your intentional and deliberate choice.

What would it mean to choose differently than what you did? If the universe was rewound and circumstances identical and you somehow chose differently, what would account for that? Magic?

Yes! Something other than a pure secular materialistic world would be required to account for that! Absolutely!

But that's not what we are discussing here. I'm not saying that we have Free Will.

I'm not arguing for a mystical universe in this thread.

All I'm saying is that in a purely secular materialistic world we would NOT have free will, and therefore holding us responsible for moral decisions would be irrational.

And YES, I do hold that if you want to claim that we have Free Will, you're going to need to consider something other than a purely secular materialistic world.

Absolutely.

I have no problem either way. I'm open to either reality. All I ask is that we be consistent in the realities that we choose to entertain.

If you're going to embrace a pure secular materialistic reality, then to be consistent with that you can't go around holding people morally responsible for their actions. Those two things are incompatible.

addressed above.

[Divine Insight]

I'll try to keep my comments a bit shorter this time.

What is more likely? That the entire field of neuroscience and experts are misguided, or perhaps you, a non-expert and arm-chair cognitive scientist are being a bit presumptive about this "analog computer" idea you've invented in your head in the last day/month/year?

To begin with your above statement is highly presumptuous. You are presuming that the entire field of neuroscience and experts would actually "disagree" with me. I don't feel that they would. On the contrary I feel that the vast majority of them would actually be incomplete agreement with me.

It appears to me that overall, you are simply misunderstanding my position in thinking that I am arguing for some sort of mystical or spiritual "soul" which I most certainly am not.

In fact, I'm saying precisely the opposite. I'm saying that in a purely materialistic worldview any attempt at trying to hold a "soul" morally responsible for anything is absurd.

Moreover, just for the record, my understanding of the similarities between a human brain and an analog computer goes back to the mid 60's when I first learned how analog computers actually work. Let's see this is 2014 so I've been aware and thinking about this concept for some 49 years. Hardly an idea that I invented in the last day/month/year. Moreover I have actually had quite a bit of hands on experience with analog feedback circuitry in the field of automated test equipment and robotics, so I'm very much aware of its potential. In fact, I've always been fascinated in understanding how to program similar tasks in bother conventional digital style computing verses pure analog feedback circuitry. I actually would have loved to have become involved in a project to build an actual neural net to be the brain of a robot. However I never got the opportunity to do precisely that.

So my understanding of the difference between how digital computers and analog computers work is quite deep.

In fact, toward that end I would like to address something else you have said.

What would have become conscious? The hardware? Or the Software? The computer, or the program?

What you are asking is as misguided and wrong as asking "where does the fire go when you put out a candle?"

No that is not what I'm asking at all. In fact, this is where you are eluding to the idea that I'm suggesting the existence of some sort of "soul" or "mind" that exists totally separate from the computer. Which I am not suggesting at all.

My questions above were asked in regard to how a "Digital Computer" works. Or any computer in which the "program" is seen to be entirely separate from the "hardware".

In your candle/flame analogy, the fire goes OUT when you put the candle out. And that's exactly what would happen in an analog computer that is the result of a purely materialistic world. So I'm not arguing that the flame goes OUT. I'm accepting that it does.

But now let's go back to your analogy and exam it more closely.

The Candle-Flame analogy in terms of a Digital Computer

In a Digital computer the candle wick would be the computer "Hardware" and the flame would be the "Software" or the "Program".

In this scenario what is actually "Conscious"? The wick or the flame? I hold that neither is conscious in a digital type of computer (or any computer where the software is totally separate from the hardware). Neither the CPU (the wick in this analogy), nor the program in memory (the flame in this analogy) can be conscious. The reason they can't be conscious is because of the STEP-BY-STEP processing of instructions. Only one step of the process can be executed at any time. There is no "room" for a broader scope of conscious awareness.

The Candle-Flame analogy in terms of a Analog Computer

Here we have a different scenario entirely. In an analog computer there can be no separation between the wick and the flame. They are together one in the same thing. That is to say that in an analogy computer the hardware and software are one in the same thing.

However, it "computes" precisely because of the dynamic action between these two aspects of the very same network.

In the analogy the flame is burning precisely because the fuel in the wick is constantly being converted into energy. (not like the digital computer). not one step at a time, but over the entire wick-flame configuration.

Therefore if we are to ask, 'What has become conscious?" The answer is neither the wick nor the flame, but the entire dance of both together. And so yes, if you snuff out the candle the flame goes OUT. It doesn't go anywhere.

~~~~~

But now we are making some progress. Because now we can ask, "Who can we blame for this candle flame? The "wick"? (i.e. the hardware), or the "flame" (i.e. the active program that emerges because the wick is burning?)

Who are you? The wick or the flame?

My position is that you are both simultaneously and you cannot be separated out.

In short, you cannot hold the flame responsible for the way it burns. The flame simply burns the way it does because of the configuration of the wick and fuel.

It's senseless to hold the flame responsible for how it burns in a purely materialistic worldview. Precisely because you cannot claim that the flame has become some totally independent "soul" that is totally free from the wick.

In other words the the mind is totally dependent upon it's physical makeup. And you can't separate the mind from the brain. Therefore you cannot separate what the mind does from the laws of physics.

~~~~~

Now in an effort to try to keep things short and sweet let me address the following statement:

I'm not saying that you can control the physics which your "neural network" is subject to. I'm saying that your thoughts, motivations, and intentions are the product of your "neural network".

I won't argue with that one iota.

But you keep saying "you" and "your" here like as if you are talking about some responsible free agent.

The problem is that if all "you" are is a purely physical "neural network" that is simply running by pure laws of physics. Then how can you be held responsible for that?

In short, you can't be held responsible for your actions anymore than a bear can be held responsible for its actions.

You can be held "causally responsible" for being the thing that is doing the actions. Just as we hold a bear "causally responsible" for the things that it might do.

But to suggest that you can be held responsible for having actually made a "Free Will Choice" goes far beyond that.

~~~~~

I understand how you are thinking any why you are thinking it. You are thinking, "But humans are self-aware. We do have the cognizant ability to understand, comprehend, and know concepts such as the difference between right and wrong. And it is because of this self-ware cognizant state that we can be held accountable for our choices."

And that's how we all feel. We all feel that we do indeed have FREE WILL.

And that's the TOPIC of this discussion.

So we take it for granted, and can even point to cognizance and our ability to reason things out as evidence that we "must have" free will. It's so intuitively obvious. It's a no-brainier that we have FREE WILL.

But is it really?

In a purely materialistic worldview it can't be true.

How could it be true? How could we choose to do anything that isn't already a part of pure physical make-up and configuration of the physical brain that we are?

What "magic" came into being when the candle was "lit"?

Did the lighted candle become "FREE" from the laws of physics which ultimately gave rise to the flame?

Or is the truth of reality that we ultimately have no more "free will" than a bear. We just think we do?

~~~~~

You said earlier something to the effect of:

What is more likely? That the entire field of neuroscience and experts are misguided, or perhaps you, a non-expert and arm-chair cognitive scientist,.... has a clue about something

But in truth I think any professional in the field of neuroscience would understand precisely what I'm saying. I think Sam Harris would understand precisely what I'm saying.

I'm simply ASKING QUESTIONS, and pointing to the conclusions that must be accepted if we are going to stick with a purely materialistic worldview.

I'm asking how the "lit candle" (great analogy by the way), can have FREE WILL CHOICE in a purely materialistic world that runs solely by the deterministic laws of physics.

Does the awakening of "self-awareness" somehow mysteriously free us up from the deterministic laws of physics which gave rise to our conscious awareness?

Maybe someone can offer an argument that this could somehow be accomplished. Maybe those who are into "Information Theory" or the "Computer Sciences" can make some sort of argument that a logical feedback loop could somehow transcend the very laws of physics that caused it to come into being and actually FREE itself from the underlying laws of physics due to it's very ability to operate on logic instead of the physical laws of physics.

This argument has obviously not eluded me as I have obviously just proposed it here (not for the first time by a long shot). I've been thinking about this sort of thing for quite many years. I'm not educated enough in things like 'Information Theory" to propose a formal hypothesis for how information might be able to override a physical form that gave rise to it. But I have a hunch that arguments could be made in that regard.

However, having said that, I think that even theories along those lines are troublesome and have their pitfalls.

Here's the reason why:

It may be possible that in an ideal situation a brain could rise above the laws of physics via pure cognizant logical thought processes basically FREEING it from the underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it. Thus making true FREE WILL a real possibility in a purely materialistic world. (i.e. a WILL that is FREE from the underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it).

However, the reason this may be dangerous to accept with complete open arms is that some brains may not have developed "Complete Freedom" from the laws of physics. And therefore it may not be realistic to hold everyone responsible for their "free will" choices.

Of course, we already do that now to some degree. We recognize when someone is clearly incapable of making rational sane choices. We refer to such cases as "insanity".

The problem is that the line between sanity and insanity may not be as clear-cut as we would like for it to be.

And of course, the question for THIS THREAD is in the title of the thread.

Is there a genuine Scientific Justification for Free Will - in a purely materialistic world?

Can anyone actual make the argument I just made above STICK.

Can anyone show that a "lit candle" (i.e. a human thinking brain) can actually rise above the laws of physics because of it's sentient cognizant awakening?

It seems like such arguments are certainly feasible. But can they actually be made to stick in any formal way?

We're basically asking someone to "PROVE" that a sentient mind can indeed rise above the laws of physics that gave rise to it and become totally FREE from those laws in terms of how it can think.

I'm sure no one has offered an accepted proof of this yet, because if such a formal proof exists it should have been granted a Nobel Prize and have settled any and all debates about FREE WILL by now. Having proven that FREE WILL does indeed exist even in a purely materialistic world.

So I don't think that any such arguments have been made convincingly yet. Although I'm sure that others must have at least suggested as much. Surely I'm not the first to suggest this!

The key is in proving it to be true (or impossible).

Until then, we really have no right to hold people morally responsible for anything.

We're just doing it because we think it makes intuitive sense.