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?

[McCulloch]

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man.

Humans do have instinctive traits. A human baby knows how to suckle. When I cut myself accidentally with a knife, I flinch. But the human animal has reason. A human animal can, by the force of will, override his or her instincts with reason. So far as we can tell, humans are the animals with the greatest intellectual and reasoning power. There is nothing in the definition of animal that precludes reason. Or free will, for that matter.

[H.sapiens]

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man.

Humans do have instinctive traits. A human baby knows how to suckle. When I cut myself accidentally with a knife, I flinch. But the human animal has reason. A human animal can, by the force of will, override his or her instincts with reason. So far as we can tell, humans are the animals with the greatest intellectual and reasoning power. There is nothing in the definition of animal that precludes reason. Or free will, for that matter.

The kingdom Animalia include Homo sapiens.

[McCulloch]

The kingdom Animalia include Homo sapiens.

Arian does not accept the taxonomy that the science of biology finds so useful. He seems to be arguing, without any evidential support, that the non-human animals are completely without free will and that humans are uniquely endowed with it. Therefore, humans, in spite of our biological similarities with other animals, should be classified separately. To him, to call humans animals is somehow an insult to our intelligence and free will, attributes which to him are lacking in the animals.
The problem with this kind of approach is that it is completely at odds with reality. However you evidence free will, the other animals exhibit it to varying degrees. Cats, horses, dogs, elephants and non-human apes are not mindless automata. Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

[FarWanderer]

You do not take past actions of people into account to judge their future actions? How then do you even tell one personality from another?

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man. Yes there is personality traits, but with humans even this can and does change, not just over time, but sometimes as quick as from one moment to the next.

Sure, but is it completely random? Is there no semblance of order whatsoever in how people's personalities evolve?

A drugged up man putting a gun against your head telling you he is going to blow your head off can be reasoned with, but try to reason with a hungry lion just about to eat you?

Animals (probably) can't reason to begin with, and reason isn't the same as free will.

Only animals judge other animals by instinct, one judging the others behavior. This is how lions hunt, and the lion that remembers behavioral patterns the most gets to make more kills.

I have free will to do either, both to animals and humans, but I choose to watch animals behavior, and humans according to what I know they are capable of, which is the ability to exercise their free will. It seems to bring the better out of people.

OK, I think I understand what you are getting at here, and in fact I agree with this in a sense (remember, I do not deny free will, I only deny that it can be justified scientifically).

Free will and determinism are simply lenses through which we view the world. People switch back and forth between them all the time, whether they consciously ackowledge it or not.

They are not something to be proven. Nor do they need to be. In fact, the idea of proving them doesn't even make sense. This is because they are what makes understanding the world possible in the first place. You don't "prove" those kinds of things, you use them to prove other things.

The problem is that both foundations fill some need we, as humans, have, but they are incompatable with one another. And so philosophical angst ensues.

I'm not sure I understand, .. are you saying that even though we can differentiate between animal instinct and human free will, this is not 'proof' they exist each in their own perspective, .. or their 'individual' frame of reference? As something real, or tangible, or real even if we can't physically touch it? I 'know' that gravity is there even if I cannot touch it so for me it is still tangible, or real that I can study it as science.

I'm saying that we do not "differentiate" on this matter. We assign free will as we please. And the same goes for determinism. We assign determinism when it suits us.

I know I have a mind, but I cannot actually show you my mind. I can show you my brain, but not my mind. The 'Blue Brain Project' is a science in trying to capture the mind, only they don't even know it, they think the mind is the brain so they are actually creating a brain in a Matrix in hopes of capturing and preserving the human soul.

The 'Blue Brain Project' is the perfect example that there is science behind free will, only like I said, they are creating, programming a brain, and 'programming a brain' will never result in 'free will'. They get a brain with what they put in there, and can only choose from what was put in there. This is not free will. They can 'mimic' free will, and maybe even fool many in believing it is free will, but it is NOT free will.

I know nothing of this project, and do not have any interest in defending it.

Free will is NOT "The best answer" from multiple choices, or not 'limited to' answers to multiple choices. The mind can come up with something totally new, even when we have the perfect answer to the question. Free will can never be programmed, or be contained in a program.

Works for me.

If (the scientists involved in the multi billion $$$ Blue Brain Project) were to reason as humans 'outside' of religious indoctrinated beliefs like that they are nothing but evolving animals, they would be able to see this; There is a brain, and we have a mind/spirit which together makes us human souls.

This is the same reason no one seems to understand my discovery of 'nothing', some even find it frightening to contemplate too deeply about it. To avoid admitting defeat, or that they are just scared, they tell me it is silly, or even stupid nonsense to even bring it up. So they say: "Nothing doesn't exist" .. I guess we just use it in everyday language, you know, .. because it doesn't exist, .. lol.

"Nothing" means the exact same as "not anything". It's purely a semantic game as to whether "nothing" "exists".

You cannot capture the human mind, or predict free will, but you can predict instinct.

Again, don't see it. Humans can be predicted fairly well most of the time, and animals can't be predicted perfectly by any stretch.

Thanks for your response, I hope I didn't offend you in any way, .. if I did, please blame it on my animal instinct!

I enjoy your posts arian. Stay colorful.

[H.sapiens]

The kingdom Animalia include Homo sapiens.

Arian does not accept the taxonomy that the science of biology finds so useful. He seems to be arguing, without any evidential support, that the non-human animals are completely without free will and that humans are uniquely endowed with it. Therefore, humans, in spite of our biological similarities with other animals, should be classified separately. To him, to call humans animals is somehow an insult to our intelligence and free will, attributes which to him are lacking in the animals.
The problem with this kind of approach is that it is completely at odds with reality. However you evidence free will, the other animals exhibit it to varying degrees. Cats, horses, dogs, elephants and non-human apes are not mindless automata. Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

You should observe the Plantae more closely, they will amaze you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 413:

...
Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

You should observe the Plantae more closely, they will amaze you.

Please expound.

I'm thinking you're getting at the release of chemical signals when various plants are "under attack". If so, I'm hoping to see how such is a matter of "will", as opposed to bio-chemical reaction (noting definitions may come into play).

[Peter]

From Post 413:

...
Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

You should observe the Plantae more closely, they will amaze you.

Please expound.

I'm thinking you're getting at the release of chemical signals when various plants are "under attack". If so, I'm hoping to see how such is a matter of "will", as opposed to bio-chemical reaction (noting definitions may come into play).

At their core, thoughts are simply bio-chemical reactions. When every choice can be reduced to bio-chemical reactions where is the room for this magical "free will"?

[arian]

I know I have a mind, but I cannot actually show you my mind. I can show you my brain, but not my mind. The 'Blue Brain Project' is a science in trying to capture the mind, only they don't even know it, they think the mind is the brain so they are actually creating a brain in a Matrix in hopes of capturing and preserving the human soul.

The 'Blue Brain Project' is the perfect example that there is science behind free will, only like I said, they are creating, programming a brain, and 'programming a brain' will never result in 'free will'. They get a brain with what they put in there, and can only choose from what was put in there. This is not free will. They can 'mimic' free will, and maybe even fool many in believing it is free will, but it is NOT free will.

I know nothing of this project, and do not have any interest in defending it.

This is actually a world wide event that I believe you will find very interesting, and important. This is your future also! Your families future.

It's a race if you will, in the pretense to save humanity. Not from total annihilation (that's a done deal as far as they are concerned, even if they have to do it themselves which they are working on 24/7 365 days out of the year), but to ease the humans from realizing the reality of total annihilation that they are bringing upon them. This is real in so many ways, and is rapidly coming to its climax. The Blue-Brain project is just another pacifier to keep them hoping, and putting their trust in their government, and technology.

The reality is that we have enough energy, food, room, jobs, for ten times the amount of people we have on the earth now, and look where we are, with estimated half the world going to bed hungry, and the majority of those are starving.

I mean have you seen the Bio-Dome here in Arizona? This plan to have domes like this on Mars, or some other planet to keep at least a remnant of humanity alive is very real and has been for some time now. If not technology, then they use science fiction mixed with religion to convince the masses, to keep them from getting alarmed at what they are doing to us.

By removing the last piece of humanity from humans, 'free will', the rest will go much easier where everyone will eagerly participate (actually our kids in the military have been participating for a long time) and that 'Final Solution', the final destruction of all life will come upon us like a thief in the night.

If I don't talk to you sooner, I wish you and your loved ones a Happy Thanksgiving. May God bless us all to be 'like minded' in all good things, and stand against evil.

Odon

[Nickman]

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?

I don't think that the topic of Free Will has anything to do with science. It is a philosophical topic. We have free will because we are all individuals that can and will do as we please, but this is many times limited by the society and situations surrounding us. Just having a thinking brain that works independently of other thinking brains is enough scientific reason for the possibility to exercise free will or IOW choices.

[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?

I don't think that the topic of Free Will has anything to do with science. It is a philosophical topic. We have free will because we are all individuals that can and will do as we please, but this is many times limited by the society and situations surrounding us. Just having a thinking brain that works independently of other thinking brains is enough scientific reason for the possibility to exercise free will or IOW choices.

It often seems like an open and shut case. But that only lasts until we ask, "What is it that is doing the choosing?"

Then, all-of-sudden we are stuck with a real mystery.

Is there some actual "Free Agent" making free choices?

Or is the brain simply a materialistic biological computer that is simply doing nothing more than operating solely based on the laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the former is true, the it appears that there must be some mysterious "Free Agent" that needs to be scientifically explained, apart from the standard laws of physics and cause and effect.

If the latter is true, then doesn't that genuinely bring into question the very concept that "Free Will" may actually be a total illusion?

For me this is a very profound question.

I'm not claiming that we can even answer this question at this time. I don't claim to have the answer. But what I am suggesting that if that is indeed the case that we don't yet have a definitive answer, then can there be any scientific basis for the very concept of "Free Will". Especially in terms of holding any imagined "Free Agents" responsible for having made "Free Will" choices.

It seems to me that the scientific stance would need to be "No", we cannot technically hold anyone responsible for having made a free will choice.

This doesn't mean that a secular society couldn't still incarcerate criminals on the grounds that their deterministic brains don't seem to be well-programmed. It also doesn't mean that they couldn't try to "re-program" criminal brains.

But holding anyone actually "responsible" for any of this?

I don't think there is any scientific grounds for pointing blame. Unless there can be scientific grounds that some "Free Agent" independent from the mere unfolding of the laws of physics is involved. But how could that be based on physics?

It does seem to be a quite profound dilemma. Of course, it's not a dilemma if we simply reject the notion of a free agent. But then science would be taking the stance that it makes no sense to blame anyone for the decisions they make then.

No free will = No one to blame (or no one to hold responsible for the choices being made)