Free Will Can't Be Proved

[Hatuey]

What is the point in discussing free will within the confines of religious debate? Neither free will nor determinism can be demonstrated as accurate viewpoints, so why bring either up as if it is a point in favor of your position? Doesn't it just become a separate debate that detracts from the discussion?

[ElCodeMonkey]

What is the point in discussing free will within the confines of religious debate? Neither free will nor determinism can be demonstrated as accurate viewpoints, so why bring either up as if it is a point in favor of your position? Doesn't it just become a separate debate that detracts from the discussion?

How would you even define Free Will? The ability to make a decision that is not based upon one's biological makeup? (i.e. a soul?)

[Hatuey]

How would you even define Free Will? The ability to make a decision that is not based upon one's biological makeup? (i.e. a soul?)

I guess. It really doesn't matter, though, since we don't have any measurable evidence to correlate to the idea.

[ElCodeMonkey]

How would you even define Free Will? The ability to make a decision that is not based upon one's biological makeup? (i.e. a soul?)

I guess. It really doesn't matter, though, since we don't have any measurable evidence to correlate to the idea.

Can't have evidence without first defining what you need evidence for . That's the only way I can make "sense" of such a concept as Free Will, but in the end I can't imagine how a "soul" is going to make a decision independent of the brain. I clearly use the knowledge I've gained in my life to make decisions. And this knowledge is clearly independent of an immutable soul. Damage the brain, damage my decisions. No "Free Will" under the above definition.

[Jashwell]

How would you even define Free Will? The ability to make a decision that is not based upon one's biological makeup? (i.e. a soul?)

I guess. It really doesn't matter, though, since we don't have any measurable evidence to correlate to the idea.

It's incredibly important.

If free will is just making a choice - humans, animals and computers all have it.
If it's making a conscious choice - we can't objectively evaluate what has free will - I can say "I have free will".
If it's the 'ghost in the machine' free will, there's no reason to believe in it.

[Hatuey]

It's incredibly important.

Why? This idea directly relates to my initial question. If it can't be measured and proved, why bring it up in debates?

If free will is just making a choice - humans, animals and computers all have it.
If it's making a conscious choice - we can't objectively evaluate what has free will - I can say "I have free will".
If it's the 'ghost in the machine' free will, there's no reason to believe in it.

Again, can we prove any of that as free will or a portion of what constitutes free will? I know of now way to show that any being or computer or animal actually chooses anything or makes any decision. Certainly all "things" that SEEM to make choices might just be performing as a cog in the machine and doing exactly what they must at that time and place and there is no way that they could do anything differently.

At this time, there seems no way to make a conclusion either way, so why would anyone bring it up as a portion of an argument in debate? Angels on pinheads, it seems.

[Jashwell]

It's incredibly important.

Why? This idea directly relates to my initial question. If it can't be measured and proved, why bring it up in debates?

If we don't define it how can we assert it can't be measured or proved?
Is the definition of free will "That which cannot be measured or proved"? I don't think it is.

If free will is just making a choice - humans, animals and computers all have it.
If it's making a conscious choice - we can't objectively evaluate what has free will - I can say "I have free will".
If it's the 'ghost in the machine' free will, there's no reason to believe in it.

Again, can we prove any of that as free will or a portion of what constitutes free will? I know of now way to show that any being or computer or animal actually chooses anything or makes any decision. Certainly all "things" that SEEM to make choices might just be performing as a cog in the machine and doing exactly what they must at that time and place and there is no way that they could do anything differently.

At this time, there seems no way to make a conclusion either way, so why would anyone bring it up as a portion of an argument in debate? Angels on pinheads, it seems.[/quote]
What do you mean "actually chooses"?
There is logical evaluation implemented in an algorithm and performed in the circuitry of the brain / computer which leads to a specific outcome in contrast with a purely random system.
Isn't that choice?

[Hatuey]

If we don't define it how can we assert it can't be measured or proved?

I've heard/read many different definitions, usually provided for the sole purpose of allowing the person defining it to use it towards their own ends for their own philosophical position. I'm asking you, here, if there's ANY definition of free will that can be demonstrated as able to be measured as valid or not. Is there such a definition?

What do you mean "actually chooses"?

Precisely. Now we're getting somewhere. How do we know if anyone chooses or "actually chooses" or just thinks that they are choosing or actually choosing or whatever line you want to draw.

There is logical evaluation implemented in an algorithm and performed in the circuitry of the brain / computer which leads to a specific outcome in contrast with a purely random system.
Isn't that choice?

Not one that can be proved. No one has any way of demonstrating that what is perceived as choice, in ALL cases, actually is. There is no way to prove that the universe is not completely deterministic, right down to the spin and charge of every fundamental particle and all perceived "choices."

A challenge: Demonstrate how any philosophical concept of free will provides more meaning in debate than the philosophical concept of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Jashwell]

If we don't define it how can we assert it can't be measured or proved?

I've heard/read many different definitions, usually provided for the sole purpose of allowing the person defining it to use it towards their own ends for their own philosophical position. I'm asking you, here, if there's ANY definition of free will that can be demonstrated as able to be measured as valid or not. Is there such a definition?

Yes. Ability to logically choose/select.

What do you mean "actually chooses"?

Precisely. Now we're getting somewhere. How do we know if anyone chooses or "actually chooses" or just thinks that they are choosing or actually choosing or whatever line you want to draw.

A question doesn't mean I'm understanding.
"Actually choose" is an arbitrary line dependent on the definition of free will.
Hence the definition is important.

There is logical evaluation implemented in an algorithm and performed in the circuitry of the brain / computer which leads to a specific outcome in contrast with a purely random system.
Isn't that choice?

Not one that can be proved.

Yes it is.

No one has any way of demonstrating that what is perceived as choice, in ALL cases, actually is.

On that definition, yes it is.

There is no way to prove that the universe is not completely deterministic, right down to the spin and charge of every fundamental particle and all perceived "choices."

Did I say it wasn't?

[Hatuey]

Yes. Ability to logically choose/select.

You can't prove that the universe isn't completely deterministic, so "the ability to logically choose/select" is merely a meaningless string of words, since we still cannot measure any artifact to prove or disprove free will.

A question doesn't mean I'm understanding.
"Actually choose" is an arbitrary line dependent on the definition of free will.
Hence the definition is important.

Precisely why I'm requesting that someone provide one that allows for verification through measurement. When someone can provide such a definition with measurable points of data, we can go from there.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't. You have no way to prove that an actual selection was made. If the universe is deterministic, there was no choice made but merely the universe was behaving in the only way it possibly could. Just because it appears that a choice was made does not mean that one was made in the same way that just because it appears the sun moves around the earth doesn't mean that it does.

On that definition, yes it is.

Obviously, that's an incorrect assessment.

Did I say it wasn't?

No, but you seem smart enough that you understand the implications of my remark, and I'm not interested in conversing with individuals who make smarmy remarks when a more sensible and productive one would serve the conversation better. Please do not reply any more in this thread, and please understand that our "debate" here has only strengthened my opinion on the matter. Thank you for your help.