Scientific Justification for Free Will?

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific justification for the notion of Free Will?

Question #1. If you believe their is, can you please state your scientific evidence for the existence of Free Will.

Question #2. If you believe there is no scientific justification for the notion of Free Will, then please explain how we can have any scientific justification for holding anyone responsible for their actions. In fact, wouldn't the very notion of personal responsibility be scientifically unsupportable?

[instantc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a problem with this. My assertion is that even if we were magical creatures with souls and superpowers, we still couldn't have any more free will. There is nothing that such a magical soul possessing Bible-man could choose that I couldn't choose.

[JohnPaul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a problem with this. My assertion is that even if we were magical creatures with souls and superpowers, we still couldn't have any more free will. There is nothing that such a magical soul possessing Bible-man could choose that I couldn't choose.

I am not a believer in magical powers myself, but I can recognize deep questions when I see them, questions which your "assertion" does not even begin to answer. What is the "I" which you perceive as making your allegedly free choices? Is it simply a combination of electrical pulses in the neuron circuits of the frontal lobes of your brain? Of course you might make the same choices as some Bible-man, but the question here is, how can either of you know that your choices are actually free? Free from what? From some omniscient God, or free from your recent dietary choices? If you could look into the future and see the choice you will make at some future time, could you then change that choice when the time came?

[instantc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a problem with this. My assertion is that even if we were magical creatures with souls and superpowers, we still couldn't have any more free will. There is nothing that such a magical soul possessing Bible-man could choose that I couldn't choose.

I am not a believer in magical powers myself, but I can recognize deep questions when I see them, questions which your "assertion" does not even begin to answer. What is the "I" which you perceive as making your allegedly free choices? Is it simply a combination of electrical pulses in the neuron circuits of the frontal lobes of your brain? Of course you might make the same choices as some Bible-man, but the question here is, how can either of you know that your choices are actually free? Free from what? From some omniscient God, or free from your recent dietary choices? If you could look into the future and see the choice you will make at some future time, could you then change that choice when the time came?

Seems like we agree here then, regardless of whether I am a bag of chemicals or a magical Bible-man with a free soul, all my choices are necessarily predetermined by the reasons they are based on and my rational capabilities.

[olavisjo]

.

Seems like we agree here then, regardless of whether I am a bag of chemicals or a magical Bible-man with a free soul, all my choices are necessarily predetermined by the reasons they are based on and my rational capabilities.

And one of the reasons they are based on is the 'will'.

[otseng]

What if the majority thought it was OK to kill someone just because of their ethnicity?

Then it would be "right" for that time and place. The fact that it would be considered wrong in this time and place is just personal bias.

I then rest my case.

What case? Can you summarize?

I'm getting quite busy now, esp with school starting. So, I'll summarize and post my concluding thoughts.

The main point of this thread is "Is there any scientific justification for free will?" And as agreed by many people in this thread, there are none. The corollary to this is that personal responsibility is scientifically unsupportable.

Another corollary that I mentioned is that without free will, morality is meaningless. There is no morality without free will.

In a theist worldview, a god (it doesn't have to be the Biblical God) supports the notion of free will, personal responsibility, and morality. Things can be absolutely morally right and wrong. So, we can say that it is wrong to kill someone just because of their ethnicity, regardless of time or place. It's wrong now, it's wrong in 1940 in Germany, and it's wrong at any time in the future.

As you agree, in a secular view, one cannot justify that anything is really right or wrong, it is just personal preference. Personal preferences change and cultures change. Even popular opinion changes. There is no concept of absolute morality in such a worldview.

Secularists are then unable to scientifically justify free will, personal responsibility, and morality. However, in the real world, one cannot escape the ability to decide; one cannot throw away personal responsibility; and one cannot really believe that morality does not exist.

There is then a conflict for secularists. One way they approach it is to redefine the terms. Free will is not really free will, it is an illusion. It's incoherent to me to say that someone really has free will if everything is deterministic. Morality is also redefined to be subjective morality. This is not really morality either, but simply preference and culture.

Another way they approach it is to attack Christianity. However, this is moving the goalpost. Christianity does not have exclusive claims on free will and morality. The argument is that spirituality/religion in general supports these concepts, not that Christianity alone supports these concepts.

Thus, the most coherent position is the supernaturalist viewpoint. It provides support for free will, personal responsibility, and morality. The secularist viewpoint is unable to provide proper justification for these concepts.

[instantc]

.

Seems like we agree here then, regardless of whether I am a bag of chemicals or a magical Bible-man with a free soul, all my choices are necessarily predetermined by the reasons they are based on and my rational capabilities.

And one of the reasons they are based on is the 'will'.

Sure, but that's just another word for my preferences, isn't it?

In order to keep this in touch with reality, it's good to examine these in the context of a simple example. Suppose that I'm again choosing a flavor for my ice cream. What I am doing is trying to figure out which flavor will best satisfy my preferences. As far as I can see, my preference for chocolate has 100% determined the outcome of that consideration. Tell me, what role does this will of yours play in this scenario?

[olavisjo]

.

Sure, but that's just another word for my preferences, isn't it?

In order to keep this in touch with reality, it's good to examine these in the context of a simple example. Suppose that I'm again choosing a flavor for my ice cream. What I am doing is trying to figure out which flavor will best satisfy my preferences. As far as I can see, my preference for chocolate has 100% determined the outcome of that consideration. Tell me, what role does this will of yours play in this scenario?

I too have a preference for chocolate, yet I often choose other flavors, I even chose garlic once (it was not as bad as I thought it would be, but it is a choice I do not plan to repeat).
I often allow subordinate brain functions to make my choices for me, but I am still the captain of my vessel.

[instantc]

.

Sure, but that's just another word for my preferences, isn't it?

In order to keep this in touch with reality, it's good to examine these in the context of a simple example. Suppose that I'm again choosing a flavor for my ice cream. What I am doing is trying to figure out which flavor will best satisfy my preferences. As far as I can see, my preference for chocolate has 100% determined the outcome of that consideration. Tell me, what role does this will of yours play in this scenario?

I too have a preference for chocolate, yet I often choose other flavors, I even chose garlic once (it was not as bad as I thought it would be, but it is a choice I do not plan to repeat).
I often allow subordinate brain functions to make my choices for me, but I am still the captain of my vessel.

Was your choice of garlic based on a reason, or did you choose it just because you can? If it was based on a reason, as I'm suspecting, then that choice was predetermined by that reason, were it curiosity or something else. I'm not saying that my taste for chocolate couldn't be overriden by other reasons. I'm saying that you didn't 'just decide' to pick garlic, you decided it for a reason of some kind.

[Peter]

What if the majority thought it was OK to kill someone just because of their ethnicity?

Then it would be "right" for that time and place. The fact that it would be considered wrong in this time and place is just personal bias.

I then rest my case.

What case? Can you summarize?

I'm getting quite busy now, esp with school starting. So, I'll summarize and post my concluding thoughts.

The main point of this thread is "Is there any scientific justification for free will?" And as agreed by many people in this thread, there are none. The corollary to this is that personal responsibility is scientifically unsupportable.

Agreed.

Another corollary that I mentioned is that without free will, morality is meaningless. There is no morality without free will.

Here we part ways. Since morality is simply how we (mostly) agree to treat each other you can't possibly be saying that if you and I were the only people on the planet, how we agreed to treat each other would be meaningless. That's nonsense, agreements between people are virtually all that matters in this world.

In a theist worldview, a god (it doesn't have to be the Biblical God) supports the notion of free will, personal responsibility, and morality. Things can be absolutely morally right and wrong. So, we can say that it is wrong to kill someone just because of their ethnicity, regardless of time or place. It's wrong now, it's wrong in 1940 in Germany, and it's wrong at any time in the future.

You simply want a referee for how we treat each other. True, that may simplify the game of life by resolving disputed calls here or there but doesn't it abdicate a huge amount of responsibility and ultimately degrade us?

As you agree, in a secular view, one cannot justify that anything is really right or wrong, it is just personal preference. Personal preferences change and cultures change. Even popular opinion changes. There is no concept of absolute morality in such a worldview.

Right again, there is absolutely no evidence of an absolute morality even in the various holy books.

Secularists are then unable to scientifically justify free will, personal responsibility, and morality. However, in the real world, one cannot escape the ability to decide; one cannot throw away personal responsibility; and one cannot really believe that morality does not exist.

Who said morality doesn't exist? ABSOLUTE morality doesn't exist.

There is then a conflict for secularists. One way they approach it is to redefine the terms. Free will is not really free will, it is an illusion. It's incoherent to me to say that someone really has free will if everything is deterministic. Morality is also redefined to be subjective morality. This is not really morality either, but simply preference and culture.

Free will is an illusion and morality is subjective. You may personally feel that morality ought to be objective but you have failed to make any case that in order to be effective morality must be objective and absolute.

Another way they approach it is to attack Christianity. However, this is moving the goalpost. Christianity does not have exclusive claims on free will and morality. The argument is that spirituality/religion in general supports these concepts, not that Christianity alone supports these concepts.

I'm glad you feel that way but many Christians do claim exclusive rights to absolute morality as interpreted from their holy book. Personally I would prefer that they interpret chicken entrails when deciding how to treat their fellow man.

Thus, the most coherent position is the supernaturalist viewpoint. It provides support for free will, personal responsibility, and morality. The secularist viewpoint is unable to provide proper justification for these concepts.

If by coherent you mean the easiest I must agree. There can be nothing easier than a celestial referee to resolve disputes among us miserable ignorant humans who can't help ourselves but try to take advantage of our fellow man at every turn.

Isn't all this brouhaha about objective morality just another manifestation of mans innate desire to be dominated by a father figure? After all, we are low creatures born in sin and destined to spend our lives yearning for the acceptance and love of our celestial father.

BTW, good luck with school, teaching or otherwise.

[instantc]

Another corollary that I mentioned is that without free will, morality is meaningless. There is no morality without free will.

Explain to me in what circumstances, as opposed to determinism, morality would be meaningful. Use the following simple case study.

Suppose that I decide to kill my neighbor because I'm offered $10000 for the job. Keeping it simple, the reason I killed him was that I find $10000 more valuable than my neighbor's life. We cannot change our preferences, my greed for money just overrides my empathy for the guy. Now, you say that because of this fact, I am not morally culpable. Obviously one could have greed for money and choose not to act upon it, because he wants to do the right thing. In that case his choice was determined by his preference to act morally. Either you want to do the right thing at a certain cost or you don't, you cannot choose to want or not want it. Explain to me using this same example, how would the situation be different with free will?