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?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 246 by Divine Insight]

I think that people do have natural rights that transcend time and culture. Is that objective morality?

The words "I think" very clearly define it as subjective, not objective.

Websters Dictionary
Objective:Existing outside and independent of the mind; treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudice.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 246 by Divine Insight]

I think that people do have natural rights that transcend time and culture. Is that objective morality?

IMO the only "natural" right everyone on this planet has is the right to say "No Mas" and end their life. I have no idea what that has in relation to morality except that it's clearly immoral IMO to force someone to live past their own "No Mas" point. This discussion probably deserves a different thread.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 230 by instantc]
instantc wrote:

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.

It seems to me that you are denying the existence of some magical entity called a soul, and at the same time you are claiming that you have such a thing. Otherwise, what is it that perceives and understands these "reasons" and has the "rational capabilities" that you claim determine your choices?

In this thread I haven't made any claims regarding what the self is. My point merely is that whether or not we have souls, our choices are predetermined in any case for the same reason.

At the present level of science, these capabilities cannot be explained for a bag of chemicals, so if you have such capabilities, you must be a magical entity.

Non sequitur

[instantc]

[Replying to post 246 by Divine Insight]

I think that people do have natural rights that transcend time and culture. Is that objective morality?

The words "I think" very clearly define it as subjective, not objective.

I think that the physical world exists. Does that mean there is no objective reality?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 244 by Divine Insight]

What about personal responsibility and morality? Do you believe those things exist?

Don't forget, you're talking to a spiritual person here.

So I believe in free will. Therefore, for me, personal responsibility is a meaningful concept.

In terms of a purely secular existence (which I personally don't believe is even possible) I'm not sure if personal responsibility is meaningful. It may be meaningful as an illusion, but there may not be any basis for that illusion.

As far as morality exists, I believe there is such a thing as morality. Although my ideas about morality are based almost entirely upon intention rather than on actions. This would mean that they cannot be "absolute" in the sense of defining them as absolute actions. They can be "absolute" in terms of intention however.

In fact, even as humans we have recognized this. We don't claim that storms are immoral. Why? Because we know that there is no intent there. The same holds true for animals. Even if an animals intends to kill a human baby say, it still wasn't the intent of the animal to kill a human, but rather it was just an instinctual intent to either obtain food, or defend territory, neither of which is immoral for an animal to do.

So animals never have "immoral" intent.

Only humans can have immoral intentions. And even then we excuse humans who are delirious by illness, etc., because we recognize that in those cases their actions are not clear intentions.

So for me morality is almost entirely related to intention and not so much to actions. For this reason morality cannot be absolute. It necessarily must be contextual and subjective.

So, as far as I'm concerned even spiritual morality is necessarily subjective.

But it's clearly different from secular morality, because spiritualists have every reason to believe in free will, whereas secularists truly don't.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 246 by Divine Insight]

I think that people do have natural rights that transcend time and culture. Is that objective morality?

The words "I think" very clearly define it as subjective, not objective.

Websters Dictionary
Objective:Existing outside and independent of the mind; treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudice.

I tend to agree with John Paul here.

If humans have natural rights from where do those rights arise? Who or what it is that gives humans their natural right.

In fact, it seems rather ironic to even use the term natural rights because that tends to imply that these rights are given by nature. But does nature actually respect the rights of humans? I think natural disasters are clear evidence that nature couldn't give a hoot about the rights of humans.

So where would these rights have their origin? Certainly not from nature.

So why call them natural rights?

It's more likely just majority human consensus.

Many humans even stand up and fight for animals rights as well.

Some even stand for the right of nature to be left alone and/or preserved.

Seems like we need to fight for the rights of nature, rather than the other way around.

[olavisjo]

.

So why call them natural rights?

It's more likely just majority human consensus.

So killing off a minority race is fine as long as you have a 'majority human consensus'.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 246 by Divine Insight]

I think that people do have natural rights that transcend time and culture. Is that objective morality?

The words "I think" very clearly define it as subjective, not objective.

I think that the physical world exists. Does that mean there is no objective reality?

There is some difference of opinion on that. What you think is out there is not what is "really" out there. Your brain builds up an image of the external world based only on stimuli it receives from your sense organs. Have you seen the movie, "The Matrix"? For example, what your brain interprets as color is actually electromagnetic radiation stimulating the nerve cells in the retina of your eye.

In a deeper sense, an article in the August issue of Scientific American magazine, "What is Real?", discusses the latest interpretations of quantum physics in which even subatomic particles are illusions. Even our instruments are fooling us.

[Divine Insight]

.

So why call them natural rights?

It's more likely just majority human consensus.

So killing off a minority race is fine as long as you have a 'majority human consensus'.

It wouldn't be fine with me, but clearly it would be fine for the human consensus in question.

There are many things that humans do that I don't personally agree with.

I'm a member of the human species. I'm also a citizen of the United States of America. My country invaded Iraq some years ago under the leadership of George Walker Bush.

I totally disagree with that action, and IMHO, it was immoral.

But clearly many Americans, certainly including George Walker Bush, felt that it was a moral action.

So, yes, human consensus rules.

But that doesn't necessarily make it right[o] in my subjective opinion.

But then again, I disagree with a lot of the so-called moral values of the Bible too.

So which is right? Me or the authors of the Bible?

Or maybe neither? Maybe all morality is nothing more than subjective opinions and there is no absolute morality to even appeal to. After all, where would we even look for such thing?

If there is a God who has absolute moral values that God has never shared them with us.

[instantc]

So I believe in free will. Therefore, for me, personal responsibility is a meaningful concept.

How does free will work?

I'm picking up a color for my new car, I choose red, since I happen to prefer that color. My choice was determined by my preferences that I cannot control. How is this particular scenario different if you are a spiritual person and believe in free will?