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?

[Nilloc James]

Morallity seems to exist to mediate human interaction (can you do anything immoral alone
on a desert island?).
In that case it is dependent on what is necessary for people to coperate.

Rights seem to exist in order for us to all get along and don't really need a supernatural giver.

[Nilloc James]

Im still waiting for someone to explain what an agent with a magical compenent can do that a purely natural agent cannot do that makes the former morally culpable/responsible fpr their actions.

[Divine Insight]

Im still waiting for someone to explain what an agent with a magical compenent can do that a purely natural agent cannot do that makes the former morally culpable/responsible fpr their actions.

A purely natural agent cannot be free from the natural laws. Therefore how could it possibly be responsible for its actions?

It's like an apple falling from a tree in gravity. Can an apple be held responsible for doing what nature dictates that it must do?

I don't care how complex a human is, if it's nothing more than a collection of matter and energy following the predetermined laws of physics then it ultimately has no more control over what it must do than an apple. It may appear that it does because it can do so many more things. But ultimately every single action that it takes along that complex path cannot be any different from an apple falling from a tree.

At what POINT could it be said to have made a choice that wasn't determined by the natural laws of physics?

And if that choice wasn't determined by the natural laws of physics, then what was it determined by?

I don't see how you can explain a free will choice without appealing to something supernatural (i.e. above and beyond the natural laws of physics that govern the world)

It seems to me that if you want to believe in free will, you must believe that something supernatural is going on. Otherwise, you have no choice but to accept that you have no free will at all, and any free will you think you have is just an illusion of some sort. You can't claim to be free from the predetermined laws of nature whist simultaneously claiming that there is nothing other than the laws of nature. That's an oxymoron.

How could you be free from something you demand that you are not free from?

[Goat]

Im still waiting for someone to explain what an agent with a magical compenent can do that a purely natural agent cannot do that makes the former morally culpable/responsible fpr their actions.

A purely natural agent cannot be free from the natural laws. Therefore how could it possibly be responsible for its actions?

It's like an apple falling from a tree in gravity. Can an apple be held responsible for doing what nature dictates that it must do?

I don't care how complex a human is, if it's nothing more than a collection of matter and energy following the predetermined laws of physics then it ultimately has no more control over what it must do than an apple. It may appear that it does because it can do so many more things. But ultimately every single action that it takes along that complex path cannot be any different from an apple falling from a tree.

At what POINT could it be said to have made a choice that wasn't determined by the natural laws of physics?

And if that choice wasn't determined by the natural laws of physics, then what was it determined by?

I don't see how you can explain a free will choice without appealing to something supernatural (i.e. above and beyond the natural laws of physics that govern the world)

It seems to me that if you want to believe in free will, you must believe that something supernatural is going on. Otherwise, you have no choice but to accept that you have no free will at all, and any free will you think you have is just an illusion of some sort. You can't claim to be free from the predetermined laws of nature whist simultaneously claiming that there is nothing other than the laws of nature. That's an oxymoron.

How could you be free from something you demand that you are not free from?

On the other hand 'virtual' free will can exist. You think you make the choice.

OF course, I don't see any way of test for it, one way or another.. so , I don't view the concept as valid.

[Nilloc James]

A purely natural agent cannot be free from the natural laws. Therefore how could it possibly be responsible for its actions? 

I see this as an unjustified leap.
Regardless of the supernatural something will always cause behavior, I dont see why its a problem if it is a natural cause.

[instantc]

A purely natural agent cannot be free from the natural laws. Therefore how could it possibly be responsible for its actions?

People keep saying this.

This is like saying that a natural agent cannot be a married bachelor, only a magical hocus pocus mambo jambo Bible-believing superman can be a married bachelor.

How exactly does a supernatural free agent avoid his choices being determined by his preferences and rational capabilities that are out of his control?

[JohnPaul]

Im still waiting for someone to explain what an agent with a magical compenent can do that a purely natural agent cannot do that makes the former morally culpable/responsible fpr their actions.

One obvious difference would seem to be that a magical agent must have been created by some magical entity and therefore owes obedience to the edicts of that magical entity, while a purely natural agent has no such responsibility.

[JohnPaul]

.

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'.

Yes. Good luck getting that concensus though... I suppose that's why it's so hard to accept that's the way morality works because you can come up with scenarios that seem totally wrong.

Let me try. Killing babies for fun and profit would be right as long as you have a majority consensus. Ewww, that's hard to accept isn't it? Too bad it's true.

But what if you had a good reason for killing the children? What if you were bald and the little brats made fun of your bald head?

And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
(II Kings 2:23-24 KJV)

I learned this in Sunday School: "Don't mess with God, or bears will eat you!"

[scourge99]

Im still waiting for someone to explain what an agent with a magical compenent can do that a purely natural agent cannot do that makes the former morally culpable/responsible fpr their actions.

A purely natural agent cannot be free from the natural laws. Therefore how could it possibly be responsible for its actions?

It depends on the situation. For example, if a person intended to harm people then we hold them responsible for that harm. Whereas if the person did not intend harm then we sometimes (depending on the circumstances) do not find them responsible. Conscious beings have intentions, goals, desires, etc, unlike rocks and bacteria. Regardless of the existence of freewill, we hold people responsible based on their mindset (and probably some other things).

It's like an apple falling from a tree in gravity. Can an apple be held responsible for doing what nature dictates that it must do?

Only conscious agents are held to some standard of "responsibility"; only moral agents can be moral or immoral. Apples are amoral. That is, its complete nonsense to talk about the ethics of apples, rocks, or clouds. In other words, its nonsense to talk about "apples being responsible" in a moral sense (E.G., the apple is responsible for the man's death), as opposed to just in the causal sense (E.G., the apple caused the tree branch to bend).

It seems to me that your mistake is that your definition of "responsibility" requires freewill. And you are trying to apply this word to a world in which the evidence is against the existence of freewill. So your question boils down to a debate on the definition of "responsibility".

I don't care how complex a human is, if it's nothing more than a collection of matter and energy following the predetermined laws of physics then it ultimately has no more control over what it must do than an apple. It may appear that it does because it can do so many more things. But ultimately every single action that it takes along that complex path cannot be any different from an apple falling from a tree.

The complexity of the matter and energy can result in an entity that has intentions, goals, aspirations, etc. This is what we call "consciousnesses". And only conscious entities can be considered moral or immoral. All others things are amoral.

The possession of consciousness is what differentiates us from apples in regards to ethics. Its why we are moral agents and why apples are amoral.

At what POINT could it be said to have made a choice that wasn't determined by the natural laws of physics?

The universe appears entirely deterministic (caveat: there might be some randomness too). Thus all choices couldn't have happened otherwise because you couldn't have chosen differently.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 276 by scourge99]
scourge99 wrote:

The complexity of the matter and energy can result in an entity that has intentions, goals, aspirations, etc. This is what we call "consciousnesses". And only conscious entities can be considered moral or immoral. All others things are amoral.

You probably should provide some support for your deceptively casual claim that complexity of matter and energy can result in a conscious entity. Some of us haven't heard the news yet. Don't be modest! Is your discovery up for a Nobel Prize?