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?

[Divine Insight]

You say that people have a sense of right and wrong, however I would question whether this really is innate or is some thing that is learnt?

I don't think there can be any question at all that our sense of right and wrong is indeed learned and not innate.

The proof is in the pudding. Everyone simply isn't in agreement with what constitutes right or wrong.

We have no empirical evidence that any such thing as "absolute mortality" exist.

On the contrary we have plenty of evidence that it doesn't exist. Many animals naturally eat each other and steal the eggs and babies from other animals for food to. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a human who sees that behavior as being morally acceptable.

So clearly there is no "absolute morality" within the universe as a whole in which we live. Human's sense of morality is unique to humans. And therefore it's necessarily a subjective construction and cannot be innate.

So I think we have profound proof that human morality is subjective and not innately objective in any absolute sense.

So our sense of right and wrong must necessarily be learned. It cannot be innate. That's simply not a viable option, IMHO.

[Divine Insight]

What we have to realize is that there are forces in this world that go beyond the physical and they do have an influence in our lives. The fact that we can hate, kill and hurt or love and help others says it all.

There is nothing in any of this that requires any 'forces' beyond those which are already physically known to exist. Emotions would be a natural extension of conscious and logical thought.

But to have the power to overcome the sin which leads to the taking, the hurting and the self interest we need god.

Where is there any empirical evidence that there even exists a god much less that it would be needed for anything?

We can try many different ways to feel good about ourselves and to overcome the things we dont like or that control us and some may work for a while. But the only one true way to win and overcome sin is through Christ and following his teachings.

That's an extremely faith-based statement which would be extremely hard to support empirically. On the contrary, there are many people around the world who use other methods of psychological self-control and self-discipline and who do indeed have much success in controlling themselves and living happy fulfilled lives.

So your claim that this is not possible without your imaginary "Christ" doesn't hold water.

He set the example and paved the way. Satan wants us to think we dont need god and that we are gods and control our destinies and have the power to decide what is right when it comes to self. He wants mankind to be in charge and have all the capabilities of god. He wants to be able to create man and bring him back to life like God. But he cant and only God can through Christ and he knows it but he will always will try and win right to the very end.

And now you are just taking gibberish about an imaginary boogieman that no one has ever seen or encountered.

Also, if you need a spiritual demon called Satan in your religious paradigm then it can hardly be called monotheistic since your demon Satan would need to be at least as god-like as your imaginary Christ.

You can't have a helpless demon wrecking havoc with the creation of a God who could easily control the demon. So that whole paradigm is utter nonsense, IMHO.

Finally, you wouldn't need a God to create "Free Will" anyway, On the contrary, your claim is that you need a God to "Control Free Will". But ironically all you are saying this is that Free Will amounts to no control at all, and that the only way to property control free will is to remove it entirely and have some God control you instead.

That seems rather self-destructive when discussing justification for free will.

In other words, according to your religious argument there would be no point even even creating "Free Will" because according to you no one could actually control it and it would be totally worthless anyway.

According to you the only point to free will is to show that it's useless and what we really need is the "Christ" to necessarily control us as puppets. Because he certainly couldn't allow us to continue to have free will choice since by your proclamation we can't control it with the Christ.

Therefore you religion paradigm is demanding that everyone must become a puppet of Christ and give up any free will they might have.

How is that justification for free will?

Why would a God have even given us free will if all he wants to do is take it from us and control us like puppets anyway? He could have just saved himself a step and made us as puppets to begin with.

If you claim that you need the Christ to control your choices, then you are basically saying that you cannot handle free will. And it is entirely useless then.

It would make no sense to say that you have both Free Will and that you are being controlled by the Christ simultaneously.

You either have free will, or your a puppet of the Christ. That's the only choices your religious paradigm is allowing here.

You can't have both, that would make no sense.

[stevesonthebay]

If you have a society or a group of people do you need to have a set of standard/rules or guidelines to make sure everyone doesn't do anything that will hurt others or cause problems or can you just leave them to their own devices.

It seems society has already decided that for us and that is called the law. It also is broken down into other sets of standards such as industry standards or human rights legislation ect. They are all put there because we know that we cant be trusted to do the right thing all the time and so it is there to protect others and in some ways ourselves from ourselves. So in some ways our free will is already taken by the fact we cant always do what we want even when we disagree with some of those laws. A underage person may feel they have a right to drink and can handle it but the law says they cant in certain places or buy it. Their free choice is taken away. So human laws take away our free will to live the lives we choose. Some media laws take away peoples rights for freedom of speech so this takes away our freedom as well. This is the same for religion. The difference is that gods law is the ultimate law above all others. A person may kill someone and have their free will taken by being put in jail as punishment. But this will be for 30 years or a life time. But you can lose your soul for an eternity so this is why it is the ultimate laws above all others.

Mans attempts to control things has failed. He is incapable getting it right and this has been proven by the fact we have never seen peace on this planet and there is always a continued and growing problem with lawlessness, corruption and all the repercussions that go along with it. We could be heading towards world war or destroying this planet. We sit by and watch as millions die of starvation or disease and corruption. We don't want to give up our comfortable lives to help others and turn a blind eye. We may do our bit but if we really wanted to sort out the worlds problems we need to stop the haves and have nots and the selfish ways in which we want things and share it with others. We are basically selfish and so long as we are OK the rest doesn't matter to much.

We put in place our ideas about what is right and wrong and what values we should have. But over and over again we either corrupt these or find that the ways we think things should be done fall short of what makes a good society. We create more problems and the way we run our societies leads to a breakdown in communities and creates further problems in the future. Thats because we are trying to do it our way and not gods way.

Whether we like it or not call it human nature or sin but there are forces within us that cause us to hate and be greedy. To lust and envy and these cause us to break the laws of both god and man. But how man deals with it is different to god. We may bring in laws to stop child sex abuse but then subject our young to explicit images in the media. We may say that pedophilia is wrong but dress our young to look like adults in provocative dress to sell fashion. So we are always compromising ourselves and corrupting the very laws and standards we try to instill. God says even if you lust after your neighbors wife you are in danger of committing adultery. So here we see that the law of god goes deeper into how sin works and knows the nature of man. That is why it is only Gods way or the highway.

[stevesonthebay]

What we have to realize is that there are forces in this world that go beyond the physical and they do have an influence in our lives. The fact that we can hate, kill and hurt or love and help others says it all.

There is nothing in any of this that requires any 'forces' beyond those which are already physically known to exist. Emotions would be a natural extension of conscious and logical thought.

But to have the power to overcome the sin which leads to the taking, the hurting and the self interest we need god.

Where is there any empirical evidence that there even exists a god much less that it would be needed for anything?

We can try many different ways to feel good about ourselves and to overcome the things we dont like or that control us and some may work for a while. But the only one true way to win and overcome sin is through Christ and following his teachings.

That's an extremely faith-based statement which would be extremely hard to support empirically. On the contrary, there are many people around the world who use other methods of psychological self-control and self-discipline and who do indeed have much success in controlling themselves and living happy fulfilled lives.

So your claim that this is not possible without your imaginary "Christ" doesn't hold water.

He set the example and paved the way. Satan wants us to think we dont need god and that we are gods and control our destinies and have the power to decide what is right when it comes to self. He wants mankind to be in charge and have all the capabilities of god. He wants to be able to create man and bring him back to life like God. But he cant and only God can through Christ and he knows it but he will always will try and win right to the very end.

And now you are just taking gibberish about an imaginary boogieman that no one has ever seen or encountered.

Also, if you need a spiritual demon called Satan in your religious paradigm then it can hardly be called monotheistic since your demon Satan would need to be at least as god-like as your imaginary Christ.

You can't have a helpless demon wrecking havoc with the creation of a God who could easily control the demon. So that whole paradigm is utter nonsense, IMHO.

Finally, you wouldn't need a God to create "Free Will" anyway, On the contrary, your claim is that you need a God to "Control Free Will". But ironically all you are saying this is that Free Will amounts to no control at all, and that the only way to property control free will is to remove it entirely and have some God control you instead.

That seems rather self-destructive when discussing justification for free will.

In other words, according to your religious argument there would be no point even even creating "Free Will" because according to you no one could actually control it and it would be totally worthless anyway.

According to you the only point to free will is to show that it's useless and what we really need is the "Christ" to necessarily control us as puppets. Because he certainly couldn't allow us to continue to have free will choice since by your proclamation we can't control it with the Christ.

Therefore you religion paradigm is demanding that everyone must become a puppet of Christ and give up any free will they might have.

How is that justification for free will?

Why would a God have even given us free will if all he wants to do is take it from us and control us like puppets anyway? He could have just saved himself a step and made us as puppets to begin with.

If you claim that you need the Christ to control your choices, then you are basically saying that you cannot handle free will. And it is entirely useless then.

It would make no sense to say that you have both Free Will and that you are being controlled by the Christ simultaneously.

You either have free will, or your a puppet of the Christ. That's the only choices your religious paradigm is allowing here.

You can't have both, that would make no sense.

For someone who reckons religion is all mumbo jumbo you have a lot of spiritual and mystical quotes on your page.

[stevesonthebay]

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?

They have done tests and found that if you tell a person that they are a product of their upbringing and they cant help doing what they do they will be anti social. In other words a deterministic understanding of human behavior encourages antisocial behavior. Others in the study who were told that Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will show a more social behavior.

So now they are think if the scientist go around telling people that they cant help their behavior because its already determined then this may cause people to act badly because it wont matter so much.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber ... believing/

[arian]

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?

First, you present the question is there evidence of free will as if it was without some barrier? You know, .. like the earth without gravity?

The scientific justification of free will is like the earth with its gravity. First you have to work hard to break free of Earths gravity, and the farther you go away from Earth, the less 'pull' you have of it.

Well guilt has the same 'invisible effect' on our free will. First it's hard to break away from guilt, it takes a lot of energy to sin, but the more we distance away from the laws of nature, the lesser that 'pull', or the feel of guilt becomes.

You can't see gravity just as you cannot see guilt, but 'everyone' is effected by both in the very same way I just described.

[Divine Insight]

You can't see gravity just as you cannot see guilt, but 'everyone' is effected by both in the very same way I just described.

But they aren't effected by both in the very same way at all. That's not even remotely true.

Gravity has precisely the same effect on everyone given the same situation. You can even write a mathematical equation to precisely predict what the gravity will be in any given situation. It's not the slightest bit subjective.

Guilt on the other hand is entirely subjective. People feel guilty about entirely different things and for different reasons.

So your comparison of gravity with guilt is totally bogus. It doesn't even begin to be a valid comparison or analogy.

Guilt is entirely subjective. For example, you may feel that to be gay is something a person should feel guilty about. But a person who is gay may be in total disagreement with you, and suggest to you that there is absolutely no reason why anyone who is gay should feel guilty about being who they are.

You may feel guilty about masturbation, or believe that it is something horribly wrong and avoid it altogether. I have absolutely no feelings of guilt associated with masturbation and I think it's utterly silly to feel guilty about masturbating.

So where do you get off comparing feelings of guilt with gravity?

One is a totally fabricated subjective opinion and the other can be objectively defined with mathematical precision.

There is no comparison between gravity and guilt at all.

[Divine Insight]

They have done tests and found that if you tell a person that they are a product of their upbringing and they cant help doing what they do they will be anti social. In other words a deterministic understanding of human behavior encourages antisocial behavior. Others in the study who were told that Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will show a more social behavior.

So now they are think if the scientist go around telling people that they cant help their behavior because its already determined then this may cause people to act badly because it wont matter so much.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber ... believing/

So you are saying that when science discovers a truth it should be hidden from the public in a great conspiracy because if the public where to learn of the truth they would become immoral people?

That's pretty sad.

I don't believe that science can objectively demonstrate that we don't have free will anyway, so that's not even a part of this topic.

The thread topic is to ask if there is Scientific Justification for Free Will.

Just because they can't justify it doesn't automatically mean that it can't exist.

But at the same time, my point is that if they can't show scientific justification for the existence of free will, then there can be no scientific reasons or support for the idea that people can be held responsible for anything they do.

In other words, in a Purely Secular Society there would be no justification for holding people responsible for having free will. Because the very notion of free will would be as illusive as the boogieman or a concept of an invisible God.

The very notion of free will would itself be a faith-based fantasy with no scientific support.

This doesn't mean that science has ruled out the possibility for free will. It simply means that it cannot justify it on objective grounds. In other words, it cannot objectively determine conclusively whether such a thing as free will actually exists or not.

So it would actually be wrong to go around telling people that they definitely don't have free will in the name of science. That would be a false claim that science cannot verify.

[arian]

You can't see gravity just as you cannot see guilt, but 'everyone' is effected by both in the very same way I just described.

But they aren't effected by both in the very same way at all. That's not even remotely true.

Gravity has precisely the same effect on everyone given the same situation.

But it is absolutely true and a mirror-like comparison. Sin also has the same effect on everyone given the same situation just like gravity. We can learn to defy gravity just as we can learn to defy justice and truth. An NBA star like Magic Johnson could seem to defy gravity as he glides across the court to make a basket, yet there may be someone in the audience who may weigh less than Johnson who could barely make that next step to get to his seat, .. not alone glide across the floor to make a shot. And yet, gravity is the same for both of them.

You can even write a mathematical equation to precisely predict what the gravity will be in any given situation. It's not the slightest bit subjective.

Here is the mathematical equation for 'guilt' which is the result of 'sin';
Sin = death
Continuous rebellion against Gods justice = Eternal punishment in hell

The same way 'gravity' is the result of 'earth', you keep denying and fighting against earths gravity, you end up floating around aimlessly in the darkness of space where your body can actually burn, .. like hell.

Guilt on the other hand is entirely subjective. People feel guilty about entirely different things and for different reasons.

So your comparison of gravity with guilt is totally bogus. It doesn't even begin to be a valid comparison or analogy.

A guilt-free rebellious man who is continuously against Gods law and the laws of nature is like an astronaut who is finally free from the burden of gravity. What's so bogus about that? I believe it is a perfect comparison. A murdering rapist may live for many years not feeling guilty at all raping and killing boys and/or women, his mind along with his conscience is out there floating in space somewhere. He trained himself to walk in lawlessness free of guilt, just as an astronaut trains himself to walk in space free of the effects of gravity. (LOL, .. walk in space, .. it's more like flapping the arms and legs like an infant. But I guess 'space-walk' sounds more dignified, right?)

Guilt is entirely subjective.

Is that what you tell yourself in the morning before you start your day Divine Insight; "Guilt is entirely subjective, .. guilt is entirely subjective!"?? Brrr.. gives me the chills just thinking about it.

For example, you may feel that to be gay is something a person should feel guilty about. But a person who is gay may be in total disagreement with you, and suggest to you that there is absolutely no reason why anyone who is gay should feel guilty about being who they are.

Now please tell me why this guiltless 'free will' shouldn't be exercised by all thieves, murderers, rapists, molesters and liars? Oh yea, .. your whole purpose on this sight is to suggest and promote just this kind of ideology, right D.I.?

"Does the burden of gravity limit your free-will to go and do whatever you please? Well now you can escape that heavy burden of gravity, come and live in space! The feel of freedom is beyond your wildest dreams. Its, .. it's like being an infant again!"

You may feel guilty about masturbation, or believe that it is something horribly wrong and avoid it altogether. I have absolutely no feelings of guilt associated with masturbation and I think it's utterly silly to feel guilty about masturbating.

So tell me D.I. .. would you feel guilty masturbating in public?

My friend who lives in Hawaii e-mailed me some News clip photos of this girl walking around the beaches and through town topless, wearing a backpack like other College visitors, and that she was protesting why women cannot walk around topless like men can? So if homosexuality and women walking around topless should feel no guilt, .. why not men masturbating while watching women walking around topless? .. I mean why not? Why should there be any 'guilt' at all? You don't see your other animal cousins feeling guilty masturbating in public (like at the zoo for instance), they live truly guilt-free lives. Is this what you propose? Like the hippy message; "Just Do It" so you can honestly sing: "I did it My, .. Way!"

So where do you get off comparing feelings of guilt with gravity?

Sheesh, .. I know. Silly me, .. I, .. I almost feel guilty!? .. almost.

One is a totally fabricated subjective opinion and the other can be objectively defined with mathematical precision.

Really? Please define 'gravity' with mathematical precision for me, I really want to see this? Not the 'effects of gravity', but gravity itself.

You can only define/predict the effects of gravity, just as I can define/prdict the effects of sin, which produces 'guilt'.

There is no comparison between gravity and guilt at all.

Sure there is, all kinds of comparisons like the ones I just gave you. Only if you act on your 'divine insight', it will influence your 'free-will' to ignore my comparisons.

Take care Divine Insight.

[Divine Lies]

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?

There is no scientific evidence supporting the concept of free will or determinism indefinitely. Thus far, it stays within the bounds of philosophy. I, myself, adhere to the philosophy of determinism. I am convinced that even though humans have the capacity to entertain other options, we are ultimately not capable of making different decisions. The decisions that we make are a product of who we are as people. We have absolutely no control over the circumstances or perceptions of the circumstances that have made us into the people we are. For instance, much of the way I perceive and think about the information that I take in from the world around me today can be attributed to my genetic background and my earlier experiences. I had no choice in my genetic make-up and I had no choice in the experiences that would ultimately mold my mind into what it is today. I don't get to choose who I want to be, I am stuck with who I am.

As far as holding people responsible, I still find that there is no harm in pointing out when someone is a threat or danger to society and holding them accountable for that potential danger. I will use the example of a pedophile to illustrate my point. A person who is attracted to prepubescent children can not help that attraction. That person had no control over the events that took place in his or her life that would lead up to that perversion. But, this person may still be a threat to children. Some pedophiles are capable of understanding that, though they hold these attractions, acting on those attractions is immoral and so will not act on that attraction. Some pedophiles are compulsive and do not understand (or do not care) that acting on those attractions is immoral and will molest small children at some point in time. Neither of these people, in my view, have a choice in their attraction, urges, or compulsion because these traits were formed by factors outside of the control of the individual.

I do believe these people should be held accountable. But treating people like animals and throwing them in a cage with, often times, more violent creatures is not going to reduce the risk to the public when they get out of prison. At best, they have no changed at all and at worst, they are more likely to inflict pain upon others. I find the best way to address clear mental disorders is to work with people on an individual basis to curb their impulses and try to make them understand why acting on those compulsions can be harmful to others.

Holding people accountable for the threat they may pose to society and punishing them for desires they ultimately have very little control over are two very different things.

I hope that helped to answer your question, at least from my perspective.