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?

[arian]

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

I have yet to find a single study that satisfied my peer review criteria for either free-will or determinism. So, until there is enough evidence for a vast amount of researchers to support the conclusion based on independent testing, I will leave this topic to philosophy.

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

You begin by making an argument against free-will and then tell me that the term should not be used at all? Why would we avoid the word free-will? Because you've already formed your opinion on the topic?

I completely agree that we should clarify our definitions of words to stay on the same page and I apologize for not doing so at the begin. I tend to use Oxford English Dictionary because it provides simple, clear definitions.

Free-Will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

I also think it's important to understand the definition of the words within a definition.

Fate: The development of events beyond a person’s control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power

So I think that I am being reasonable, correct me if I am not, to say that free will can be defined as "the power, in any given situation, to acting without the constraint of necessity; having the capacity to make conscious choices that are completely independent of any external influence." I would also like to add that free-will can be defined, in a strictly religious sense, to be "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity and independent of the will of god."

As for what evidence convinces me, consider the following snippet from a previous post:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in our brains produce consciousness. For now we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a working brain. I will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject: 

1) Increasing brain capabilities are directly linked with increasing brain complexity and brain structures. Evidence for this is available in the many animals the exist on this planet. 

2) Mental capabilities are directly linked with the state of the brain. Whether its the mentally retarded, medicine for schizophrenia, or brain damage, we see a direct link between the brain and mental abilities. Its not as though when someone gets brain damage that there mind is floating out there in a perfect state and they just can't operate their body correctly because their brain is damaged. We would expect to see mental capabilities undiminished because of brain damage if that were false. We don't. Its because your mind IS a manifestation of your brain. 

3) The universe is casually closed at the level the brain. That is, the brain/mind MUST be the result of complex interactions of matter because if it wasn't then that implies there is some new mysterious force in physics operating at the level of the brain that we haven't detected. And we have detected all the relevant forces at that level. And we know this to a very high degree of certainty. 

I don't disagree that consciousness is the product of a working brain at all.

That would be like a computer creating the 'programmer/operator'. But hey, .. if this my response sounds off topic to you, you don't need to break a sweat to answer.

The topic is "Scientific Justification for Free Will", has anyone detected 'free will' activity in the brain yet? Or maybe a CNA taking peoples vitals? "Aahh yea, .. there it is, I am picking up Free Will Now! Right there from the heart rate, BP and breathing!"

[arian]

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?

First, I did not present the question, I answered the question with my philosophical take on the notion of free-will. So, you are disagree over literally nothing right here.

But, I will, out of respect of not disregarding your argument, respond nonetheless.

First, did you notice the two question marks at the end of my sentences? Does a 'question mark' mean I am disagreeing with you?

But hey, it's OK, I will, out of respect of not disregarding your argument, respond nonetheless

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.

There is no scientific justification for free will.

Yet you said in another post: "I don't disagree that consciousness is the product of a working brain at all." And you agree because, .. ??
Did you see scientific proof of this, or is this your hunch?

As I have already explained, there have been some scientific studies focused around how our brain reacts to external commands of action and actions permitted based on the personal whim of the participant. There have been different outcomes that may indicate both free-will and determinism, but there has not been enough data collected or enough independent researchers collecting this data to reasonable accept any of these studies as reliable.

The brain reacts to external commands, but what about dreams, or contemplating on new concepts when there is no external commands? These are not in our memory yet, so is this coming from our hands and fingers up to our brain because they are itching to create something new and unique?

This "Data collection", .. is this restricted to physical data, or could a force 'outside of the brain' be allowed to be considered, .. you know, like gravity? Because you can't actually detect gravity except for its effects on 'physical things', .. just as you cannot detect the mind except when it reacts with the brain.

How does it make sense to compare the physical, observable, predictable effects of gravity to the almost completely scientifically untested realm of free-will vs. determinism? It doesn't. But, I'll play ball.

The mind is physically observable when monitoring the brain, JUST LIKE gravity? And what? You say that gravity is physical? Really? Can you see it coming?

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.

I've tried and I can not logically make the comparison. Again, because you neglected what I actually said all together, you failed to realize that my argument is that free will is an illusion. That most people mistake the capacity to entertain several choices with the equal capacity to choose any option presented. Before you argue the point, please go back and read my post.

Free will is an illusion? So if someone points a gun to your head, his choice whether he blows your head off, .. or not is both an illusion? Consider Schrödinger's cat experiment, is this the type of 'illusion' you are referring to?

Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation

This to me is a very similar example to the 'Scientific justification for free will", to you 'free will' may be an illusion, but only up to the point when the man pointing the gun at your head pulls the trigger and blows your head off, OR he walks away and leaves you alive. Then you can 'see' free will in action, thus we can say it's science.

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.

You can see the direct effect that gravity has on other objects in the universe. Guilt only has an effect on the person who is feeling the guilt and absolutely no measurable, testable, or predictable physical effect on any object beyond the brain of the person feeling the guilt. The point of an analogy is to make it easier for others to understand your position better. Your analogy seemingly had the opposite effect and I still don't really understand what argument you are making.

So you agree that 'guilt has an effect on the person', but you don't see this as a measurable, testable, or predictable physical effect?

You agree to one like gravity, yet something is keeping you from accepting the other, the minds activity on the brain? Why?

Is this because of my association in the Belief in God, and that if you agree, you may be labeled a religious fanatic?

What you fail to see is that it is your religion and its rules and regulations that is keeping you from agreeing with me. Your free will is being limited by your religion. You believe in the Big-bang Evolution religion, and accepting the truth like the separation of mind and brain would reveal God our Creator.

You are faced with a decision, to accept a lie, or the truth, but that would take free will which you were taught to believe is an illusion. So you remain with what is more comfortable, with your religion as everyone else does. You don't want to risk what you got, .. and I understand, really, .. I have been there my friend.

Only in Schrödinger's cat there is no actual free will but a 50/50 chance is presented when the box is opened in one hour. But if we wait, the cat WILL be dead for sure. But in my man with the gun to your head, now that represents absolute free will. It wasn't determined by time or radiation leak, but by the gunman himself.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

My perspective (twist) on question #1 is if god existed there could be no free will. At least if god is really all knowing, all seeing, is active in our lives, etc. and created man then free will is an illusion because god has already ordained what we will do/think... IMHO

That's the argument theists often use. If God exists and is omnipotent, then It would have the power to put us beyond it's influence where we can make our moral choices without any knowledge that It exists. By definition, putting us beyond It's influence means that not even It would know what we will do--beyond probabilities.

If you must, think of it as God using It's omnipotent power to limit It's power, reserving the power to revert to full omnipotence, which would then require that we loose our free will, limiting God again since It couldn't create beings with free will and full omnipotence. This is why free will is a gift, and why it's the only reason for Creation. What else could not be done instantly, instead of putting 13 billion years between us?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 355 by Divine Insight]

In a way we are, but dogs are not capable (to our knowledge) of sophisticated thought and learning. They can learn, hence the punishment.

We don't "punish people for their crimes because they deserve it" out of some unjust and misguided sense of retribution, we punish people to rehabilitate them to stop them from doing it in the future, and we have prisons to protect the safety of everyone else.

In exactly the same way that we punish a dog for barking at random people, or force a muzzle onto it to protect others from it.

Yes, they did have a choice in the matter. They (the complex combination of algorithms they are) decided to commit the crime (the act of making the choice), unless you're straining words to exclusively allow dualist free will (aka true randomness, or at least indistinguishable from it).

Just because there isn't a magical dice in their heads that lets them roll when it comes to decisions, as opposed to make complicated, algorithmic, deterministic judgements based on logical procedures does not mean that we can't meaningfully speak of their choice.

This version of free will is indistinguishable from a dice roll; "the power to change ones own fate" (or something of the like), aka indeterminisim.
What does it take to be indeterministic? True randomness, almost by definition.

You can say "why punish someone under a deterministic system when they're just in an unlucky situation", and I can say "because it changes their decision making process", but then I can ask you the same question.
Why do we punish someone under an indeterministic system when they're just in an unlucky situation?

Think a huge part of this discussion involves precisely what we actually mean semantically by "punishment".

I would not say that putting a muzzle on a dog is "punishment". That's not the purpose of the muzzle. I think the same is also true even when we use unpleasant tactics to train an animal. In other words, if we whack a dog with a stick when it disobeys that is not really punishment". What we are actually doing is creating an undesirable stimulus for behavior that doesn't conform to what we expect versus desirable stimulus (such as treats) for good behavior.

But I think it's actually a misguided notion to think of that type of animal training as "punishment".

And it is even worse, IMHO, when we transfer that type of training over to humans. In other words, "punishing" our children with undesirable stimulus and specifically telling them that they are being "punished" for bad deeds.

On the contrary I personally feel that a far better way to deal with healthy humans is to use constructive techniques. The result may still be "undesirable" for the child, but the purpose is entirely different.

In other words, I would never condone "spanking" a child for anything. Because spanking is clearly a form of "punishment" that serves no constructive purpose. In fact, I would suggest that if a Child needs to be spanked as they only way to change their behavior then medical professionals should be consulted to assess the child's mental health.

A far better way is to have the child do something constructive especially related to the "bad behavior" in question. This should not be thought of as "punishment" nor should it be suggested to the child that this is "punishment". Even though the child may not be happy with having to do the constructive chores.

In fact, this is a very large reason why I reject the Biblical fables of God. In the Old Testament this God had people sacrificing animals to the God as atonement for their sins. I don't know if I would actual call that "punishment", but it's clearly not constructive or productive.

It would seem to me that a genuinely intelligent God would require that people do constructive things to atone bad behaviors. In other words, say someone steals something from other people. Well instead of commanding that they have their hands cut off, why not command that they must now labor to construct useful and productive items to give to other people to offset their theiver. And even perhaps demand this ten-fold, or a hundred-fold, or in keeping with biblical fables, seven-fold.

In other words, instead of "punishment" just require that they do useful constructive and productive things that are related to their bad behavior. From the point of view of one who has committed the "crime", it may seem like punishment, since they may not like having to do it. But it should not be sold as "punishment" by those who are requiring that it should be done.

Consequences for actions is not automatically "punishment".

What I am suggesting in this thread, is that from a scientific point of view, the entire concept of "punishment" has no validity. The concept of punishment basically assumes that the person who has done the wrongful deeds is indeed responsible and needs to be "punished" in some way.

The whole Biblical picture is in fact based entirely upon this mentality. The idea is that everyone is totally responsible for their own actions and choices and that therefore it makes sense to "punish" those who chose to do bad things.

Of course the existence of mental illness punches a huge hole in this biblical mentality. We know that some people are not responsible for their actions.

And scientifically speaking we can't even show empirically that anyone is actually responsible for their actions. We can't prove that free will exists.

So the whole mentality of "punishment" is an unwarranted concept.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 355 by Divine Insight]

In a way we are, but dogs are not capable (to our knowledge) of sophisticated thought and learning. They can learn, hence the punishment.

We don't "punish people for their crimes because they deserve it" out of some unjust and misguided sense of retribution, we punish people to rehabilitate them to stop them from doing it in the future, and we have prisons to protect the safety of everyone else.

In exactly the same way that we punish a dog for barking at random people, or force a muzzle onto it to protect others from it.

Yes, they did have a choice in the matter. They (the complex combination of algorithms they are) decided to commit the crime (the act of making the choice), unless you're straining words to exclusively allow dualist free will (aka true randomness, or at least indistinguishable from it).

Just because there isn't a magical dice in their heads that lets them roll when it comes to decisions, as opposed to make complicated, algorithmic, deterministic judgements based on logical procedures does not mean that we can't meaningfully speak of their choice.

This version of free will is indistinguishable from a dice roll; "the power to change ones own fate" (or something of the like), aka indeterminisim.
What does it take to be indeterministic? True randomness, almost by definition.

You can say "why punish someone under a deterministic system when they're just in an unlucky situation", and I can say "because it changes their decision making process", but then I can ask you the same question.
Why do we punish someone under an indeterministic system when they're just in an unlucky situation?

Think a huge part of this discussion involves precisely what we actually mean semantically by "punishment".

I would not say that putting a muzzle on a dog is "punishment". That's not the purpose of the muzzle. I think the same is also true even when we use unpleasant tactics to train an animal. In other words, if we whack a dog with a stick when it disobeys that is not really punishment". What we are actually doing is creating an undesirable stimulus for behavior that doesn't conform to what we expect versus desirable stimulus (such as treats) for good behavior.

A muzzle does not really seem a punishment, though it could be given that we know dogs don't like wearing them, but whacking one with a stick definitely is a punishment.
It does depend a lot on what is meant by punishment. (I don't mean retributive punishment)

But I think it's actually a misguided notion to think of that type of animal training as "punishment".

And it is even worse, IMHO, when we transfer that type of training over to humans. In other words, "punishing" our children with undesirable stimulus and specifically telling them that they are being "punished" for bad deeds.

On the contrary I personally feel that a far better way to deal with healthy humans is to use constructive techniques. The result may still be "undesirable" for the child, but the purpose is entirely different.

In other words, I would never condone "spanking" a child for anything. Because spanking is clearly a form of "punishment" that serves no constructive purpose. In fact, I would suggest that if a Child needs to be spanked as they only way to change their behavior then medical professionals should be consulted to assess the child's mental health.

Punishing a child does not need to include hurting them.
Sending a child to their room is punishment.
Taking away privileges from a child is punishment.

A far better way is to have the child do something constructive especially related to the "bad behavior" in question. This should not be thought of as "punishment" nor should it be suggested to the child that this is "punishment". Even though the child may not be happy with having to do the constructive chores.

In other words, instead of "punishment" just require that they do useful constructive and productive things that are related to their bad behavior. From the point of view of one who has committed the "crime", it may seem like punishment, since they may not like having to do it. But it should not be sold as "punishment" by those who are requiring that it should be done.

If they did things constructive when you asked they probably wouldn't need punishing.

Consequences for actions is not automatically "punishment".

What I am suggesting in this thread, is that from a scientific point of view, the entire concept of "punishment" has no validity. The concept of punishment basically assumes that the person who has done the wrongful deeds is indeed responsible and needs to be "punished" in some way.

Punishment is psychological reprogramming. Discourage unwanted activities, encourage wanted activities.

And scientifically speaking we can't even show empirically that anyone is actually responsible for their actions. We can't prove that free will exists.

So the whole mentality of "punishment" is an unwarranted concept.

If by "free will" you mean there's something in a human that is literally indistinguishable from randomness that picks decisions not unlike a dice roll, then that is not needed for punishment to be justified.
If by "free will" you mean "the ability to act at one's own discretion" then this very much does exist.

But I spoke more about this earlier (post 351)

[arian]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

My perspective (twist) on question #1 is if god existed there could be no free will. At least if god is really all knowing, all seeing, is active in our lives, etc. and created man then free will is an illusion because god has already ordained what we will do/think... IMHO

That's the argument theists often use.

As you may know, I'm not a theist, so I don't represent any man-made god or gods through religious beliefs and practices. But as I see the struggle throughout our debates here to NOT understand God our Creator, what I can give you is the Painful Truth, that is an observable and philosophical revelation of our Creator God "I Am".

Now I know what I say will be either ignored because of the obvious scientific description of God our Creator, or will be greatly clouded because of your religious beliefs. First let me address RonE's comment: #1 is if god existed there could be no free will. At least if god is really all knowing, all seeing, is active in our lives, etc. and created man then free will is an illusion because god has already ordained what we will do/think

This would be true if God created man from the dust of the earth, and that's IT. Man walking around with a preprogrammed brain as atheists/theists suppose. Then Just Like the computer operated robots we create with AI, we would know what that robot will do under any situation because we programmed it. But man is NOT only the physical, and there is no predictable built in program in a baby that teaches itself to learn, even though this is what the Big-bang Evolution religion wants to make man believe.

Look at the Blue Brain Project by IBM, DID they put a simple (baby-like) DOS program to learn into a computer and watch it evolve to the intelligence that their "human brain simulation" is right now?

Of course not. It has taken decades, billions of dollars, countless man hours and contributions from scientist/programmers throughout the world, and they admit it is "far from being complete".

If God exists and is omnipotent, then It would have the power to put us beyond it's influence where we can make our moral choices without any knowledge that It exists. By definition, putting us beyond It's influence means that not even It would know what we will do--beyond probabilities.

It is obvious your are speaking either out of ignorance, religious blindness, or absolute hate towards our Creator.

1. Ignorance because you refer to our Creator "I Am" as an "it", so you must have never gone to church, or hear a sermon on TV, or had a Jehovah Witness, or a Mormon visit your home, or read even a chapter from the Bible, Koran or the Book of Mormon because if you were introduced to even one of these, you would not refer to our Creator as an "it". Every Christian, and non-Christian religion refers to God as a He, not an "it".

2. Religious blindness. Where your Big-bang Evolution religion through its many science-distorted Journals, books has blinded your view of even a possibility of a Creator because of the obvious reasons; Big Bang Evolution is not about Creation.

3. Hate. Because of your self-righteousness and pride, you deny and debase your Creator in His face by referring to Him as an 'it'.

You start with "If God exists, .." can you at least give us a hint as to how you imagine this non-human quality "it" so we Believers could understand a little more about your god version "it"? Have you seen or read of a god-like machine, or rock, or a wood statue 'create' any biological beings? I just want to know where you get the "it" from?

If you must, think of it as God using It's omnipotent power to limit It's power, reserving the power to revert to full omnipotence, which would then require that we loose our free will, limiting God again since It couldn't create beings with free will and full omnipotence. This is why free will is a gift, and why it's the only reason for Creation. What else could not be done instantly, instead of putting 13 billion years between us?

I have traveled the world, I have studied many religions and their versions of God, I have read many science and non-science sci-fi books, watched movies, but I have NEVER once heard or read God being referred to as an "it" who could create beings through its powers? So if I may, I will label the above remark as being made out of sheer ignorance.

EVERYONE on Earth refers to God our Creator as a He, except a few who believe they are apes who evolved from their less-intelligent ape ancestors and believe they are just an evolving robot with a brain programmed to learn and cope in its environment. In this case the comment would be out of indoctrinated religious blindness.

So whether it's religious limitation, ignorance or out of hate for our Creator, you are all over the place my friend. Even Science Fiction or Fairytale writers could have phrased your post better.

Here is my definition which is my understanding from discernment of what I have observed through science (observing the world around me), from listening, reading and learning of the most common religions,.. what comments I read from the greatest Philosophers throughout history, the comments from quantum theorists, and last but not least, .. what I read and understood from the popular well known and in most cases very misrepresented/interpreted book called the Bible:

God our Creator has absolute free will to do as He pleases, or to do things that doesn't really please Him, like punishing His Children He created in His own "image", .. man. He hates doing it, but what good father would not punish his children for doing evil to their neighbor, or causing harm to themselves?

He created 'everything' that is not God. Another word God did not create his personality like love, hate, feeling sorry, angry, tired, happy especially when things go good to a point He wants to reward, .. this is what God IS, .. and was not created.

Free will;

We Gods created children have absolute free will, just like our Father. The laws apply ONLY to nature, and obviously to this body made of dust. We walk ON the ground because of the laws of gravity, we float when we go beyond earths gravity. Our body abides by the laws that makes nature what it is.

But our mind/spirit that resides in this physical body is not governed by the "laws of nature". We can control this physical body to do good, or to do harm, or evil. Just as our Creator and Father God, we have free will to do as we please, only within a physical body which as I have noted is limited to the physical laws of nature, .. as God designed it.

So here is how we separate ourselves from God, or our God-self; Our physical body experiences (with its senses) the world around him. The spirit within us enjoys these things also, just as God enjoys the things we enjoy, .. after all the Spirit is One. But each of us are individuals, spirit within a physical body. We can experiment, and sometimes do things to others that is not fun, or not enjoyable to that other person, and this is NOT good, or out of love, but is selfish.

So 'Living Souls' which is body and spirit that enjoy doing evil to their neighbors, their own brothers and sisters are called evil, and God has extended the time limit for us evil men to turn from our ways, and set a Door through which we could escape the destruction and punishment waiting for us all. It is Gods Word who came down and was born of woman as we were, and whom the world knows by the name;Jesus Christ.

This my friend is fact. Now if you have a different version of God and Free Will, at least tell us the source you got it from. Talk is cheap, .. prove your point like I do mine. Show me the source you got this "it" god from that can create, yet is not very good at it where even its creation is confused of "it"?

Thanks

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

My perspective (twist) on question #1 is if god existed there could be no free will. At least if god is really all knowing, all seeing, is active in our lives, etc. and created man then free will is an illusion because god has already ordained what we will do/think... IMHO

That's the argument theists often use.

As you may know, I'm not a theist, so I don't represent any man-made god or gods through religious beliefs and practices. But as I see the struggle throughout our debates here to NOT understand God our Creator, what I can give you is the Painful Truth, that is an observable and philosophical revelation of our Creator God "I Am".

Now I know what I say will be either ignored because of the obvious scientific description of God our Creator, or will be greatly clouded because of your religious beliefs. First let me address RonE's comment: #1 is if god existed there could be no free will. At least if god is really all knowing, all seeing, is active in our lives, etc. and created man then free will is an illusion because god has already ordained what we will do/think

This would be true if God created man from the dust of the earth, and that's IT. Man walking around with a preprogrammed brain as atheists/theists suppose. Then Just Like the computer operated robots we create with AI, we would know what that robot will do under any situation because we programmed it. But man is NOT only the physical, and there is no predictable built in program in a baby that teaches itself to learn, even though this is what the Big-bang Evolution religion wants to make man believe.

Look at the Blue Brain Project by IBM, DID they put a simple (baby-like) DOS program to learn into a computer and watch it evolve to the intelligence that their "human brain simulation" is right now?

Of course not. It has taken decades, billions of dollars, countless man hours and contributions from scientist/programmers throughout the world, and they admit it is "far from being complete".

If God exists and is omnipotent, then It would have the power to put us beyond it's influence where we can make our moral choices without any knowledge that It exists. By definition, putting us beyond It's influence means that not even It would know what we will do--beyond probabilities.

It is obvious your are speaking either out of ignorance, religious blindness, or absolute hate towards our Creator.

Back at you: "Now I know what I say will be either ignored because of the obvious scientific description of God our Creator, or will be greatly clouded because of your religious beliefs."

1. Ignorance because you refer to our Creator "I Am" as an "it", so you must have never gone to church, or hear a sermon on TV, or had a Jehovah Witness, or a Mormon visit your home, or read even a chapter from the Bible, Koran or the Book of Mormon because if you were introduced to even one of these, you would not refer to our Creator as an "it". Every Christian, and non-Christian religion refers to God as a He, not an "it".

And every revealed religion has manufactured their own god and anthropomorphized it. That's one of the reasons I rejected the Christian religion I was raised under.

2. Religious blindness. Where your Big-bang Evolution religion through its many science-distorted Journals, books has blinded your view of even a possibility of a Creator because of the obvious reasons; Big Bang Evolution is not about Creation.

Wrong again. Because of the Big Bang, I believe the chance that God did it as opposed to their being no God is equal. The odds being equal, I lean towards God based on hope.

3. Hate. Because of your self-righteousness and pride, you deny and debase your Creator in His face by referring to Him as an 'it'.

I'm merely stating that I don't know if It exists or not, but if It does, it's more likely to not have a gender. As for self-righteousness and arrogance, look in the mirror.

You start with "If God exists, .." can you at least give us a hint as to how you imagine this non-human quality "it" so we Believers could understand a little more about your god version "it"? Have you seen or read of a god-like machine, or rock, or a wood statue 'create' any biological beings? I just want to know where you get the "it" from?

All I know is that we live in a perfectly all natural, rational universe about which we have no idea how it came to be. You say God and it may be. The atheists say no-God and that may be. There is no rational evidence either way, only 3000+ year-old hearsay.

If you must, think of it as God using It's omnipotent power to limit It's power, reserving the power to revert to full omnipotence, which would then require that we loose our free will, limiting God again since It couldn't create beings with free will and full omnipotence. This is why free will is a gift, and why it's the only reason for Creation. What else could not be done instantly, instead of putting 13 billion years between us?

I have traveled the world, I have studied many religions and their versions of God, I have read many science and non-science sci-fi books, watched movies, but I have NEVER once heard or read God being referred to as an "it" who could create beings through its powers? So if I may, I will label the above remark as being made out of sheer ignorance.

YetyYou give It a gender based on mythology.

Now if you have a different version of God and Free Will, at least tell us the source you got it from. Talk is cheap, .. prove your point like I do mine. Show me the source you got this "it" god from that can create, yet is not very good at it where even its creation is confused of "it"?

Thanks

Reason, not revelation, has led me to understand that if there is a God and It created the universe, It did so for the sole purpose of spawning sentient creatures with free will by which we automatically understand absolute morality. An omnipotent God could do anything else besides create this 13 billion year insulating test stage for us, instantly.

I am many decades into my life, with religion as my avocation all the time. But it was only in the last year that I started referring to God as It. Not an It, btw, the It, thus the capitalization. I wish there were a more accurate word but there isn't.

[Divine Insight]

Punishing a child does not need to include hurting them.
Sending a child to their room is punishment.
Taking away privileges from a child is punishment.

I agree that sending a child to their room can be punishment. However, in my opinion if it is being done as punishment then it's just as ignorant as spanking them.

I do not support the mentality of punishment on any level. Whether it involves physically causing pain as in spanking, or the idea of emotional punishment (such as sending them to their room as punishment). The very mentality of punishment, IMHO is not intelligent.

Taking away privileges can be constructive, especially if it can be done in a way that actually relates to the offense in question. However, to even take away privileges expressly as a form of punishment is again, IMHO, not intelligent. And I wouldn't condone or support that as good or healthy parenting.

If they did things constructive when you asked they probably wouldn't need punishing.

Yet you expect them to go to their room, or forfeit privileges by your command. If you can see to it that they obey your punishments then you should also be able to see to it that they live up to any constructive lessons that you wish to teach them. After all you are the parent and it's up to you to be the teacher.

Punishment is psychological reprogramming. Discourage unwanted activities, encourage wanted activities.

I'm not saying that punishment doesn't work to produce desired results in some cases. What I am saying is that it simply isn't an intelligent solution.

In the case of human parents I can understand this lack of intelligent solutions to these types of problems. Humans are quite often unintelligent so this is not unusual behavior. However, when it comes to a supposedly supreme being I would expect a show of higher intelligence.

Moreover, religions that preach of a God who uses punishments and threats of punishments as his main method of dealing with problems only teaches humans to do the same. And that, IMHO, is extremely unfortunate and a very bad message to humans in general.

If by "free will" you mean there's something in a human that is literally indistinguishable from randomness that picks decisions not unlike a dice roll, then that is not needed for punishment to be justified.
If by "free will" you mean "the ability to act at one's own discretion" then this very much does exist.

But I spoke more about this earlier (post 351)

But what it is that has "Its own discretion"?

That is the crux of the problem right there. You seem to be willing to give biological robots (i.e. Humans) a "soul" of their own even in a purely mechanistic and materialistic world.

So you are operating on a non-scientific assumption that people are indeed living "souls" even if not eternal.

What I'm saying is that this is still problematic from a purely materialistic scientific perspective.

I don't personally argue that we don't have free will. I actually believe that we do. But this flies in the face that we are nothing more than atoms that have evolved into biological computers. This is no different from saying that a computer that can make decisions based on sensory input and has a particular goal also must have its own discretion. But does it really?


What would it mean for it to have it's own discretion?

Even the introduction of random choices would not amount to "its own discretion".

[Jashwell]

I don't think you understand what I mean by punishment.
Any kind of action applied to them to address their wrongdoing is a punishment imo.

Punishment isn't retribution.

and "agree to their punishment"?
Aside from the well known fact that it is easier to tell a kid go to his room then to tell him to do what you wanted in the first place, why would removing privileges (e.g. lowering allowance until they behave better) require their consent?

If by "free will" you mean there's something in a human that is literally indistinguishable from randomness that picks decisions not unlike a dice roll, then that is not needed for punishment to be justified.
If by "free will" you mean "the ability to act at one's own discretion" then this very much does exist.

But I spoke more about this earlier (post 351)

But what it is that has "Its own discretion"?

That is the crux of the problem right there. You seem to be willing to give biological robots (i.e. Humans) a "soul" of their own even in a purely mechanistic and materialistic world.

So you are operating on a non-scientific assumption that people are indeed living "souls" even if not eternal.

No?
"one's own discretion" is limiting to those who are self aware.
We clearly act at our own discretion regularly.
And our discretion is a deterministic system.

What I'm saying is that this is still problematic from a purely materialistic scientific perspective.

I don't personally argue that we don't have free will. I actually believe that we do. But this flies in the face that we are nothing more than atoms that have evolved into biological computers. This is no different from saying that a computer that can make decisions based on sensory input and has a particular goal also must have its own discretion. But does it really?

Is it self aware? Are these decisions conscious to the robot? If so, then yes, it has free will.

What would it mean for it to have it's own discretion?

Even the introduction of random choices would not amount to "its own discretion".

You seem to be mixing different points. While random choices would be indistinguishable from free will because the only difference between free will and randomness is an arbitrary definitional exception, if the robot is self aware and has a goal X and consciously makes steps towards achieving X, then yes it is making choices at it's own discretion.

[scourge99]

There is evidence for both. But the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates our decisions and choices are the result of deterministic processes (perhaps with some randomness). Freewill also fails because of scientific studies and experiments that contradict its predictions such that freewill is relegated to nothing more than "freewill of the gaps".

I have yet to find a single study that satisfied my peer review criteria for either free-will or determinism.

I don't think you'll find any single study that completely proves evolution or gravitation either. Rather there is a vast body of knowledge, experiments, data, and models which support these ideas.

So, until there is enough evidence for a vast amount of researchers to support the conclusion based on independent testing, I will leave this topic to philosophy.

I think you'll find that among mainstream neuroscientists its well established that the mind is the product of the brain. Also, I think you'll find that among mainstream physicists its well established that the universe obeys deterministic laws with perhaps a pinch of randomness.

But that all depends on how you define "freewill". People seem to have widely varying definitions for it such that any debate about freewill must first start with defining what you mean by it. Personally i think its best to avoid using the word altogether.

You begin by making an argument against free-will and then tell me that the term should not be used at all? Why would we avoid the word free-will? Because you've already formed your opinion on the topic?

Because the word means so many different things to so many different people. Its an attempt to eliminate confusion and misunderstanding.

Lastly, what is "indefinite determinism"? Is that like" indefinite gravitation" or "indefinite evolution"? That these theories and ideas are presumed to be eternal or something?

I've never heard of indefinite determinism and when I did a brief search on Google I came up with no philosophy of "indefinite determinism". Even your questioning of it is faulty because you are linking it with known forces in the physical universe while this debate is strictly logical.

Well i asked because you used the term first in the post i responded to.

Let's dissect that a bit. What does it even mean to make a different decision than the one you made? Does it imply that if circumstances were the same you could have chosen differently? What could account for that different decision? Magic? Randomness? A soul? How would those things account for a different decision exactly?

You're attacking my position when we hold almost exactly the same position. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here but you're practically reinforcing my point. This point is simply this: When a person makes a decision, that decision is a product of a lifetime of external influences, from genetics to experiences, none of which the person had any control over. Even if you are deciding what kind of car to buy, your preferences are molded by a lifetime of conscious and subconscious factors that you don't even realize are influencing that decision. Because of this, we can not be making decision independently of any external influence and therefore can not logically be considered to have free will.

I disagree. What you are proposing isn't determinism but inevitability/fate. There is a subtle difference between the two. One worth understanding.

I agree in principle but we probably disagree on the details.

For example, do you think our choices are of our own making or are they independent from our mind?

I never said anything was independent of our mind because our mind is a product of our brain. Our brain's neurological structure physically changes based on the environment we are exposed and this change directly influences the way we think and behave.

Then what is consciousness in relation to our actions? Are we only conscious of something after we do it? In other words, is consciousness just an side effect and has no real effect on our actions? That seems to be what you are proposing based on what you say above.

I disagree. Our consciousness is not some side effect. Our brain may be following strictly deterministic processes but our mind does control our actions. Our thoughts pre-date our intended actions. Thus in that sense we do have freewill.

People may not be able to choose differently but they still are responsible for some of their actions. For example, we don't hold inanimate objects responsible for what they do. But we do hold people responsible for their actions when their intentions and motivations are wrong. Consciousness is what makes us "moral agents" .

Of course we don't hold inanimate objects responsible for harm they do and it's a silly comparison. An inanimate object does not have a the ability to act or to think. Because of this, inanimate objects do not do anything. Yes, we punish intentions and motivations on the basis that the actions committed were considered detrimental to that specific society or group of people. Whether a person acts out of necessity is judged differently than those who act out of malice based on their capacity to further diminish the safety of the society or group. After all, we are programmed to preserve our species, and more specifically, our group within that species.

I disagree, partially. I do not hold people responsible simply because their actions were detrimental to society. Likewise, we wouldn't hold a wild bear responsible for a murder like we would a person even though a wild bear is clearly detrimental to society. We hold a murderer responsible because they have murderous intentions and are conscious beings.

I don't think there is much hope for pedophiles. I'm fairly certain they know its unacceptable to act on their impulses and desires. I think the best we can hope for is that they can empathize with victims and remain aware of the consequences.

So, you're saying that you don't think trying to treat pedophiles for, in the least, compulsive disorders is an acceptable action because you "don't think there is much hope" for them?

I never said anything of the sort.
Its demonstrably true that people with particular sexual attractions and urges will likely never stop having those urges. So its a fools errand to try to rehabilitate people not to have those urges. What we can do is teach tricks and ways to not act on their urges.

Having desires and acting on those desires are two very different things as well.

As you seem to agree with me, the deterministic philosophy would also account for the compulsion which that person had no conscious ability to control. Do you understand what compulsion is? The irresistibleurge to act. They are not of the mental state to choose not to act, they have no choice based on their current mental state.

Once again, determinism does not imply inevitability (or irresistible in this case).

If the victim feels as though the person needs to be "punished" in the traditional sense then maybe that is reasonable but punishments based on emotional whim is almost always going to yield a harsher punishment than would be made without that irrational thought. What I am saying, and was pretty sure I was quite clear, is that this punishment is not going to repair the problem but may make the problem worse. It seems more reasonable to spend this time and money on making them less of a threat to society so they are not locked up for the rest of their lives over desires and impulses they had no direct conscious capacity to change. Unless of course every time a pedophile commits any act of pedophilia you suggest we incarcerate them for life or put them to death in order to completely remove the possibility of threat from our society indefinitely. Neither of which a reasonable individual would suggest because those punishments heavily outweigh any emotional damage done in a single incident.

As i said before. people cannot change their desires and urges. But they can choose to act on them. I would not punish someone for their desires and urges, only their choice to act on those urges and desires. And while their choice may have been strictly deterministic, they can learn and choose to do otherwise in the future.