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]

Lets consider a finite thing like a dice. I know if we were to drop a dice EXACTLY the same way, the same surface, the same height, the same atmospheric temperature, the same everything we'd get the same number on the dice over and over again.

Actually this is wrong Arian. You are thinking in terms of classical or Newtonian physics. You're back in the days of Spinoza. Our modern picture of reality does not allow for that kind of precise determinism. Dice will not necessarily some up with the same number over and over again in our universe.

Please explain DI?
You know what I'm talking about right? The same exact dice under the same exact conditions, same height, position of the dice, angle, no wind or better yet, in a vacuum, the dice should roll the same number over and over again.

But I do want to hear your 'modern picture' by all means?

Therefore, according to you even dice must have FREE WILL.

The dice doesn't have a mind, so no free will.

But of course, that would be wrong.
They simply may do things differently if given a second chance under the very same conditions.
But that would hardly be free will.
All it would be is randomness.

Dice having free will, yes, of course that would be wrong.
Under same conditions, the dice will react exactly the same way with the same result every consecutive time.
The dice would not receive free will by this event.
The randomness comes from the different throw, twist of the wrist, different release height and point, etc. But under the same conditions you get the same result every time.
Please explain how this is not true, I'm listening?

Also, you don't seem to realized that you are no different from the dice. Everything you do, say, and think now have been strongly influenced by your past.

Yes? So?
But even in a rewind and re-run of my past, and stop at any point, I could make another choice, completely different one, at any moment you stopped.

In fact that's very easy to prove. If there were no such thing as Christianity you would have never heard of it and you wouldn't be arguing for it like you do. Therefore your very own past including all the knowledge you have is really nothing more than the history of the "roll" of the dice of your mind.

That's a worse comparison then your purposeless, accidental, inflation theory in no-thing. Where do you get this stuff, can you point me to some article about this?

The problem is Arian is that you really can't take credit for what you have become, be it good or bad. It's not only that you can't be blamed for what you might have done that was bad, but you can't be given credit for what you might have done that is good either.

What by your purposeless, accidental, chaotic sudden inflation into nothing theory by chance do you mean by good, or bad? Can you please explain to me where did that come from? Your universe and all your life forms and everything else within it is 'what it is', so what do you mean by good or bad? How could anything that not only was created/evolved without purpose, but as you said, have no purpose (no free will) have a word like good or bad in it? It doesn't fit.

If you're good consider yourself to be lucky. If your bad consider yourself to be very unlucky. Because in the end you are nothing more than a roll of the cosmic dice.

Please explain from your universal 'it happened' perspective the word luck?

In fact, if you are a Christian you absolutely must believe this. Because according to Christianity you can't be good on your own. There is no way that you can be good or take credit for being good or claim that you are responsible in any way for your goodness. That's actually a big no-no in Christianity.

If you put on a white robe without blemish and go and play in filth, then compare your robe with someone with a white robe who didn't play in filth, you would say; "Man, my robe is filthy compared to yours", correct? We Believers compare ourselves to Jesus and just admit we are not good.

You are nothing but a pair of cosmic dice being blown about in the wind and the only way you can be saved from your windy fate is to accept Jesus as your savior. And even if you do that it won't really have been your free will choice. I can't be. Because if it was then you would be responsible for having saved yourself. And again that's a big no-no. You can't be responsible for having saved yourself in Christianity. Only Jesus can save you.

It's my free will to choose Jesus as my Savior, or reject Him. If I choose Him, I'm saved. If I reject Him, I am not saved but lost. All on my own free will.

So ultimately it can't even be your choice at all.
So in Christianity not only is there no free will, but even if there was such a thing as free will it would be absolutely taboo for you to exercise it, even in terms of accepting Jesus as your savior. Because if you could actually be responsible for having made that choice, then you would have saved yourself, and Jesus wouldn't have anything at all to do with your salvation. Your salvation would have been the result entirely of your own free will choice. No Jesus required.

LOL, .. It sure would be hard to pick Jesus and save myself if Jesus was not there for me to pick!

There is no way around it DI, you have Free Will, and God exists as I have shown by scientific evidence. So choose wisely grasshopper! I'll even let you take the pebble out of my hand, as long as you choose Jesus. But I warn you, the journey will be tough, especially in these last Days with our rulers acting on instinct, and seeing us as animals. Like Roaring lions prowling around to see whom they could devour!

[arian]

I would, and always have done the latter because I know and 'believe' he has free will. And it is EXACTLY because I am sensible. You see, even our understanding what is sensible is very different, maybe because I believe I am a non-animal human created in Gods Image!?!

To be frank, I do not believe you.

You do not take past actions of people into account to judge their future actions? How then do you even tell one personality from another?

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man. Yes there is personality traits, but with humans even this can and does change, not just over time, but sometimes as quick as from one moment to the next.

A drugged up man putting a gun against your head telling you he is going to blow your head off can be reasoned with, but try to reason with a hungry lion just about to eat you?

Only animals judge other animals by instinct, one judging the others behavior. This is how lions hunt, and the lion that remembers behavioral patterns the most gets to make more kills.

I have free will to do either, both to animals and humans, but I choose to watch animals behavior, and humans according to what I know they are capable of, which is the ability to exercise their free will. It seems to bring the better out of people.

OK, I think I understand what you are getting at here, and in fact I agree with this in a sense (remember, I do not deny free will, I only deny that it can be justified scientifically).

Free will and determinism are simply lenses through which we view the world. People switch back and forth between them all the time, whether they consciously ackowledge it or not.

They are not something to be proven. Nor do they need to be. In fact, the idea of proving them doesn't even make sense. This is because they are what makes understanding the world possible in the first place. You don't "prove" those kinds of things, you use them to prove other things.

The problem is that both foundations fill some need we, as humans, have, but they are incompatable with one another. And so philosophical angst ensues.

I'm not sure I understand, .. are you saying that even though we can differentiate between animal instinct and human free will, this is not 'proof' they exist each in their own perspective, .. or their 'individual' frame of reference? As something real, or tangible, or real even if we can't physically touch it? I 'know' that gravity is there even if I cannot touch it so for me it is still tangible, or real that I can study it as science.

I have seen people act as animals, by instinct (shoot, stab somebody), and I have seen some change under similar conditions. I 'know' that when the other changed was because of his free will, not because of his animal instinct. So wouldn't that be 'scientific proof' of free will?

I know I have a mind, but I cannot actually show you my mind. I can show you my brain, but not my mind. The 'Blue Brain Project' is a science in trying to capture the mind, only they don't even know it, they think the mind is the brain so they are actually creating a brain in a Matrix in hopes of capturing and preserving the human soul.

The 'Blue Brain Project' is the perfect example that there is science behind free will, only like I said, they are creating, programming a brain, and 'programming a brain' will never result in 'free will'. They get a brain with what they put in there, and can only choose from what was put in there. This is not free will. They can 'mimic' free will, and maybe even fool many in believing it is free will, but it is NOT free will.

Free will is NOT "The best answer" from multiple choices, or not 'limited to' answers to multiple choices. The mind can come up with something totally new, even when we have the perfect answer to the question. Free will can never be programmed, or be contained in a program.

This is why it is difficult to debate here, most believe they are animals, and tend to treat others as such. Some actually hate to see human emotions from their fellow debaters and want to remove them from the forum. They say emotions, especially human emotions have no place in debate, yet their debates scream with emotions even if they try to hide it. LOL.

I do not disagree, but I think it's better that people do hold back at least to a degree. You ever try following debates in YouTube comments?

Boy have I? LOL, .. what a mess, right? Of course we have to hold back, we can't let our emotions run amuck. And I understand Zzyzx also, that emotion should be limited, but I don't believe it should be banned.

Have you noticed how much 'emotion' they use in Sci-fi movies today? Or in propagating evolution, or the Big-bang theory by dramatized apocalyptic events to get people to believe that humanity is in grave danger from meteors, from solar flares, from self extinction so we would bow down to our great leaders with their weapons of mass destruction to save us? Look at the science videos, documentaries, they are full of comments that pray on our human emotion. This is why I react so strongly when someone who stands for Big-bang Evolution demands emotion to be left out of our debate. I say 'hell no', .. lol. If you call me an animal and my family, and even my cousins apes, buddy, you're gona get some emotion out of me let me tell you!

A smile is a powerful weapon, unfortunately it can be used in deceiving ways too.

I agree.

Ever wonder why animals can't smile? Because they have no free will.

Most mammals are definitely capable of expressing emotions, and certain animals, like chimpanzees, make facial expressions very much like human smiles.

I really don't see any foundation for the claim that "humans have free will but animals don't". It seems like that's just the way you like to see things, and nothing more.

In fact, I'm not really sure what the difference is between what you call instinct and what you call free will.

You don't see it? It's OK, neither do the scientists involved in the multi billion $$$ Blue Brain Project. Wow, what a waste of time and money all because they believe they are nothing but animals, or just the 'smarter one' of the animals, so they totally miss free will, or what the human soul really means. What will be dangerous is when they actually believe, or make themselves believe they can download the (what they understand is) the human soul on a disk and actually throw the human body away and that now they have eternal life within this Matrix. Like I said, just like Marshal Applewhite and his cult "Heavens Gate".

If they were to reason as humans 'outside' of religious indoctrinated beliefs like that they are nothing but evolving animals, they would be able to see this; There is a brain, and we have a mind/spirit which together makes us human souls.

This is the same reason no one seems to understand my discovery of 'nothing', some even find it frightening to contemplate too deeply about it. To avoid admitting defeat, or that they are just scared, they tell me it is silly, or even stupid nonsense to even bring it up. So they say: "Nothing doesn't exist" .. I guess we just use it in everyday language, you know, .. because it doesn't exist, .. lol. That's as silly as atheists saying they don't believe in god/gods. That god/gods don't exist, or that Santa Claus doesn't exist, yet at the same time they dress up as Santa. For what? So they could disappear? "Look honey, I am dressed as Santa, so I don't exist anymore!"

You cannot capture the human mind, or predict free will, but you can predict instinct.

And because I treat a humans as humans, I survived many deadly encounters even under the worst circumstances. The other way is also true, if you treat humans like animals, they will react like an animal. We humans can do that because we have free will.

I also know from experience that I can influence other humans just by my faith IN THEM. Another words, when I had a drug crazed man pointing a gun at my head telling me he is going to blow my head off, my faith in that he won't do it, influenced him not to. This happened many times in my life under very different situations and places, so it's not something I am guessing at or assuming.

I do not deny the power of faith. Many atheists scoff at faith. I do not.

However, just this idea of you "steering" other people by faith is still itself a form of treating them as an object to be shaped, rather than an entity that guides him or herself.

Yes, there are all kinds of ways to 'steer' other people; indoctrination, torture, lies, and yes, Faith. I for one try to bring out the best in those endangering my or others lives, to influence their free will to choose the better option without causing sin. Of course there is witchcraft, curses, etc.. that can influence evil to do harm, especially if that person is entertaining demonic spirits already.

It's sad to see how many young children are made to believe they are animals, thank God they can still use their free will to fight it, but they are breaking down thanks to Evolutionist. Soon, all the children will be brainwashed to believe they are nothing but evolving animals, and will act by instinct like animals, .. like every sensible person, right?

I agree that science "worship" is growing, and that it is not a good thing. There's no meaning or value to be found in science. It's only a tool.

But it's a darned good tool.

I would say; "Religious Science Worship" is growing, and it is a very bad thing. They take a guys invention like hydrogen carburetor, and instead raise the price of gas for everyone by .15c
But hey, it's OK, they will give us I-Phone 6 with 10,000 more apps and well forget all about the hydrogen carburetor and the .15c gas hike, right?

Thanks for your response, I hope I didn't offend you in any way, .. if I did, please blame it on my animal instinct!

[McCulloch]

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man.

Humans do have instinctive traits. A human baby knows how to suckle. When I cut myself accidentally with a knife, I flinch. But the human animal has reason. A human animal can, by the force of will, override his or her instincts with reason. So far as we can tell, humans are the animals with the greatest intellectual and reasoning power. There is nothing in the definition of animal that precludes reason. Or free will, for that matter.

[H.sapiens]

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man.

Humans do have instinctive traits. A human baby knows how to suckle. When I cut myself accidentally with a knife, I flinch. But the human animal has reason. A human animal can, by the force of will, override his or her instincts with reason. So far as we can tell, humans are the animals with the greatest intellectual and reasoning power. There is nothing in the definition of animal that precludes reason. Or free will, for that matter.

The kingdom Animalia include Homo sapiens.

[McCulloch]

The kingdom Animalia include Homo sapiens.

Arian does not accept the taxonomy that the science of biology finds so useful. He seems to be arguing, without any evidential support, that the non-human animals are completely without free will and that humans are uniquely endowed with it. Therefore, humans, in spite of our biological similarities with other animals, should be classified separately. To him, to call humans animals is somehow an insult to our intelligence and free will, attributes which to him are lacking in the animals.
The problem with this kind of approach is that it is completely at odds with reality. However you evidence free will, the other animals exhibit it to varying degrees. Cats, horses, dogs, elephants and non-human apes are not mindless automata. Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

[FarWanderer]

You do not take past actions of people into account to judge their future actions? How then do you even tell one personality from another?

If you see humans as animals, with instinctive traits like you know a lion when hungry will look for food and try to kill the easy pray, the sick, young etc, .. then you have taken free will out of man. Yes there is personality traits, but with humans even this can and does change, not just over time, but sometimes as quick as from one moment to the next.

Sure, but is it completely random? Is there no semblance of order whatsoever in how people's personalities evolve?

A drugged up man putting a gun against your head telling you he is going to blow your head off can be reasoned with, but try to reason with a hungry lion just about to eat you?

Animals (probably) can't reason to begin with, and reason isn't the same as free will.

Only animals judge other animals by instinct, one judging the others behavior. This is how lions hunt, and the lion that remembers behavioral patterns the most gets to make more kills.

I have free will to do either, both to animals and humans, but I choose to watch animals behavior, and humans according to what I know they are capable of, which is the ability to exercise their free will. It seems to bring the better out of people.

OK, I think I understand what you are getting at here, and in fact I agree with this in a sense (remember, I do not deny free will, I only deny that it can be justified scientifically).

Free will and determinism are simply lenses through which we view the world. People switch back and forth between them all the time, whether they consciously ackowledge it or not.

They are not something to be proven. Nor do they need to be. In fact, the idea of proving them doesn't even make sense. This is because they are what makes understanding the world possible in the first place. You don't "prove" those kinds of things, you use them to prove other things.

The problem is that both foundations fill some need we, as humans, have, but they are incompatable with one another. And so philosophical angst ensues.

I'm not sure I understand, .. are you saying that even though we can differentiate between animal instinct and human free will, this is not 'proof' they exist each in their own perspective, .. or their 'individual' frame of reference? As something real, or tangible, or real even if we can't physically touch it? I 'know' that gravity is there even if I cannot touch it so for me it is still tangible, or real that I can study it as science.

I'm saying that we do not "differentiate" on this matter. We assign free will as we please. And the same goes for determinism. We assign determinism when it suits us.

I know I have a mind, but I cannot actually show you my mind. I can show you my brain, but not my mind. The 'Blue Brain Project' is a science in trying to capture the mind, only they don't even know it, they think the mind is the brain so they are actually creating a brain in a Matrix in hopes of capturing and preserving the human soul.

The 'Blue Brain Project' is the perfect example that there is science behind free will, only like I said, they are creating, programming a brain, and 'programming a brain' will never result in 'free will'. They get a brain with what they put in there, and can only choose from what was put in there. This is not free will. They can 'mimic' free will, and maybe even fool many in believing it is free will, but it is NOT free will.

I know nothing of this project, and do not have any interest in defending it.

Free will is NOT "The best answer" from multiple choices, or not 'limited to' answers to multiple choices. The mind can come up with something totally new, even when we have the perfect answer to the question. Free will can never be programmed, or be contained in a program.

Works for me.

If (the scientists involved in the multi billion $$$ Blue Brain Project) were to reason as humans 'outside' of religious indoctrinated beliefs like that they are nothing but evolving animals, they would be able to see this; There is a brain, and we have a mind/spirit which together makes us human souls.

This is the same reason no one seems to understand my discovery of 'nothing', some even find it frightening to contemplate too deeply about it. To avoid admitting defeat, or that they are just scared, they tell me it is silly, or even stupid nonsense to even bring it up. So they say: "Nothing doesn't exist" .. I guess we just use it in everyday language, you know, .. because it doesn't exist, .. lol.

"Nothing" means the exact same as "not anything". It's purely a semantic game as to whether "nothing" "exists".

You cannot capture the human mind, or predict free will, but you can predict instinct.

Again, don't see it. Humans can be predicted fairly well most of the time, and animals can't be predicted perfectly by any stretch.

Thanks for your response, I hope I didn't offend you in any way, .. if I did, please blame it on my animal instinct!

I enjoy your posts arian. Stay colorful.

[H.sapiens]

The kingdom Animalia include Homo sapiens.

Arian does not accept the taxonomy that the science of biology finds so useful. He seems to be arguing, without any evidential support, that the non-human animals are completely without free will and that humans are uniquely endowed with it. Therefore, humans, in spite of our biological similarities with other animals, should be classified separately. To him, to call humans animals is somehow an insult to our intelligence and free will, attributes which to him are lacking in the animals.
The problem with this kind of approach is that it is completely at odds with reality. However you evidence free will, the other animals exhibit it to varying degrees. Cats, horses, dogs, elephants and non-human apes are not mindless automata. Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

You should observe the Plantae more closely, they will amaze you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 413:

...
Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

You should observe the Plantae more closely, they will amaze you.

Please expound.

I'm thinking you're getting at the release of chemical signals when various plants are "under attack". If so, I'm hoping to see how such is a matter of "will", as opposed to bio-chemical reaction (noting definitions may come into play).

[Peter]

From Post 413:

...
Trees and fungi on the other hand, truly do not show any evidence of having will.

You should observe the Plantae more closely, they will amaze you.

Please expound.

I'm thinking you're getting at the release of chemical signals when various plants are "under attack". If so, I'm hoping to see how such is a matter of "will", as opposed to bio-chemical reaction (noting definitions may come into play).

At their core, thoughts are simply bio-chemical reactions. When every choice can be reduced to bio-chemical reactions where is the room for this magical "free will"?

[arian]

I know I have a mind, but I cannot actually show you my mind. I can show you my brain, but not my mind. The 'Blue Brain Project' is a science in trying to capture the mind, only they don't even know it, they think the mind is the brain so they are actually creating a brain in a Matrix in hopes of capturing and preserving the human soul.

The 'Blue Brain Project' is the perfect example that there is science behind free will, only like I said, they are creating, programming a brain, and 'programming a brain' will never result in 'free will'. They get a brain with what they put in there, and can only choose from what was put in there. This is not free will. They can 'mimic' free will, and maybe even fool many in believing it is free will, but it is NOT free will.

I know nothing of this project, and do not have any interest in defending it.

This is actually a world wide event that I believe you will find very interesting, and important. This is your future also! Your families future.

It's a race if you will, in the pretense to save humanity. Not from total annihilation (that's a done deal as far as they are concerned, even if they have to do it themselves which they are working on 24/7 365 days out of the year), but to ease the humans from realizing the reality of total annihilation that they are bringing upon them. This is real in so many ways, and is rapidly coming to its climax. The Blue-Brain project is just another pacifier to keep them hoping, and putting their trust in their government, and technology.

The reality is that we have enough energy, food, room, jobs, for ten times the amount of people we have on the earth now, and look where we are, with estimated half the world going to bed hungry, and the majority of those are starving.

I mean have you seen the Bio-Dome here in Arizona? This plan to have domes like this on Mars, or some other planet to keep at least a remnant of humanity alive is very real and has been for some time now. If not technology, then they use science fiction mixed with religion to convince the masses, to keep them from getting alarmed at what they are doing to us.

By removing the last piece of humanity from humans, 'free will', the rest will go much easier where everyone will eagerly participate (actually our kids in the military have been participating for a long time) and that 'Final Solution', the final destruction of all life will come upon us like a thief in the night.

If I don't talk to you sooner, I wish you and your loved ones a Happy Thanksgiving. May God bless us all to be 'like minded' in all good things, and stand against evil.

Odon