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?

[Goat]

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?

Well, before you can say that, can you give a clear and precise meaning of what you mean by 'free will'? When you talk to theists, they have so many definitions it gets confusing. So, when it comes to science, I want something that is.. well, clearly defined.

[Divine Insight]

Well, before you can say that, can you give a clear and precise meaning of what you mean by 'free will'? When you talk to theists, they have so many definitions it gets confusing. So, when it comes to science, I want something that is.. well, clearly defined.

Very good question Goat.

I would suggest the following criteria:

To begin with since the question is about scientific justification of "Free Will" we should only consider definitions of "Free Will" that could potentially qualify as being scientific definitions. Thus we can basically ignore any definitions give by theists unless they can justify their definitions in scientific terms.

Now moving forward from this, we can ask what it would even mean to have "Free Will" in a scientific context?

Well, if the scientific picture is that we are our physical brain, and that our physical brain is nothing other than a biological computer that was created by previous DNA instructions from a specific recipe, then, what could it possibly mean for this brain to have "Free Will"?

That is indeed my "Question #1".

Everything has been determined already by it's DNA recipe. It's just going to process any input information based upon this DNA recipe and the configuration that it is in at the time it receives any external information.

If we are going to claim that it has "Free Will Choice", what could this even mean?

What is it that would be doing the "choosing"?

It seems to me that at the very best all we could do is suggest that the brain includes "random choices". But would random choices even be an actual choice?

And if we claim that it is making a choice based solely on it's configuration and previous information, then how could we claim that this type of choice would be "Free"?

Free from what?

Free in what sense?

If we're going hold this brain responsible for its choices, exactly what is it that we are holding responsible for these choices?

Where is there any description, or indication, that there is any "Free Agent" at work here that has any any choice?

This is why I ask that if you believe in "Free Will" from a scientific point of view that you elaborate on what evidence exists that any "Free Agent" is at work here.

What is it that would be "FREE" to make a choice?

If you're going to claim that science supports "Free Will" then shouldn't you need to offer a mechanism that would result in pointing to some "FREE AGENT" associated with an otherwise completely predetermined biological computer?

Why should a computer that was built by the totally random luck of the draw of DNA be held responsible for anything? Where would the notion of a "Free Agent" come into play in a scientific context?

So yes, you are asking me to answer my own Question #1 from a purely scientific point of view.

That I cannot do, because I happen to believe in Spiritual Free Will. So I have no need to define it from a purely secular scientific perspective.

But those who claim that there can be a scientific notion of "Free Will" do need to offer a meaningful secular definition of this concept.

That is my Question #1.

I don't personally need to answer that question because I'm not claiming that a purely secular notion of Free Will has any meaning.

I hold that if secular atheists are correct in their world view then no one is responsible for anything. And there can be no such thing as personal responsibility.

That's my position on that.

[RonE]

[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

[Divine Insight]

[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

I agree.

However this is only true in theologies that require that god knows the future.

Not all spiritual philosophies hold this to be a requirement of "god".

There are also, also other potential takes on this.

Imagine, if you will, that you have designed a pair of dice.

You are omniscient in terms of what numbers can possibly come up. If you roll the pair of dice you can only roll a 2 thru 12 and only the whole numbers between those. You'll never roll anything less than a 2, greater than a 12, or some fractional or irrational number in between these.

So in this sense you are "omniscient" of what "can" happen.

But you still may not know the outcome of any given roll.

So in this way, you can be omniscient of all that is possible without necessarily being omniscient of what will actually occur precisely.

~~~~

Now you may argue that tossing dice is still a purely "random event". That may be true, but that's a whole different issue. And may even be important when it comes to the concept of Free Will.

What if there is a way for you to "weigh" the dice or cause them to come up in a certain way? Then you could have Free Will, and still be confined to the overall "Design" of what can come up.

So in this way you can have "Free Will" whilst remaining within a universe in which a God is omniscient, at least in terms of what can happen, although not necessarily in terms of precisely what will happen.

It's storming here, I've got to shut down! No Free Will in that!

[Divine Insight]

[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

The storm has passed and my free will to get back online has been restored.

By the way, this really has nothing at all to do with my Question #1.

My question doesn't ask whether or not there can be any free will concerning the many different concepts of theology or mystical philosophies. So that's a totally moot point. That would be a different question.

My question is to simply ask whether the concept of Free Will can have any meaning at all from a purely secular scientific view. And if so, how is this accomplished? And precisely what is it that is being held responsible for having "free will"?

Can we hold secular brains responsible for their thoughts and actions?

To say that we can implies that we are holding up a notion that they have some sort of "Free Will Choice" in what they think and what they do.

To hold someone responsible for their actions is an automatic implication that they must have a free will choice over what actions they choose to participate in.

Seems to me that responsibility and Free Will go hand-in-hand. How can we speak of responsibility if we have no reason to believe in free will?

That's really the bottom line I think.

[olavisjo]

.

To hold someone responsible for their actions is an automatic implication that they must have a free will choice over what actions they choose to participate in.

Seems to me that responsibility and Free Will go hand-in-hand. How can we speak of responsibility if we have no reason to believe in free will?

That's really the bottom line I think.

They don't have free will and neither do I.
I have no choice, I must hold them responsible for their actions.

[Divine Insight]

They don't have free will and neither do I.
I have no choice, I must hold them responsible for their actions.

Oh, but you do have choice. Albeit maybe not "Free Choice".

You are still a biological computer. Therefore given new input from the outside you can be reprogrammed via education to change the way you think.

For example, you have just proclaimed that they have no choice.

So now we can appeal to logical reasoning and conclude logically that if they have no choice, then it makes no logical sense for you to hold them responsible for their actions.

Now if you are a logical biological computer you will change your conclusions based upon this new information and you will no longer hold anyone responsible for their actions.

If you do not change, then we can only conclude that you are defective computer that does not operate logically.

Or we might conclude that you do indeed do possess free will and you're just being stubborn and rebellious against logic.

[Goat]

Well, before you can say that, can you give a clear and precise meaning of what you mean by 'free will'? When you talk to theists, they have so many definitions it gets confusing. So, when it comes to science, I want something that is.. well, clearly defined.

Very good question Goat.

I would suggest the following criteria:

To begin with since the question is about scientific justification of "Free Will" we should only consider definitions of "Free Will" that could potentially qualify as being scientific definitions. Thus we can basically ignore any definitions give by theists unless they can justify their definitions in scientific terms.

Now moving forward from this, we can ask what it would even mean to have "Free Will" in a scientific context?

Well, if the scientific picture is that we are our physical brain, and that our physical brain is nothing other than a biological computer that was created by previous DNA instructions from a specific recipe, then, what could it possibly mean for this brain to have "Free Will"?

That is indeed my "Question #1".

Everything has been determined already by it's DNA recipe. It's just going to process any input information based upon this DNA recipe and the configuration that it is in at the time it receives any external information.

If we are going to claim that it has "Free Will Choice", what could this even mean?

What is it that would be doing the "choosing"?

It seems to me that at the very best all we could do is suggest that the brain includes "random choices". But would random choices even be an actual choice?

And if we claim that it is making a choice based solely on it's configuration and previous information, then how could we claim that this type of choice would be "Free"?

Free from what?

Free in what sense?

If we're going hold this brain responsible for its choices, exactly what is it that we are holding responsible for these choices?

Where is there any description, or indication, that there is any "Free Agent" at work here that has any any choice?

This is why I ask that if you believe in "Free Will" from a scientific point of view that you elaborate on what evidence exists that any "Free Agent" is at work here.

What is it that would be "FREE" to make a choice?

If you're going to claim that science supports "Free Will" then shouldn't you need to offer a mechanism that would result in pointing to some "FREE AGENT" associated with an otherwise completely predetermined biological computer?

Why should a computer that was built by the totally random luck of the draw of DNA be held responsible for anything? Where would the notion of a "Free Agent" come into play in a scientific context?

So yes, you are asking me to answer my own Question #1 from a purely scientific point of view.

That I cannot do, because I happen to believe in Spiritual Free Will. So I have no need to define it from a purely secular scientific perspective.

But those who claim that there can be a scientific notion of "Free Will" do need to offer a meaningful secular definition of this concept.

That is my Question #1.

I don't personally need to answer that question because I'm not claiming that a purely secular notion of Free Will has any meaning.

I hold that if secular atheists are correct in their world view then no one is responsible for anything. And there can be no such thing as personal responsibility.

That's my position on that.

Well, is there a 'random choice'? Or, are things predetermined by the state of the brain chemistry, the connections and the environment. If we 'rewound' a moment in time, and presented the same scenario (down to the quantum scale), would the choice always be the same?

How would we know? What test can we do to determine that?

If we can't. does the question have any meaning at all, from a scientific point of view?

[Divine Insight]

Well, is there a 'random choice'? Or, are things predetermined by the state of the brain chemistry, the connections and the environment. If we 'rewound' a moment in time, and presented the same scenario (down to the quantum scale), would the choice always be the same?

How would we know? What test can we do to determine that?

If we can't. does the question have any meaning at all, from a scientific point of view?

Thank you Goat,

You have hit my point dead center square on!

That is precisely what I'm asking.

If the concept of Free Will Choice is a meaningless question in science, then surely the concept of Personal Responsibility is equally meaningless?

That is precisely the point I'm getting at here.