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?

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 276 by scourge99]
scourge99 wrote:

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

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

It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the billions of neurons in your brain 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 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 recommend this video which goes into more detail about #3:
[youtube][/youtube]

[Replying to post 217 by scourge99]
scourge99 wrote:

The workings of the brain have nothing to do with quantum mechanics anymore than anything else in the macro world does. All this nonsense about quantum mechanics and the brain got started by a small group of religious scientists who were desperate to invent some explanation that would allow freewill (as Christians view it) because scientific evidence about the brain was conflicting with their religious beliefs. So they hypothesized all these silly and stupid ideas involving quantum mechanics and such things as "microtubules" in the brain. Millions of dollars later and to no one's surprise, the research has not panned out. No experiment or hard evidence could be produced to support it. Its all just conjecture.

If you ever hear or read "quantum mechanics" and "brain/mind/soul" in the same sentence, chances are the person is full of it.

I was referring to a recent article in Scientific American magazine which described the structure of a particular molecule in a brain synapse in which a hydrogen atom could flip=flop randomly between two different positions in the molecule. The position of the hydrogen atom at any given time determined whether the synapse would pass or block a neuron pulse. The article made no mention or hint of any connection with Free Will or even macro quantum effects on the brain as a whole.

My mistake. I presumed you were making some type of Quantum mind argument.

What was the name of that article? I'd like to read it.

My knowledge of chemistry is more than a few years old, but surely you are not denying that quantum effects can influence the internal structure of molecules?

I'm not denying that. But, as i understand it, decoherence occurs such that such quantum effects don't manifest at the macro level such as the level of the brain. This is why some of those religious scientists I mentioned were mentioning microtubules. Because they would presumably prevent decoherence.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdf ... erence.pdf

[Divine Insight]

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.

There exist spiritual philosophies that explain precisely why this must be the case.

I won't bore you with the details here. But my point is simply that some spiritual philosophies like Taoism have this one covered.

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.

The same is true as above. There exist spiritual philosophies that offer sound reasons why this is the case. They even explain this via a concept of karma.

Clearly this doesn't mean that they are true. But it does show that they have this covered. This is not something they haven't thought about. In fact, the mystics had this covered long before modern science and medicine discovered these things. So the ancient mystics clearly thought quite deeply about these things to even include knowledge that wasn't even experimentally proven in their day. But clearly they did have practical examples of people who were influenced by physical problems and disease. Again, this is covered by karma.

And again, I'm not saying that this makes these mystical philosophies true. I'm simply pointing out that they already have these bases covered.

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.

To this I say hogwash.

This claim is nothing more than totally overly-confident arrogance on the part of scientist who have convinced themselves that they actually know more than they do.

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. That stance right here is totally unsupportable, I don't care how famous the physicists might be who take that stance. It's simply not supportable.

We have absolutely no clue what the true nature of reality might be. Modern physicists today are even proposing that we may live in a reality that has as many as 11 dimensions, rather than just the 3 plus time that we are currently aware of. If there is any truth to this scientific hypothesis then we are in absolutely no position whatsoever to proclaim that we currently know all of the forces of nature.

So the claim you've made above is nothing but totally unwarranted premature scientific arrogance (not meaning that you are arrogant, but any scientist who makes this claim is holding up science to be that arrogant).

I've been a scientist all my life, and the idea that we are even remotely close to knowing the true nature of reality is a huge JOKE. We aren't even close at this point.

Any claim that science necessarily rules out spirituality is an irresponsible. And yes that includes the position taken by Sean Carrol. I've watched many of his lectures, I even own a few on video. He's a great scientist, but he has some opinions that cross the boundaries of science and amount to nothing more than his own personal opinion.

I do not accept Sean Carrol's personal opinions when he crosses over the lines of what science actually knows. And he does cross that line quite often in his lectures. That is something that I wish he wouldn't do. But he does it none the less. I like Carrol's teachings when he actually sticks to the facts, but when he starts going off stating personal opinions he's crossing boundaries that are no longer supported by science.

[scourge99]

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.

There exist spiritual philosophies that explain precisely why this must be the case.

I won't bore you with the details here. But my point is simply that some spiritual philosophies like Taoism have this one covered.

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.

The same is true as above. There exist spiritual philosophies that offer sound reasons why this is the case. They even explain this via a concept of karma.

Clearly this doesn't mean that they are true. But it does show that they have this covered. This is not something they haven't thought about. In fact, the mystics had this covered long before modern science and medicine discovered these things. So the ancient mystics clearly thought quite deeply about these things to even include knowledge that wasn't even experimentally proven in their day. But clearly they did have practical examples of people who were influenced by physical problems and disease. Again, this is covered by karma.

And again, I'm not saying that this makes these mystical philosophies true. I'm simply pointing out that they already have these bases covered.

Purely philosophical arguments about the real world are impotent unless they have REAL evidence to back them up. Which is precisely what i used to explain every point. Every numbered point i made had a plethora of experiments and verifiable PHYSICAL evidence to back it up. The alternatives you bring mention have little or none. And that's a major problem. Anyone can invent an explanation using their imagination to explain anything. And perhaps even cherry pick a few data points to back it up. But a wide range of evidence, experiment, and testable predictions that do no contradict any known evidence is what distinguishes the real from the imaginary.

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.

To this I say hogwash.

This claim is nothing more than totally overly-confident arrogance on the part of scientist who have convinced themselves that they actually know more than they do.

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more.

The claim is that we've detected all the relevant forces of nature at the level of the brain/rocks/trees/etc.

Its not an absolutist claim but it is a claim as strong as anything else we can claim to know.

We have absolutely no clue what the true nature of reality might be.

This may be the "true nature of reality". Or it may not be. But what we do know is that what we experience is real and existent. So unless you are going to play the solipsist card then we still have to deal with THIS reality as it presents itself. And that is the reality that is accurately described by physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, etc.

Modern physicists today are even proposing that we may live in a reality that has as many as 11 dimensions, rather than just the 3 plus time that we are currently aware of. If there is any truth to this scientific hypothesis then we are in absolutely no position whatsoever to proclaim that we currently know all of the forces of nature.

Why? Do these extra "dimensions" have forces that are relevant at the level of the brain? If not then its irrelevant to this discussion. If so, why haven't we detected them? Because if they are relevant then we should have some type of footprint or effect somehow, somewhere.

So the claim you've made above is nothing but totally unwarranted premature scientific arrogance (not meaning that you are arrogant, but any scientist who makes this claim is holding up science to be that arrogant).

Repeating your disagreement in different wording doesn't actually do anything to support your position.

I've been a scientist all my life, and the idea that we are even remotely close to knowing the true nature of reality is a huge JOKE. We aren't even close at this point.

Same goes for repeating the same arguments.

Any claim that science necessarily rules out spirituality is an irresponsible.

I don't even know what "spirituality" means. Its a word where people have so many definitions its all but meaningless except in the most vague of senses.

Usually it precedes a bunch of woo-woo. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

And who says "spirituality" is ruled out by what Carrol said?

And yes that includes the position taken by Sean Carrol. I've watched many of his lectures, I even own a few on video. He's a great scientist, but he has some opinions that cross the boundaries of science and amount to nothing more than his own personal opinion.

I do not accept Sean Carrol's personal opinions when he crosses over the lines of what science actually knows. And he does cross that line quite often in his lectures. That is something that I wish he wouldn't do. But he does it none the less. I like Carrol's teachings when he actually sticks to the facts, but when he starts going off stating personal opinions he's crossing boundaries that are no longer supported by science.

Let me know if you actually have anything of substance to counter what Dr Carrol has presented. It seems all you posted above was a philosophical argument that boils down to solipsism/"you can't be absolutely certain!!".

The rest of your post seemed to just be a bunch of hand waving dismissals. Nothing to actually debate, just assertions that Carol was wrong, or I'm wrong, or you disagree, put into a variety of different sentence structures and phrasings.

[Divine Insight]

Purely philosophical arguments about the real world are impotent unless they have REAL evidence to back them up.

Excuse me?

I'm sorry but this sounds like nothing more than a personal opinion on your part.

I'm not interested in your personal opinions of what you consider to be "impotent".

I find sound philosophical arguments to be perfectly acceptable hypotheses for a potential explanation of a reality that we clearly do not know the true nature of.

Which is precisely what i used to explain every point. Every numbered point i made had a plethora of experiments and verifiable PHYSICAL evidence to back it up.

I disagree. Your claims that there cannot be any forces in nature that we are not yet aware of is ungrounded, and you most certainly do not have any PHYSICAL evidence to back up such a claim.

The alternatives you bring mention have little or none.

I disagree again. Although, in truth, I do require going beyond the physical in terms of what can be objectively measured using scientific equipment. However, I'm perfectly justified in doing this because it is the very nature of our subjective conscious experience to be beyond that very realm.

And that's a major problem. Anyone can invent an explanation using their imagination to explain anything. And perhaps even cherry pick a few data points to back it up. But a wide range of evidence, experiment, and testable predictions that do no contradict any known evidence is what distinguishes the real from the imaginary.

It's not a problem at all, much less a major problem. On the contrary, science has absolutely NO EXPLANATION of how anything can have an experience.

According to science the world we live in is made of pure energy. Of course we also consider it to be made of matter too, but I'm sure that you are aware that matter and energy as basically the same thing in two different states of manifestation as we know from E=MC².

The question then simply becomes, "Can energy have an experience?"

Because ultimately that is all we are.

If the answer to this question is no, then clearly we cannot have an experience. But clearly we do.

If the answer to this question is yes, then clearly there is something mystical about energy itself.

So this is a very profound and real question, that IMHO, you apparently dismiss way too lightly.

The claim is that we've detected all the relevant forces of nature at the level of the brain/rocks/trees/etc.

Its not an absolutist claim but it is a claim as strong as anything else we can claim to know.

On a purely scientific level as one scientist to another I totally disagree with you on your claim here.

We cannot say with any certainty at all what "forces" may be working on the quantum level. That level of reality totally baffles us to this very day. It defies everything that we consider to be logical. And it exhibits behaviors that leave us totally clues to attempt to explain.

Now you may object, "But who cares about the quantum level? I'm talking about the level of brains/trees/rocks, etc.

Well, if you are going to lump brains in with trees and rocks I question your scientific knowledge.

How does a brain work in general? It works almost entirely on the level of neurons and electromagnetic activity. Electricity. And what is electricity but the movement of electrons. And what are electrons? Well lo and behold electrons are leptons. One of the primal quantum particles that clearly obey the laws of quantum mechanics and are indeed quantum particles.

So where do you get off, as a scientist, proclaiming that brains need to be treated like trees and rocks? Brains may appear to be "macro objects" when taken as a large collection of neural activity. But the neural activity itself is taking place entirely by quantum particles and therefore quantum effects and quantum mechanics is extremely relevant.

Therefore, as a scientist, when you lump brains in with trees and rocks I'd say that you are actually quite incorrect in your categorization of things. Your attempt to treat a brain as a macro object fails, IMHO.

So I do not accept your demand that I must view a brain activity as a classical object.

I feel totally justified in recognizing that brain activity is entirely the result of quantum particles interacting. Electrons are as quantum as it gets. They are as elementary as the quarks. They are definitely quantum phenomenon. And brain activity is mostly electrical. In fact, experiments clearly show that even the more macro elements of brain activity (i.e. the larger molecular chemistry) can even be manipulated and changed simply be applying electromagnetic fields to the brain.

So it is perfectly scientific for me to conclude that electrons and electromagnetic fields rule the brain far more than even the macro chemistry does.

Thus I can conclude scientifically that brain activity is far more quantum than it is classical. Because electromagnetism rules, and electrons and photons are quantum objects, not macro objects.

So my conclusion that brain activity is quantum is squarely based on science. And your claim that brain activity must be treated as a classical object is actually quite unscientific.

We have absolutely no clue what the true nature of reality might be.

This may be the "true nature of reality". Or it may not be. But what we do know is that what we experience is real and existent. So unless you are going to play the solipsist card then we still have to deal with THIS reality as it presents itself. And that is the reality that is accurately described by physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, etc.

I do not need to play the solipsist card. I can play the pantheist card, and that is indeed the card I play.

I am not claiming that life is a dream and I am the sole dreamer. Nor am I claiming that there is no "physics" associated with this dream of life. I'm a physicist myself. I believe in physics. Physics doesn't need to be an illusion just for the world to be spiritual.

In fact, many mystics and philosophers have asked me point blank, "As a physicist what would you do if you discovered that the mystics were right and there is no physical reality?"

I can only laugh at such questions. Even if the mystics are right and life is but a dream, physics is still valid. It's simply nothing more than the rules of the dream. Clearly there is organization in reality. I can't imagine anyone denying this.

So there's nothing wrong with studying physics. Physics is real whether reality is spiritual or not. That doesn't change at all.

Modern physicists today are even proposing that we may live in a reality that has as many as 11 dimensions, rather than just the 3 plus time that we are currently aware of. If there is any truth to this scientific hypothesis then we are in absolutely no position whatsoever to proclaim that we currently know all of the forces of nature.

Why? Do these extra "dimensions" have forces that are relevant at the level of the brain? If not then its irrelevant to this discussion. If so, why haven't we detected them? Because if they are relevant then we should have some type of footprint or effect somehow, somewhere.

What do you mean at the level of the brain? What level do you think the brain is on? You'd have to make that more clear. Previously you put it on the same level with trees and rocks (i.e. an attempt to treat it as a classical object). I totally disagree with that as I have already explained in detail.

When you ask, "we should have some type of footprint or effect somehow, somewhere", what type of footprint are you looking for? What is it that you are expecting to find to expose this reality?

IMHO, I feel that I already have the biggest footprint of all. My personal subjective experience. As I had already asked before, "What is it that is having an experience?"

If you claim that I am nothing more than a complex arrangement of energy and matter, (which are one in the same thing as we ultimately know), then if I am having an experience it must be this energy that is having an experience.

What is it that you think is having an experience?

So my conscious awareness it itself the biggest footprint ever.

What more could you ask for?

So the claim you've made above is nothing but totally unwarranted premature scientific arrogance (not meaning that you are arrogant, but any scientist who makes this claim is holding up science to be that arrogant).

Repeating your disagreement in different wording doesn't actually do anything to support your position.

You're right. But for individual scientists to continually repeat their claims that science knows everything doesn't do anything to support their claims either.

I've been a scientist all my life, and the idea that we are even remotely close to knowing the true nature of reality is a huge JOKE. We aren't even close at this point.

Same goes for repeating the same arguments.

So are you claiming that we are close to knowing the true nature of reality?

Any claim that science necessarily rules out spirituality is an irresponsible.

I don't even know what "spirituality" means. Its a word where people have so many definitions its all but meaningless except in the most vague of senses.

Usually it precedes a bunch of woo-woo. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

And who says "spirituality" is ruled out by what Carrol said?

Well, I'm not sure of precisely what Carrol said in detail. I do agree with him on many of his remarks that are addressing very specific claims of some religions etc. But on occasion he does slip up and cover a little more ground than may be appropriate.

In general I like Sean Carrol very much. I think he's a great scientist and teacher and I respect his views on physics very much. I've read his book, "From Eternity to Here", and I've also watched several of his video lectures. I think it's strange that he actually favors the Many Worlds interpretation of QM over some of the other interpretations. It seems to me that the Many Worlds interpretation is actually the more mystical of the QM interpretations. So it seems a bit ironic that he would favor that interpretation when he seems so adamantly against mystical ideas.

He can't see a spiritual force working in this universe, but he can see every microsecond of our existence splitting into many different worlds constantly?

That seems rather strange to me.

The rest of your post seemed to just be a bunch of hand waving dismissals. Nothing to actually debate, just assertions that Carol was wrong, or I'm wrong, or you disagree, put into a variety of different sentence structures and phrasings.

Well, perhaps that's what I did. But I think you need to realize that even Sean Carrol holds personal opinions that not every scientist is going to agree with.

Sean Carrol's personal opinions do not necessarily reflect the bulk of the scientific community. So even when discussing popular scientists we need to recognize that they all have differing personal opinions that aren't necessarily representative of scientific "facts".

[scourge99]

Purely philosophical arguments about the real world are impotent unless they have REAL evidence to back them up.

Excuse me?

I'm sorry but this sounds like nothing more than a personal opinion on your part.

I'm not interested in your personal opinions of what you consider to be "impotent".

I find sound philosophical arguments to be perfectly acceptable hypotheses for a potential explanation of a reality that we clearly do not know the true nature of.

Which is precisely what i used to explain every point. Every numbered point i made had a plethora of experiments and verifiable PHYSICAL evidence to back it up.

I disagree. Your claims that there cannot be any forces in nature that we are not yet aware of is ungrounded, and you most certainly do not have any PHYSICAL evidence to back up such a claim.

The alternatives you bring mention have little or none.

I disagree again. Although, in truth, I do require going beyond the physical in terms of what can be objectively measured using scientific equipment. However, I'm perfectly justified in doing this because it is the very nature of our subjective conscious experience to be beyond that very realm.

The reason i don't like your argument is because it can be used to argue against just about ANY scientific claim.
It seems any evidence based claim can be rebutted with "We have absolutely no clue what the true nature of reality might be therefore any evidence or support you have on the matter will be inadequate to make the conclusion you propose."

And that's a major problem. Anyone can invent an explanation using their imagination to explain anything. And perhaps even cherry pick a few data points to back it up. But a wide range of evidence, experiment, and testable predictions that do no contradict any known evidence is what distinguishes the real from the imaginary.

It's not a problem at all, much less a major problem.

I've presented a reason why it is a problem. All you've done is assert that it isn't a problem and failed to address that reasoning.

On the contrary, science has absolutely NO EXPLANATION of how anything can have an experience.

According to science the world we live in is made of pure energy. Of course we also consider it to be made of matter too, but I'm sure that you are aware that matter and energy as basically the same thing in two different states of manifestation as we know from E=MC².

The question then simply becomes, "Can energy have an experience?"

If the answer to this question is no, then clearly we cannot have an experience. But clearly we do.

If the answer to this question is yes, then clearly there is something mystical about energy itself.

So this is a very profound and real question, that IMHO, you apparently dismiss way too lightly.

You are talking about two things that exist at two different levels of understanding and confusing yourself when you mix them up. Let me explain with an example: Chairs have legs even though they are fundamentally made of atoms. But atoms do not have legs. Likewise, a consciousness can have an experience even though it is fundamentally just made of energy. But energy does not have an experience.

The claim is that we've detected all the relevant forces of nature at the level of the brain/rocks/trees/etc.

Its not an absolutist claim but it is a claim as strong as anything else we can claim to know.

On a purely scientific level as one scientist to another I totally disagree with you on your claim here.

Just to clarify, I'm not a "scientist" as in a PhD or a researcher. I'm an engineer. I don't write papers or get grant money. Though i do develop new technologies.

We cannot say with any certainty at all what "forces" may be working on the quantum level. That level of reality totally baffles us to this very day. It defies everything that we consider to be logical. And it exhibits behaviors that leave us totally clues to attempt to explain.

Now you may object, "But who cares about the quantum level? I'm talking about the level of brains/trees/rocks, etc.

Well, if you are going to lump brains in with trees and rocks I question your scientific knowledge.

How does a brain work in general? It works almost entirely on the level of neurons and electromagnetic activity. Electricity. And what is electricity but the movement of electrons. And what are electrons? Well lo and behold electrons are leptons. One of the primal quantum particles that clearly obey the laws of quantum mechanics and are indeed quantum particles.

So where do you get off, as a scientist, proclaiming that brains need to be treated like trees and rocks? Brains may appear to be "macro objects" when taken as a large collection of neural activity. But the neural activity itself is taking place entirely by quantum particles and therefore quantum effects and quantum mechanics is extremely relevant.

Therefore, as a scientist, when you lump brains in with trees and rocks I'd say that you are actually quite incorrect in your categorization of things. Your attempt to treat a brain as a macro object fails, IMHO.

So I do not accept your demand that I must view a brain activity as a classical object.

I feel totally justified in recognizing that brain activity is entirely the result of quantum particles interacting. Electrons are as quantum as it gets. They are as elementary as the quarks. They are definitely quantum phenomenon. And brain activity is mostly electrical. In fact, experiments clearly show that even the more macro elements of brain activity (i.e. the larger molecular chemistry) can even be manipulated and changed simply be applying electromagnetic fields to the brain.

So it is perfectly scientific for me to conclude that electrons and electromagnetic fields rule the brain far more than even the macro chemistry does.

Thus I can conclude scientifically that brain activity is far more quantum than it is classical. Because electromagnetism rules, and electrons and photons are quantum objects, not macro objects.

So my conclusion that brain activity is quantum is squarely based on science. And your claim that brain activity must be treated as a classical object is actually quite unscientific.

Why can't i overload your argument and argue that with ANYTHING in the macro world? Whether its brains, rocks, or trees. Everything is made of elementary particles and can be manipulated in some way by playing with it with one of the fundamentally forces of nature, be it gravity, or electromagnetic forces. So anytime anyone brings up something to be discussed in the classical sense, I can object that there might be some spooky but unknown quantum phenomenon which proves them wrong.

We have absolutely no clue what the true nature of reality might be.

This may be the "true nature of reality". Or it may not be. But what we do know is that what we experience is real and existent. So unless you are going to play the solipsist card then we still have to deal with THIS reality as it presents itself. And that is the reality that is accurately described by physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, etc.

I do not need to play the solipsist card. I can play the pantheist card, and that is indeed the card I play.

I am not claiming that life is a dream and I am the sole dreamer. Nor am I claiming that there is no "physics" associated with this dream of life. I'm a physicist myself. I believe in physics. Physics doesn't need to be an illusion just for the world to be spiritual.

In fact, many mystics and philosophers have asked me point blank, "As a physicist what would you do if you discovered that the mystics were right and there is no physical reality?"

I can only laugh at such questions. Even if the mystics are right and life is but a dream, physics is still valid. It's simply nothing more than the rules of the dream. Clearly there is organization in reality. I can't imagine anyone denying this.

So there's nothing wrong with studying physics. Physics is real whether reality is spiritual or not. That doesn't change at all.

The why do you dismiss all the physical evidence that shows that the mind is the product of the brain? It seems like you accept the evidence until it chaffs with your beliefs.

Modern physicists today are even proposing that we may live in a reality that has as many as 11 dimensions, rather than just the 3 plus time that we are currently aware of. If there is any truth to this scientific hypothesis then we are in absolutely no position whatsoever to proclaim that we currently know all of the forces of nature.

Why? Do these extra "dimensions" have forces that are relevant at the level of the brain? If not then its irrelevant to this discussion. If so, why haven't we detected them? Because if they are relevant then we should have some type of footprint or effect somehow, somewhere.

What do you mean at the level of the brain? What level do you think the brain is on? You'd have to make that more clear. Previously you put it on the same level with trees and rocks (i.e. an attempt to treat it as a classical object). I totally disagree with that as I have already explained in detail.

We talk about things at different levels. For example, it traditionally goes in a hierarchy with things like psychology adn sociology at the top, then biology, chemistry, physics, and then math.

Carroll uses an example about describing yourself. We could, if we wanted to, describe ourselves by the position and spin of every particle that makes up our body. But that is far too cumbersome. We don't talk like that. Instead we describe ourselves as "tall" or "skinny" or "brown hair". Thus, there are different levels of talking about things and if you confuse two different levels then you can quickly begin talking nonsense. For example, it wouldn't make sense to talk about what color atoms are or how tall a lepton is. And this is something you've done previously by asking if "energy has experience".

When you ask, "we should have some type of footprint or effect somehow, somewhere", what type of footprint are you looking for? What is it that you are expecting to find to expose this reality?

If consciousness isn't a manifestation of the forces we know about then that is implicitly claiming that it is some new force. If its some new force then what is it affecting? because if it affects anything in the real world, like electrons, protons, neutrons, etc, then we should have detected it in a particle accelerator. If it doesn't affect anything then its irrelevant to us and not actually related to the brain/mind (unless you propose magic).

IMHO, I feel that I already have the biggest footprint of all. My personal subjective experience. As I had already asked before, "What is it that is having an experience?"

Your consciousness. Only a consciousness can have an experience BY DEFINITION. Just as only a chair has legs. Take note that atoms don't have consciousness and atoms don't have legs.

If you claim that I am nothing more than a complex arrangement of energy and matter, (which are one in the same thing as we ultimately know), then if I am having an experience it must be this energy that is having an experience.

If chairs have legs and chairs are just made of atoms then atoms must have legs!!! EUREKA!!! I've discovered a new property of atoms!

What is it that you think is having an experience?

My consciousness, which is a manifestation of a working brain.

The rest of your post seemed to just be a bunch of hand waving dismissals. Nothing to actually debate, just assertions that Carol was wrong, or I'm wrong, or you disagree, put into a variety of different sentence structures and phrasings.

Well, perhaps that's what I did. But I think you need to realize that even Sean Carrol holds personal opinions that not every scientist is going to agree with.

Sean Carrol's personal opinions do not necessarily reflect the bulk of the scientific community. So even when discussing popular scientists we need to recognize that they all have differing personal opinions that aren't necessarily representative of scientific "facts".

The bulk of the scientific opinion by those who study the brain/mind is that the mind is a manifestation of the brain.

[instantc]

Why can't i overload your argument and argue that with ANYTHING in the macro world? Whether its brains, rocks, or trees. Everything is made of elementary particles and can be manipulated in some way by playing with it with one of the fundamentally forces of nature, be it gravity, or electromagnetic forces. So anytime anyone brings up something to be discussed in the classical sense, I can object that there might be some spooky but unknown quantum phenomenon which proves them wrong.

The reason why there is so much speculation about consciousness is because of its undeniably extraordinary nature. It seems unlikely, as also backed up by a number of logical arguments, that a conscious experience could be a physical property of the brain. Nor has science managed to make any progress in building an artificial consciousness. That is the main reason, I believe, why some of us are not willing to go with 'it seems like a physical structure, so it probably is one. I'm sure that if we arrange these particles in the right way, it will produce an experience'.

Debating the matter any further with you would be useless, as you have made it clear that you don't appreciate logical arguments as such without physical evidence, impotent as they are. Perhaps the current physical evidence supports materialism of the brain, just as in the middle ages all available evidence supported that illness is caused by witchcraft, as that was the only visible factor with a potential causal connection. One could even say that the case was causally closed, apart from some hypersceptical people hypothesizing about spooky microscopic life forms. However, I think that, if nothing else, the logical arguments show that the current physical evidence is insufficient to make proper conclusions about the mind.

[Nilloc James]

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. That stance right here is totally unsupportable, I don't care how famous the physicists might be who take that stance. It's simply not supportable. 

Would you be so kind to explain how any new force would enable the existence of beyond the physical? Forces are as much as any other thing "natural" and not supernatural.

[Divine Insight]

There is absolute no way that we can claim that we have detected all of the relevant forces of nature and claim with a very high degree of certainty that there are not more. That stance right here is totally unsupportable, I don't care how famous the physicists might be who take that stance. It's simply not supportable. 

Would you be so kind to explain how any new force would enable the existence of beyond the physical? Forces are as much as any other thing "natural" and not supernatural.

To begin with the very term "supernatural" is truly meaningless unless you can first provide me with a complete picture of what constitutes "natural".

Is science a completed and finished field of study? Do we know the true nature of reality to the point where we can say precisely what is "natural" with no unanswered questions?

The current answer to this question is no. Science is not a completed field of study and the true nature of reality is not known. Thus to even make a reference to the "supernatural" is meaningless. How can you refer to super-natural when you can't even say with certainty precisely what constitutes natural?

So you are creating a false dichotomy with words when in fact the words you are using are not well-defined technically to even say what might be "supernatural".

Also, we already know that the behavior at the quantum level of reality is indeed extremely strange. So strange that we can't even begin to explain it in any way that doesn't dramatically violate our sense of logic and what we consider to be natural laws of physics.

Thus, we actually have overwhelming evidence that things in reality are indeed going on in ways that we consider to be unnatural (i.e. supernatural)

So, in this sense, science is already showing us that the "supernatural" must necessarily exist.

If we are ever able to make sense of it and explain it, only then will it become what we consider to be natural. But as of yet no one has been able to do this, and the theory of QM actually states quite profoundly that this will never be possible to do.

Scientists are actually hoping beyond hope that Quantum Mechanics will someday fall, or be by-passed in some miraculous way.

But what does this amount to?

It amounts to scientists hoping on pure faith-based desire that their own theories will turn out to be wrong.

They don't want QM to be right, because if QM is indeed correct that spells the end of science, at least in terms of investigation into the workings of the quantum domain.

We would need to concede that the quantum world will forever be "supernatural" (i.e. beyond our ability to ever explain it in term of what we consider to be natural laws).

So for you to even speak of the "natural" and "supernatural" like as if there is some well-defined dichotomy there is actually a totally misguided notion. That's simply not the case to date.

Furthermore, for that to ever become the case, all of the riddles of QM must be solved and understood in terms of what we consider to be "natural laws". But currently we aren't even remotely close to doing this.

Some people have the extremely misguided notion that String Theory is somehow embarking on this task. Nothing could be further from the truth. String Theory was devised originally to unify Gravity with QM. String Theory assumes QM as a postulate and is in no way attempting to explain QM.

Moreover, String Theorists have never been able to actually unify Gravity with QM yet anyway. Thus far all they have ever produced are empty promises and a lot of interesting abstract mathematics that can't even be experimentally verified.

Heck, even I can write mathematical equations that are totally impossible to recreate in our universe, yet those equations are perfectly logical in mathematics.

String Theory is doing the same thing. It's producing tons of abstract mathematics much of which clearly does not apply to our reality. In fact, it would be impossible for all their proposed mathematics to be correct simultaneously.

So we're not even close to unlocking the mysteries of the quantum world. The quantum world is currently "supernatural" because we cannot explain it using natural laws of logic or physics.

So in this sense we actually have scientific evidence that the "supernatural" actually does exist. Although it may not be supernatural in terms of a conscious entity, spirits, or gods. But it's certainly supernatural with respect to what we normally consider to be natural.

So the supernatural does exist insofar as we know, and we have overwhelming scientific evidence that it indeed does exist.

[Nilloc James]

Ok Im confused, if these words have no well defined meaning, what do you mean when you speak of spiritual or mystical aspects of reality.

Im not trying to create a false dichotmy but confused as to what youre saying.

[help3434]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems the composition fallacy. In the scientific naturalist point of view all the elements we are made up lack consciousness, and thus lack will and moral responsibility, but that does that the complete human lacks those things.