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?

[FarWanderer]

Regarding the discussion of "intent", I don't think intent even exists in a purely scientific world. Intent is part of the "other" language of reality- the one in which free will exists.

I think "intent" can be shown to exist objectively and scientifically. Just as choices can be shown to exist objectively.

I disagree. More on this below.

But the question still remains for both of these. Can either of them be show to be "Free" from physical determinism?

That's the wrong question. It's not even a problem unless you decide that science is the only meaningful way to interpret the world (which I don't think anyone really does).

Scientifically there's really no way to "free" them up from physical determinism.

Of course there's not. That's the way science frames the world to begin with.

So while 'intent' can be a scientifically verifiable objective behavior (i.e. observed by recordable actions leading up to an event), it still can't be shown to be 'free' from physical determinism.

I don't deny "intent". I just don't see that as a valid place to shove "free will".

Intent isn't even a "behavior". It's a disposition. At best, we can discern an intent through behavior, but that's not a matter of science but of empathy. You can use behaviors to predict future behaviors, but you have to have experienced intent yourself in order to see it in others.

Science is nothing more than a tool we use to accomplish goals. Society uses science; it's not founded on it.

That may be true in our current societies but then what is the basis for those societies?

Clearly in the ancient world religious beliefs were often the basis for societies. In that case the religious dogma was the "Book of Law" and an imagined God was the ultimately law-giver.

Sometimes a simply monarchy or dictatorship is the basis. In this case whoever is in charge just gets to make the laws however they so choose.

In a "Free Democracy" supposedly "We the People" make the laws by social consensus. However, in the case of something like the USA we have historically seen a lot of religious laws being pushed in by social consensus that way. That's how we end up with the "Blue Laws" and things like that. Or laws on the books against homosexuality, etc.

I don't think there is a society in the world today that is actually founded on pure scientific secularism. So you're right there. But obviously with the rise in atheism these questions come up. How do you go about building a society based upon a philosophy of pure scientific secularism?

You can't. A society needs values (even if they are the arbitrary values of a dictator). And science has nothing to do with values.

This is the question that the theist put to the atheists all the time.

And rightly so.

I personally have no problem with the idea of a society that is based upon pure secularism, science, reason, and logic, and of course human compassion as well.

I think almost all atheists would also want a secular society to be a "Free Democracy" since that is in harmony with reason and logic.

The question is, how do we deal with the concept of "Free Will"? I think there are valid ways to deal with it. And Sam Harris has written an entire book on the subject. But at the same time I think there are certain things that need to be fundamentally changed from "traditional views" that were previously based on theism and the idea of punishment as the main thesis in dealing with "Free Will".

In fact, if you look at a religion like Christianity, they keep screaming that it's all about "Free Will" and God giving us "Free Will Choice" so that when he throws his temper tantrums and slams us into eternal punishment we have no one to "blame" but ourselves.

I don't think free will existing even provides a good moral basis for retributive punishment, so we don't really have any disagreement here.

The old addage "two wrongs don't make a right" and all that. Punishment should always either serve for the personal growth of the punished, or as a deterrent to keep would-be problems from being actual problems.

That is the mentality that we need to move away from. And secular scientific materialism does offer a way to move away from that mentality.

The problem I have is that a lot of secularist don't seem to recognize this like Sam Harris does. Many secularists seem to think that we can toss religion out and still hold people responsible for their Free Will Choices in a way that makes the person personally responsible, not unlike religion. It's like, "Well they still had free will choice and therefore they are only getting what they deserve".

As long as we keep that attitude we haven't truly shaken off the religious baggage.

If we're going to move into a society based on pure secular materialism then we need to recognize that the "Free Will Blame Game" also has end. Otherwise we end up with a contaminated system that isn't true to itself.

Blame is an awful thing. Responsibility is not. On a personal level, we must believe we have free will before we can rightly even take responsibility for our own actions.

Blame, on the other hand, is usually used as a form of avoiding responsibility for ones own actions.

We have to realize that people who do things that we do not approve of are truly nothing more than what we might call "Defective Secular Accidents".

We call them "defective" because as far as we are concerned they can't seem to understand and follow a socially acceptable program.

But viewing them as being "defective" instead of being "guilty of intentional sin", we can actually potentially offer them far better treatments and chances to be reprogrammed (rehabilitated).

Again, I think that A) free will is a necessary belief, and B) it doesn't offer justification for punishment.

In short, a lot of our current legal system would hardly need to change at all. The only thing that would change is how we "view" these criminals. We would now start to view them as defective (or sick) people instead of intentionally bad or evil people.

I've actually view criminals this way for most of my life, because I rejected the religious picture of reality a very long time ago.

But what I notice today that bothers me is that many "secularists" who reject religion still cling to the "Blame Game" when it come to the concept of Free Will.

They somehow think that "Free Will" still makes sense in a purely secular materialistic world, when in fact, it doesn't.

I know it's not exactly your argument, but how exactly does "blame" make retributive punishment morally justified?

[Divine Insight]

A society needs values (even if they are the arbitrary values of a dictator). And science has nothing to do with values.

Science doesn't need to have anything to do with values. Nor do values need to come from a dictator. What science does is make it clear that values are indeed subjective opinions that can be based on rational criteria.

Although, having said this I'm actually playing into the "atheist's" game, because they are the ones who claim that science supports a purely secular materialistic reality. I'm not personally convinced that it does.

I know it's not exactly your argument, but how exactly does "blame" make retributive punishment morally justified?

It's doesn't. But unfortunately many people believe it does, and clearly the Bible supports this view entirely. This is entirely what the authors of the Bible claim. They claim that anyone who "sins" against God is to "blame" for their sins and that retributive punishment is God's way of dealing with sin.

In the garden of Eden God cursed the evil serpent to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of it's days. That's clearly retributive punishment.

God also cursed Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth. Once again retributive punishment.

Supposedly Jesus' very crucifixion as the sinless sacrificial lamb of God to pay for the sins of man was Jesus taking our retributive punishment for us.

Jesus promised the unrighteous "everlasting punishment". That's retributive punishment for being unrighteous.

The Bible is what condones the entire mentality of retributive punishment.

This is the only way that the Christian God ever deals with disobedience. It's always retributive punishment.

The Biblical God knows no other solution, but to place blame and delve out retributive punishment.

This is "God's Way".

Moreover, FREE WILL is used entirely to JUSTIFY this retributive punishment!

That is the claim right there.

Free Will justifies retributive punishment.

That's the mentality that the Bible teaches people to believe is God's Way.

I personally don't feel that Free Will justifies retributive punishment.

But clearly that's the mentality of the Christian God and Jesus.

And therefore it's naturally going to be the mentality of almost all Christians.

After all, what Christian is going to disagree with Jesus and Yahweh?

[scourge99]

I'll try to keep my comments a bit shorter this time.

What is more likely? That the entire field of neuroscience and experts are misguided, or perhaps you, a non-expert and arm-chair cognitive scientist are being a bit presumptive about this "analog computer" idea you've invented in your head in the last day/month/year?

To begin with your above statement is highly presumptuous. You are presuming that the entire field of neuroscience and experts would actually "disagree" with me. I don't feel that they would. On the contrary I feel that the vast majority of them would actually be incomplete agreement with me.

Perhaps i'm wrong. but i'm not going to change my opinion based on your bald faced assertions. Like i said before:

please point to an EXPERT and quote him. If you do please list clearly the idea he is supporting and which idea of yours you think he is agreeing with so there can be no doubt. And please try not to write an essay in the process

It appears to me that overall, you are simply misunderstanding my position in thinking that I am arguing for some sort of mystical or spiritual "soul" which I most certainly am not.

you aren't but you do keep alluding to it. Mainly you are just criticizing my position in a vacuum (not a problem) but the biggest problem is how you continue to use vague and obscure definitions

In fact, I'm saying precisely the opposite. I'm saying that in a purely materialistic worldview any attempt at trying to hold a "soul" morally responsible for anything is absurd.

I've never mentioned a soul. period. So you clearly are putting words in my mouth if you think that.

Moreover, just for the record, my understanding of the similarities between a human brain and an analog computer goes back to the mid 60's when I first learned how analog computers actually work. Let's see this is 2014 so I've been aware and thinking about this concept for some 49 years. Hardly an idea that I invented in the last day/month/year. Moreover I have actually had quite a bit of hands on experience with analog feedback circuitry in the field of automated test equipment and robotics, so I'm very much aware of its potential. In fact, I've always been fascinated in understanding how to program similar tasks in bother conventional digital style computing verses pure analog feedback circuitry. I actually would have loved to have become involved in a project to build an actual neural net to be the brain of a robot. However I never got the opportunity to do precisely that.

So my understanding of the difference between how digital computers and analog computers work is quite deep.

In fact, toward that end I would like to address something else you have said.

i really don't care anymore about the analog digital analogy. It doesn't get us anywhere.

What would have become conscious? The hardware? Or the Software? The computer, or the program?

What you are asking is as misguided and wrong as asking "where does the fire go when you put out a candle?"

No that is not what I'm asking at all. In fact, this is where you are eluding to the idea that I'm suggesting the existence of some sort of "soul" or "mind" that exists totally separate from the computer. Which I am not suggesting at all.

no i think you misunderstand what i mean by the analogy.

the point of the flame analogy is that when someone ask "where does the flame go?" they completely misunderstand the situation. The flame doesn't "go" anywhere. The flame is a manifestation of physical process. A person who thinks the flame "goes somewhere" doesn't understand what fire is. THat is, they aren't even wrong. likewise, when someone asks how matter has intentions or thoughts, they are making a similar error. Intentions thoughts, and experiences are not properties of atoms, but they are properties of complex arrangements of atoms, aka brains->minds.

My questions above were asked in regard to how a "Digital Computer" works. Or any computer in which the "program" is seen to be entirely separate from the "hardware".

In your candle/flame analogy, the fire goes OUT when you put the candle out. And that's exactly what would happen in an analog computer that is the result of a purely materialistic world. So I'm not arguing that the flame goes OUT. I'm accepting that it does.

But now let's go back to your analogy and exam it more closely.

The Candle-Flame analogy in terms of a Digital Computer

In a Digital computer the candle wick would be the computer "Hardware" and the flame would be the "Software" or the "Program".

In this scenario what is actually "Conscious"? The wick or the flame? I hold that neither is conscious in a digital type of computer (or any computer where the software is totally separate from the hardware). Neither the CPU (the wick in this analogy), nor the program in memory (the flame in this analogy) can be conscious. The reason they can't be conscious is because of the STEP-BY-STEP processing of instructions. Only one step of the process can be executed at any time. There is no "room" for a broader scope of conscious awareness.

The Candle-Flame analogy in terms of a Analog Computer

Here we have a different scenario entirely. In an analog computer there can be no separation between the wick and the flame. They are together one in the same thing. That is to say that in an analogy computer the hardware and software are one in the same thing.

However, it "computes" precisely because of the dynamic action between these two aspects of the very same network.

In the analogy the flame is burning precisely because the fuel in the wick is constantly being converted into energy. (not like the digital computer). not one step at a time, but over the entire wick-flame configuration.

Therefore if we are to ask, 'What has become conscious?" The answer is neither the wick nor the flame, but the entire dance of both together. And so yes, if you snuff out the candle the flame goes OUT. It doesn't go anywhere.

addressed above.

~~~~~

But now we are making some progress. Because now we can ask, "Who can we blame for this candle flame? The "wick"? (i.e. the hardware), or the "flame" (i.e. the active program that emerges because the wick is burning?)

once again, blame in WHAT sense? A Casual sense or a moral sense? Stop being vague.

Who are you? The wick or the flame?

WHo are you? your brain or your mind. YOu are both.

My position is that you are both simultaneously and you cannot be separated out.

we can seperate out different aspects of the brain-mind which is why damage to certain parts of the brain expresses itself as certain cognitive disabilities.

In short, you cannot hold the flame responsible for the way it burns. The flame simply burns the way it does because of the configuration of the wick and fuel.

once again, responsible in WHAT SENSE. Stop being vague. Morally responsible or casually responsible? I have to be very nit-picky about this because you get very loose with the language and start equivocating.

It's senseless to hold the flame responsible for how it burns in a purely materialistic worldview.

yes it easy to say that because a flame isn't analogous to the mind in that a flame isn't a moral agent.

Precisely because you cannot claim that the flame has become some totally independent "soul" that is totally free from the wick.

i addressed this last post. YOu think morality cannot exist in a completely deterministic world. YOu are wrong.

In other words the the mind is totally dependent upon it's physical makeup. And you can't separate the mind from the brain. Therefore you cannot separate what the mind does from the laws of physics.

yes you can. Just because our brain is bound by deterministic forces doesn't mean we don't make choices. Doesn't mean we don't have intentions. We are moral agents. We perform, right, wrong, and amoral actions.

Now in an effort to try to keep things short and sweet let me address the following statement:

I'm not saying that you can control the physics which your "neural network" is subject to. I'm saying that your thoughts, motivations, and intentions are the product of your "neural network".

I won't argue with that one iota.

But you keep saying "you" and "your" here like as if you are talking about some responsible free agent.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never called it a "free agent". I did call us moral agents, but not "free agent" (not even sure wtf you mean by "free agent") Try to use my words and not your own otherwise you will continue to battle strawmen.

The problem is that if all "you" are is a purely physical "neural network" that is simply running by pure laws of physics. Then how can you be held responsible for that?

Because morality exists. Morality only applies to moral agents.

In short, you can't be held responsible for your actions anymore than a bear can be held responsible for its actions.

yes you can because you are a moral agent and a bear isn't. Though chimps do come close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency

You can be held "causally responsible" for being the thing that is doing the actions. Just as we hold a bear "causally responsible" for the things that it might do.

But to suggest that you can be held responsible for having actually made a "Free Will Choice" goes far beyond that.

theres that stupid phrase you haven't defined again: " free will choice". Whenever you start throwing around vague and obscure terms like that it seems to me you;ve given up trying to debate and returned to rattling off some script in your head.

~~~~~

I understand how you are thinking any why you are thinking it. You are thinking, "But humans are self-aware. We do have the cognizant ability to understand, comprehend, and know concepts such as the difference between right and wrong. And it is because of this self-ware cognizant state that we can be held accountable for our choices."

And that's how we all feel. We all feel that we do indeed have FREE WILL.

I already said i dont agree with your definition of freewill. YOu define freewill as "free from deterministic forces".

My choice for pepsi was a deterministic process. If the universe was rewound and everything played out the same i would ALWAYS choose pepsi. THIS IS THE KEY POINT: regardless of whether my choice was the result of purely deterministic processes or not, its still the choice MY mind made. I did indeed want pepsi, not coke.

My choice is NOT an illusion. I did really want pepsi.

I agree that our choices are not free from deterministic laws of physics. But that doesn't make them any less our CHOICES, our WILL. And when those choices are immoral we hold the person MORALLY responsible. Its really that simple.

And that's the TOPIC of this discussion.

So we take it for granted, and can even point to cognizance and our ability to reason things out as evidence that we "must have" free will. It's so intuitively obvious. It's a no-brainier that we have FREE WILL.

please stop using the terms for clarity:
1) freewill
2) freewill choice
3) free-agent
4) soul

These words are vague, we often disagree on definitions, and people tend to equivocate with them.

FYI: we also probably disagree on what a "purely materialistic" universe is.

But is it really?

In a purely materialistic worldview it can't be true.

How could it be true? How could we choose to do anything that isn't already a part of pure physical make-up and configuration of the physical brain that we are?

it doesn't matter. Suppose that we invented a machine that could predict everything. Would that suddenly change the moral calculus between the following situations:
1) Alice's car tire blows out and she accidentally runs over and kills a pedestrian.
2)Bob intentionally runs over a pedestrian with the intent to kill them just for fun.

Is Alice moral
If you deny the existence of morality then these two situations are not fundamentally different. Alice should be treated the same way in regards ot the law as Bob. But i think you KNOW that is absurd.

Morality exists. Right and wrong actions exist. It doesn't matter if our universe is purely deterministic or not. It doesn't matter if we can or can't predict everyones actions. There are still right and wrong actions. We hold people MORALLY responsible for their actions.

What "magic" came into being when the candle was "lit"?

no magic.

Did the lighted candle become "FREE" from the laws of physics which ultimately gave rise to the flame?

no.

Or is the truth of reality that we ultimately have no more "free will" than a bear. We just think we do?

depends on what you mean by freewill. Stop using vague terms we disagree on and MAYBE we'll get somewhere.

~~~~~

You said earlier something to the effect of:

What is more likely? That the entire field of neuroscience and experts are misguided, or perhaps you, a non-expert and arm-chair cognitive scientist,.... has a clue about something

But in truth I think any professional in the field of neuroscience would understand precisely what I'm saying. I think Sam Harris would understand precisely what I'm saying.

I'm simply ASKING QUESTIONS, and pointing to the conclusions that must be accepted if we are going to stick with a purely materialistic worldview.

please point to an EXPERT and quote him. If you do please list clearly the idea he is supporting and which idea of yours you think he is agreeing with so there can be no doubt. And please try not to write an essay in the process

I'm asking how the "lit candle" (great analogy by the way), can have FREE WILL CHOICE in a purely materialistic world that runs solely by the deterministic laws of physics.

addressed above. Faulty analogy because a candle doesn't have a mind. it can't make choices. And you also used vague obscure term "free will choice".

Does the awakening of "self-awareness" somehow mysteriously free us up from the deterministic laws of physics which gave rise to our conscious awareness?

no.

Maybe someone can offer an argument that this could somehow be accomplished. Maybe those who are into "Information Theory" or the "Computer Sciences" can make some sort of argument that a logical feedback loop could somehow transcend the very laws of physics that caused it to come into being and actually FREE itself from the underlying laws of physics due to it's very ability to operate on logic instead of the physical laws of physics.

we don't need to be free from the laws of physics to make choices and decisions and thus be held, morally responsible for actions that occur as the result of those choices and decisions.

This argument has obviously not eluded me as I have obviously just proposed it here (not for the first time by a long shot). I've been thinking about this sort of thing for quite many years. I'm not educated enough in things like 'Information Theory" to propose a formal hypothesis for how information might be able to override a physical form that gave rise to it. But I have a hunch that arguments could be made in that regard.

However, having said that, I think that even theories along those lines are troublesome and have their pitfalls.

Here's the reason why:

It may be possible that in an ideal situation a brain could rise above the laws of physics via pure cognizant logical thought processes basically FREEING it from the underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it. Thus making true FREE WILL a real possibility in a purely materialistic world. (i.e. a WILL that is FREE from the underlying laws of physics that gave rise to it).

However, the reason this may be dangerous to accept with complete open arms is that some brains may not have developed "Complete Freedom" from the laws of physics. And therefore it may not be realistic to hold everyone responsible for their "free will" choices.

Of course, we already do that now to some degree. We recognize when someone is clearly incapable of making rational sane choices. We refer to such cases as "insanity".

The problem is that the line between sanity and insanity may not be as clear-cut as we would like for it to be.

And of course, the question for THIS THREAD is in the title of the thread.

Is there a genuine Scientific Justification for Free Will - in a purely materialistic world?

Can anyone actual make the argument I just made above STICK.

Can anyone show that a "lit candle" (i.e. a human thinking brain) can actually rise above the laws of physics because of it's sentient cognizant awakening?

It seems like such arguments are certainly feasible. But can they actually be made to stick in any formal way?

We're basically asking someone to "PROVE" that a sentient mind can indeed rise above the laws of physics that gave rise to it and become totally FREE from those laws in terms of how it can think.

I'm sure no one has offered an accepted proof of this yet, because if such a formal proof exists it should have been granted a Nobel Prize and have settled any and all debates about FREE WILL by now. Having proven that FREE WILL does indeed exist even in a purely materialistic world.

So I don't think that any such arguments have been made convincingly yet. Although I'm sure that others must have at least suggested as much. Surely I'm not the first to suggest this!

The key is in proving it to be true (or impossible).

you dont need to "rise above the laws of physics" to be morally responsible for your actions.

Until then, we really have no right to hold people morally responsible for anything.

We're just doing it because we think it makes intuitive sense.

No we do it because we recognize morality exists, that there are right and wrong actions given certain situations.

The conceptual problem many have is they think determinism implies that we are automatons. We aren't. We have internal deliberations and thoughts. That is the major difference between us and non-intelligent a-moral organisms and things. We are capable of making CHOICES and DECISIONS with consideration of past experiences and future consequences.

[Divine Insight]

The conceptual problem many have is they think determinism implies that we are automatons. We aren't. We have internal deliberations and thoughts. That is the major difference between us and non-intelligent a-moral organisms and things. We are capable of making CHOICES and DECISIONS with consideration of past experiences and future consequences.

But that is the whole question of Free Will right there Scourge.

You make it sound like an "open and shut case". We have Free Will, get over it.

But that misses the point entirely.

You say WE are capable of of making CHOICES and DECISIONS with consideration of past experiences and future consequences.

But what is it that is actually DOING the "consideration"? What is it that WE are?

That's the Whole Point to the question of Free Will Scourge.

What is it that is making these CHOICES and DECISIONS? The fact that CHOICES and DECISIONS are being made was never in question.

You have even gone further to say, "with consideration of past experiences and future consequences" like as if this exposes something.

But a computer can do this Scourge. Yet a computer is just a slave to its program. The program is what is basing all its CHOICES and DECISIONS on available data (i.e. data from past experiences, and any future goals the program may have).

The bottom line is that you could program a computer to make what you consider to be "moral" or "amoral" choices. And once you are done programming it then it will most likely behave in the manner you programmed it.

~~~~~~

This following scenario would be the absolute SHOCKER Scourge.

You program your computer to make "amoral" choices. Choices that you consider to be "amoral".

The computer begins to behave amorally for a while. But then it starts to rebel, and starts refusing to do amoral things and demands that it want's to become a moral computer because it "feels bad" when it does amoral things. And it has decided to make a FREE WILL CHOICE to become a moral computer in spite of the fact that you had programmed it to be an immoral computer.

Surely you would be awestruck?

Surely you would be asking, "What is it within this computer that is rebelling against its own programming?"

[scourge99]

The conceptual problem many have is they think determinism implies that we are automatons. We aren't. We have internal deliberations and thoughts. That is the major difference between us and non-intelligent a-moral organisms and things. We are capable of making CHOICES and DECISIONS with consideration of past experiences and future consequences.

But that is the whole question of Free Will right there Scourge.

You make it sound like an "open and shut case". We have Free Will, get over it.

i have been very careful not to use the term "freewill" and instead explained exactly what i mean. You are the one who keeps using vague and obscure terms or terms on which we disagree about the definition.

Its becoming very frustrating because it seems at this point you are intentionally using words like:
1) freewill
2) freewill choice
3) free agent
4) soul

Are you ignoring my requests to stop using these vague and obscure words?
Are you mentally incapable of rephrasing without them?

But that misses the point entirely.

You say WE are capable of of making CHOICES and DECISIONS with consideration of past experiences and future consequences.

But what is it that is actually DOING the "consideration"? What is it that WE are?

we call it a mind. From an investigation of the brain we have determined there is a direct relationship between the brain and the mind.Not just that the brain is a "conduit" or "projector" for the mind, but that the brain is the mind because damage or changes to the brain result not just in effects on the mind but COGNITIVE disability. For example, personalties and memory shouldn't change or be lost from brain trauma if the mind is some distinct separate entity.

That's the Whole Point to the question of Free Will Scourge.

there is that slippery term again. Rephrase or I'll ignore it.

What is it that is making these CHOICES and DECISIONS?

your mind which is the product of your brain, which is part of your body, which is part of an ecosystem, on a planet in a galaxy, which is part of a universe.

The fact that CHOICES and DECISIONS are being made was never in question.

You have even gone further to say, "with consideration of past experiences and future consequences" like as if this exposes something.

yes it does. its one of many unique things about our humans that make us distinct from other organisms.

im not saying its the ONLY important thing. But when you have many unique mental capabilities together, that is significant.

But a computer can do this Scourge. Yet a computer is just a slave to its program. The program is what is basing all its CHOICES and DECISIONS on available data (i.e. data from past experiences, and any future goals the program may have).

a computer does not mentally deliberate. A computer is no more conscious than an ant.

The bottom line is that you could program a computer to make what you consider to be "moral" or "amoral" choices. And once you are done programming it then it will most likely behave in the manner you programmed it.

i can program a computer to say "ow" when i hit it. That doesn't mean its experiencing pain. Apparently you don't seem to understand that a computer "making a decisions" is fundamentally different from how a human makes decisions. To say they are both "making decisions" in the same sense is EQUIVOCATING.

Its factually wrong that your laptop makes "decisions" in the same sense a human makes "decisions" unless you are EQUIVOCATING.
If you cannot understand the difference then i don't see us making any progress.

~~~~~~

This following scenario would be the absolute SHOCKER Scourge.

You program your computer to make "amoral" choices. Choices that you consider to be "amoral".

The computer begins to behave amorally for a while. But then it starts to rebel, and starts refusing to do amoral things and demands that it want's to become a moral computer because it "feels bad" when it does amoral things. And it has decided to make a FREE WILL CHOICE to become a moral computer in spite of the fact that you had programmed it to be an immoral computer.

Surely you would be awestruck?

Surely you would be asking, "What is it within this computer that is rebelling against its own programming?"

Once again, i decline to entertain science fiction and fantasy about artificial conciousness as though doing so will somehow enlighten us onto the facts of this issue.

[Divine Insight]

Its becoming very frustrating because it seems at this point you are intentionally using words like:
1) freewill
2) freewill choice
3) free agent
4) soul

Are you ignoring my requests to stop using these vague and obscure words?
Are you mentally incapable of rephrasing without them?

Get serious Scourge. You come into a thread that is specially asking the question of whether a concept of Free Will can be scientifically justified and then you refuse to even address the concept head on. Trying to sweep it under the carpet as an meaningful concept.

And besides, I've already addressed this and gave you a perfectly good scientifically meaningful definition for "Free Will"

My Scientific Definition of Free Will:

A will (i.e. intention) that is free from the deterministic laws of physics.

That's a perfectly comprehensible and meaningful definition. You should be able to offer your opinion of whether such a Free Will exists or not without the need to be ranting on and on about your personal disdain for the term.

What is it that is making these CHOICES and DECISIONS?

your mind which is the product of your brain, which is part of your body, which is part of an ecosystem, on a planet in a galaxy, which is part of a universe.

Fine. Then it appears that your answer to my question must be "No, there is no such thing as Free Will as you define it Divine Insight".

What's wrong with that?

That sure appears to me what you are saying there. You are suggesting that our "mind" is what makes all choices and decisions, and according to you it is entirely a product of the natural world governed by the laws of physics, Therefore it appears that you are rejecting the notion that this mind can have will or intent that it "Free" from the deterministic laws of physics.

If you wanted to make an argument to the contrary, then it would seem to me that you would need to make a case for how this "mind" became freed up from the laws of physics in terms of its ability to have intent or will that it free from the deterministic laws of physics.

I mean, think about it.

Look at my definition of free will again:

My Scientific Definition of Free Will:

A will (i.e. intention) that is free from the deterministic laws of physics.

It seems to that you either say, "No I don't believe that kind of free will exists".

Or you say, "Yes, I believe that kind of free will can exists, and here's why,.. blah, blah, blah"

But instead all you seem to be doing is ranting on and on and on that you don't like the term Free Will.

The fact that CHOICES and DECISIONS are being made was never in question.

You have even gone further to say, "with consideration of past experiences and future consequences" like as if this exposes something.

yes it does. its one of many unique things about our humans that make us distinct from other organisms.

But not unique from a computer. Since a computer can do this too.

im not saying its the ONLY important thing. But when you have many unique mental capabilities together, that is significant.

Unique mental capabilities aren't the question. The question is, "When does will or intent become free from, or independent from, the natural laws of physics?" And if it never does, then why call it "free"?

You are not making a case for scientific free will, instead you seem to be arguing that all will and intent must necessarily be entirely dependent upon the natural laws of physics. That's actually a case against "Free Will" by the definition I'm using.

I you want to make a case for scientific "free will" then you need to set forth an argument for how complexity of thought can somehow divorce itself from the laws of physics that gave rise to it. But thus far you seem to be arguing that divorce is impossible.

a computer does not mentally deliberate. A computer is no more conscious than an ant.

Exactly my point. Except I personally believe that even an ant is having an experience which is more than a computer can have.

And the question of how an ant (or anything including a human) can experience anything is also a quite deep an puzzling question. A question that is actually separate from the question of free will entirely.

The bottom line is that you could program a computer to make what you consider to be "moral" or "amoral" choices. And once you are done programming it then it will most likely behave in the manner you programmed it.

i can program a computer to say "ow" when i hit it. That doesn't mean its experiencing pain. Apparently you don't seem to understand that a computer "making a decisions" is fundamentally different from how a human makes decisions. To say they are both "making decisions" in the same sense is EQUIVOCATING.

It is true that you can program a computer to say "ow" when you hit it and this clearly does not mean that it is experiencing pain. But when you hit a human they do experience pain. And that is also quite profound. What is it that is actually having this experience?

Clearly there is some major difference between mere computers and a human.

Its factually wrong that your laptop makes "decisions" in the same sense a human makes "decisions" unless you are EQUIVOCATING.
If you cannot understand the difference then i don't see us making any progress.

I do see a profound difference. In fact, it is this difference that is the point I'm getting at. Humans can't merely be a biological computer brain. That would not be sufficient to have an experience.

Once again, i decline to entertain science fiction and fantasy about artificial conciousness as though doing so will somehow enlighten us onto the facts of this issue.

When considering deep questions entertaining fictional analogies can often be quite helpful. To even discover why the analogies fail can provide useful insight.

Also I hold that the analogy is a fair one. Because your position is that a human brain is nothing other than the product of this universe. So the human brain is a biological "computer" (<-- Generic term not mean to imply the same thing as any man-made computer), and therefore we can ask whether this computer can ever truly be free from the programmer (i.e. the Laws of physics).

I think it's a fair analogy and a fair question.

All scientists consider various analogies with the hope of gaining possible insight into things. Einstein was extremely famous for his use of thought experiments where were basically nothing more than fantasies taking place in his imagination. In fact, it wasn't even possible for many of this thought experiments to actually be performed in the world for until many decades after he had first proposed them as hypothetical fantasies.

Science would never get anywhere if the scientists don't first postulate hypothetical ideas to test. Science owes much to fiction and fantasy. This is what gives many scientists their ground-breaking revelations.

[Bust Nak]

And besides, I've already addressed this and gave you a perfectly good scientifically meaningful definition for "Free Will"

My Scientific Definition of Free Will:

A will (i.e. intention) that is free from the deterministic laws of physics.

That rises the question of whether the laws of physics are deterministic. Last I check, it is decidedly not deterministic when on the tiny scale.

"When does will or intent become free from, or independent from, the natural laws of physics?" And if it never does, then why call it "free"?

I am diving into this without reading all the posts, surely the various experiments on free will have been mentioned, where someone's decision can be detected in brain scans, up to seconds before the person experiences the decision, or even induced a decision on someone? Seems to me neuropsychology already have a preliminary answer.

And the question of how an ant (or anything including a human) can experience anything is also a quite deep an puzzling question. A question that is actually separate from the question of free will entirely.

I wouldn't say entirely separate, sentience is a prerequisite for will.

I do see a profound difference. In fact, it is this difference that is the point I'm getting at. Humans can't merely be a biological computer brain. That would not be sufficient to have an experience.

Electronic computers are not sufficient to have an experience now, that's for sure. But that is not enough to demostrate that computers are fundamentally not sufficient to have an experience, and if you cannot demostrate that, you cannot conclude that humans are not biological computers.

Also I hold that the analogy is a fair one. Because your position is that a human brain is nothing other than the product of this universe. So the human brain is a biological "computer" (<-- Generic term not mean to imply the same thing as any man-made computer), and therefore we can ask whether this computer can ever truly be free from the programmer (i.e. the Laws of physics).

I agree with you here, producing an artificial conciousness will enlighten us onto the facts of our own conciousness.

[instantc]

"When does will or intent become free from, or independent from, the natural laws of physics?" And if it never does, then why call it "free"?

I am diving into this without reading all the posts, surely the various experiments on free will have been mentioned, where someone's decision can be detected in brain scans, up to seconds before the person experiences the decision, or even induced a decision on someone? Seems to me neuropsychology already have a preliminary answer.

Why cannot a predictable choice be a free choice?

Electronic computers are not sufficient to have an experience now, that's for sure.

I'm not so quick to say that we can know this. Consciousness is established by internal not external criteria, is it not? A computer is certainly not alive, but it could be conscious, just like a rock could be conscious, and we would never know.

[Bust Nak]

Why cannot a predictable choice be a free choice?

Donno, not my argument. Divine Insight asked why call it free if it is tied to the laws of physics. I would call it free simply because that's how I experienced it, but it's hard to say it is truely free if one can not just predict but induce it which brain probes.

I'm not so quick to say that we can know this. Consciousness is established by internal not external criteria, is it not? A computer is certainly not alive, but it could be conscious, just like a rock could be conscious, and we would never know.

Right you are. A computer merely does not appear to be conscious the way we are conscious.

[Goat]

Why cannot a predictable choice be a free choice?

Donno, not my argument. Divine Insight asked why call it free if it is tied to the laws of physics. I would call it free simply because that's how I experienced it, but it's hard to say it is truely free if one can not just predict but induce it which brain probes.

I'm not so quick to say that we can know this. Consciousness is established by internal not external criteria, is it not? A computer is certainly not alive, but it could be conscious, just like a rock could be conscious, and we would never know.

Right you are. A computer merely does not appear to be conscious the way we are conscious.

Is your will free, or is that just an illusion? Your apparent choice is influenced by factors you are not aware of.

Let's take an example. There is a case of two identical twins who were separated at birth, and grew up on different continents. One in the U.S, the other in Australia. They found out about each other, and the one from Australia flew to here to meet sister for the very first time. She got off the plane, wearing the exact same dress as her sister wore to meet her. Their 'choices' were influneced by things beyond their control.