Do you believe in free will?

[lindagarrette]

I'm interested in the second statement for now. Is there scientific evidence for free will?

 

Some people take scientific causality to it's inevitable conclusion- there is no free will, thus, we have no choice in anything. I don't think I'm that brave yet. Is there any way a causal universe (on which science depends) can form beings with free will?

No one has yet shown any evidence of free will. It is a purely metaphysical concept.

[nemo]

No one has yet shown any evidence of free will.

exactly. how would you go about showing / finding evidence of free will? is there a reasonable way to go about investigating the subject, or should it be dismissed out of hand? :eek:

[bumab]

Right- does free will require a breach of causality?

[motherengine]

i guess i'm just repeting myself here but do to the fact that every effect has an affecting agent i would have to insist that the concept of a consciousness independent of chemical occurance is stricly a metaphysical one and not really provable through testing. is the part of 'you' that 'you' think of as 'yourself' an illusion created by memory or a spiritual force/energy that simply uses memory to function in the body? i see no empirical evidence to suggest that anyone has a 'freewill' and much evidence (largley from the field of neuroscience) suggesting that freewill is an illusion. this of course does not mean that freewill does not exist but only that (in my opinion anyway) the subject is strictly philosophical oriented and not a scientific one.

[Biochemist]

...i see no empirical evidence to suggest that anyone has a 'freewill' and much evidence (largley from the field of neuroscience) suggesting that freewill is an illusion. this of course does not mean that freewill does not exist but only that (in my opinion anyway) the subject is strictly philosophical oriented and not a scientific one.

Sorry to respond to this thread so late, but I was referred by FishTeacher (thanks, FT).

 

I would like to emphasize that one can elect to believe either that free will does or does not exist and still be consistent. We have easily-reproducible evidence that we perceive ourselves as making decisions. We can interpret that as:

 

1) our perceptions are an illusion, because the universe has been deterministic since first cause (i.e., the Big bang) and these perceptions are only characteristics of higher-level animals that somehow advantage them. Or,

 

2) we can believe that the Universe is determinsitic, and that the Creator exempted some items (love, free will, creativity, etc) from the original schema, as evidenced by current experimentation, and subsequently only endowed those elements on humans.

 

Category 1 is Naturalism. Category 2 is some form of theism.

 

One interesting point: When basic scientisits (appropriately, I think) attack Creationists for assuming God "dummied" data (like putting information in the light from distant stars that were not "actually" there 10 billion years ago), basic scientists acuse Creationists of completely sidestepping the scientific method.

 

That approach is eerily similar to the thought process in option 1 above.

[Fishteacher73]

1) our perceptions are an illusion, because the universe has been deterministic since first casue (i.e., the Big bang) and these perceptions are only characteristics of higher-level animals that somehow advantage them. Or,

_________

 

One interesting point: When basic scientisits (appropriately, I think) attack Creationists for assuming God "dummied" data (like putting information in the light from distant stars that were not "actually" there 10 billion years ago), basic scientists acuse Creationists of completely sidestepping the scientific method.

 

That approach is eerily similar to the thought process in option 1 above.

 

 

I think a deterministic view gernerally can be worked out until one starts discussing whether or not it is there. I think it is more of a mental block that this is the natural process of things and there are some things that just plain make our heads hurt... (Relativity, infinity, multiple dimensions, etc.). Discussing free-will vs determinism I think at times can be compared the the hypothetical paradox of reverse time travel. Yet if you look at the path that has been taken, you "ended up" kind of falling into a discussion. Not everyone does, but not everyone becomes a professional ballet dancer either. There is a a million steps taken, but thaey all lead to where you are. Each prior action determines the next. This is further extrapolated from a molecular and mechanics look at matter and applying it to a sentient being. We are all essentially along for the ride. This may be a bit dishartening, but hey, most everyone loves a roller coster.

[Torminious]

Personally, I prefer to believe in free will, not from any evidence, but due to the situation that the potential answers puts me in..

 

In short, if I have free will, (Or due to it, as I might say) I am where I am today as a result of decisions that I made, and where I go in life will further be determined by those choices.

 

OR..

 

If I don't have free will, I am where I am due to outside influences that are incomprehensible, and not whithin my sphere of influence (God, or some other theory of pre-determination, doesn't matter in my opinion)

 

Basically, I like to think that if you want to make choices with the belief that it will make a differece, then free will is the perspective to make those decisions from. A belief in any form of pre-determination discourages clear reasoning, and smacks of a derilection in our own reponsibily to ourselves and each other.

 

Kinda frightening, in my book, any line of thinking that starts or ends with it was all a part of "A Greater Plan".

 

I'm sorry for entirely failing to avoid the spiritual side of the discussion, but I think it's been pretty well covered that this is a subject which is, difficult, to address from a scientific perspective.

[Fishteacher73]

I see no religious apect involved with deterministic universe. You can anyalyze and predict specific outcomes if you run a basic chemistry experiment. You can calculate percennt yeilds, chirality, isomers, etc. Given two objects, you cand determin how they will collide and rebound given the basic data about the objects. Humans are a complex series of physical interactions and chemical interactions. At what point do these reactions become non-predictable? When do they begin to break the basic physical laws?

 

In short, if I have free will, (Or due to it, as I might say) I am where I am today as a result of decisions that I made, and where I go in life will further be determined by those choices.

 

Why did you make those decisions? Were they based on prior experience perhaps? Maybe they were based on a biological urge? They can essentially all be traced back. (Much like Rand's Objectivism stating that there is not altruistic act; everything has a base selfish motive).

[bumab]

Basically, I like to think that if you want to make choices with the belief that it will make a differece, then free will is the perspective to make those decisions from. A belief in any form of pre-determination discourages clear reasoning, and smacks of a derilection in our own reponsibily to ourselves and each other.

 

I'm sorry for entirely failing to avoid the spiritual side of the discussion, but I think it's been pretty well covered that this is a subject which is, difficult, to address from a scientific perspective.

 

This is the heart of the issue, really, and I think it is the reason many people have an aversion to science- it requires causal determinism, which requires no free will- even if those people could not put it into words.

 

It is an important area for science to look into, because it goes into the heart of what makes us human. Simply because the issue is difficult, or hits to close to home, or makes a scientist uncomfortable is no reason to simply dismiss it, quite the opposite. Questions like this clarify what you believe about the universe. Natrualism, as Biochemist defined it, or super-naturalism, which implies something more (i.e. God or anything, really) in which science is unable to cover everything.

 

Does this bring us to the limit of science, or the limit of how much science people can accept? I think free will exists, and as such is evidence for the supernatural. This "evidence" does not require evidence of irreducible complexity (nor do I expect to ever see evidence of IC, because it's kind of silly), but it does imply ID, simply because a causal history does not, and cannot, explain it.

 

Others here feel otherwise, but I like this question because it really forces you to define what you feel about the universe.

[Torminious]

Why did you make those decisions? Were they based on prior experience perhaps? Maybe they were based on a biological urge? They can essentially all be traced back. (Much like Rand's Objectivism stating that there is not altruistic act; everything has a base selfish motive).

 

I think that either way you could chalk up Experience as a factor, be it intellectually considering past events, or the "invisible" cause/effect chemical reaction to the outside stimulus we consider experience.

 

aside, I personally agree with "Rand". From a perspective which allows for free will, all decisions we make are based upon selfish motives, or, as I prefer to expound, Fear. We all fear things, be it God, or the opinions of others, down to the fear of facing ones-self "in the morning" (which is my favorite fear, and I think all my decisions can ultimatly be traced there.) we all fear something, and avoiding the subject of that fear, or fears should be considered at least as a contributing factor to all actions we take.

 

I kinda like to look at it like this: I gotta shave tomorrow, do I want to be happy with the guy I'm lookin' at, or do I wanna shave in the dark? Now, doesn't look like much of a choice, but at the end, that is the consideration from which all other conclusions will be based.

 

My question to you guys would be, does it invalidate my goal to live as a good person, when I realize that the reason I want to be a good person is to bolster my self-impression? By that note, (and within the assumption that "Rand's Objectivism" is accepted) is there any point in suggesting that people (any people) be "better" to one another, as such attempts would "all" be selfishly based, from the individual perspectives within the collective? Or, to put it another way, is a good intention still a good intention when it stems from a selfish motivation?

[bumab]

That's really a seperate question from free will. That's a question about the existence of altruism- also a good topic for another thread...

 

Altruism, nor selfishness, CANNOT exist without free will since they are descriptors of motivation, which really has no place in a deterministic world. Motivation implies choice, which cannot be in a world where all actions are dictated by previous conditions.

[Queso]

so our actions may be predictable due to everything we've ever known, done, thought, all the ones we've never seen, all the times a bird has crapped on our shoulder. i don't know the correct term, but as we know physics can determine what people are going to do and when...we can't do this yet, but in theory, knowing all possible conditions(i believe is the word) we can.

 

but honestly...who is going to go that in depth about it?

obviously scientists...but is it possible that intelligent life just can not be completely predicted?

can it predict that he is going to sit down in that exact chair, and in 86 seconds eat his first fry, which he takes 3 instead of 1. can it predict the amount of ketchup that he will dip his fries in, can it predict if he will get ketchup at all?

how about his thoughts?

it just seems way too deep to be able to predict. i'm not saying it's not possible, because i really don't know much about this subject.

 

i just imagined walking around downtown and seeing billions of little equations in everything. faceless people shaped in variable equations constantly changing, from head to toe. the skyscrapers lined with them, the clouds, the sky, the birds with little equation wings.

 

i am math?

[Biochemist]

That's really a seperate question from free will. That's a question about the existence of altruism- also a good topic for another thread...Altruism, nor selfishness, can exist without free will since they are descriptors of motivation, which really has no place in a deterministic world. Motivation implies choice, which cannot be in a world where all actions are dictated by previous conditions.

B- I assume you meant cannot in your second sentence. It is logically true that without free will there is no such thing as altruism, beauty, creativity, love, selflessness, or even pleasure. Pause on that last one. All of these things would be illusions to differentially benefit our long term survival. I really do think that Rand's view is a stretch. Each of us can think of hundreds of personal examples where these feelings sure seem real, and we like them because they seem real. Liking them would have to be an illusion too. Seems like an awfully complicated illusion.

Or, to put it another way, is a good intention still a good intention when it stems from a selfish motivation?

Well, by definition no.

 

I know I am sounding a little repetitive, but free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. However, if you believe free will exists and if you believe in determinism, then you require supernatural causality. If you believe in determism and do not believe in God, free will is impossible, and we are automatons.

 

Sorry, Torm. It looks like you believe in God to me. So did Einstein and Newton. It looks to me like you are in good company. Could be worth spending a little time noodling it.

[Queso]

Sorry, Torm. It looks like you believe in God to me. So did Einstein and Newton. It looks to me like you are in good company. Could be worth spending a little time noodling it.

 

i would just like to say that just because a genius, or millions of people believe in something, that doesn't make it true, or right.

[Biochemist]

but is it possible that intelligent life just can not be completely predicted?

Determism and predictability are not related. Any chaotic system (which is to say, most systems) cannot be predicted. But they are certainly deterministic.

[Biochemist]

i would just like to say that just because a genius, or millions of people believe in something, that doesn't make it true, or right.

True. I was just surfacing the notion that theists are not necessarily intellectual underperformers.

[Biochemist]

I think a deterministic view gernerally can be worked out until one starts discussing whether or not it is there. I think it is more of a mental block that this is the natural process of things and there are some things that just plain make our heads hurt... (Relativity, infinity, multiple dimensions, etc.).

I can tell you for a fact that this line of thought is the reason a lot of thoughful folks became theistic, and usually Christian. Francis Shaeffer was famous for framing this philosophical argument. Seductive isn't it?