Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[C1ay]

I see no reason that a "changing ones mind" implies the existence of free will. Does water choose to change states when heated or cooled? Does a billiard ball choose its new direction ofter a collision? Does a HCl molecule choose to disassociate into H+ nad Cl- in aqueus solution?

Are you really comparing the ability of the human mind to analyze and reason with intelligence against water, billiard balls and HCI molecules? Changing one's mind cannot be the result of an intelligent decision to do so?

[lindagarrette]

So the choices and decisions we make are not determined before we make them?

Nothing is "predetermined." Every event is part of the process for the next event.

[Fishteacher73]

Are you really comparing the ability of the human mind to analyze and reason with intelligence against water, billiard balls and HCI molecules? Changing one's mind cannot be the result of an intelligent decision to do so?

 

Yes, at what level does the brain stop functioning within the bounds of physics, chemistry and biology? At only this "nebulous" construct in our minds can free-will exist. When and where could or does this occur?

 

"Decision" making is a dichotomous key essentially. A tree of if then statements to arive at a conclusion. This tree is built by genetics and experience, and can vary greatly from idividual to individual. Yet for many that have had similar instruction (ie educational experience, a great deal of the tree is replicated from others that had developed that line of thought. This is all education is. Some are apt at discerning small factors that will alter each indivdual cascade of thought and can have alternate logical endings. This is how new discoveries are made).

[C1ay]

Nothing is "predetermined." Every event is part of the process for the next event.

Are you saying that nothing is predetermined AND our decisions are the result of causal events leading up to them? This sounds like a conflict of logic. If you have two choices A and B but B is not really a choice because the chain of causal events leads to choice A then A is predetermined by the fact that B was not really a choice. OTOH, if B really is an equal choice to A then the act of choosing between them is an act of free will.

[C1ay]

Yes, at what level does the brain stop functioning within the bounds of physics, chemistry and biology? At only this "nebulous" construct in our minds can free-will exist. When and where could or does this occur?

 

"Decision" making is a dichotomous key essentially. A tree of if then statements to arive at a conclusion. This tree is built by genetics and experience, and can vary greatly from idividual to individual. Yet for many that have had similar instruction (ie educational experience, a great deal of the tree is replicated from others that had developed that line of thought. This is all education is. Some are apt at discerning small factors that will alter each indivdual cascade of thought and can have alternate logical endings. This is how new discoveries are made).

For me it occurs with intelligence, something the water, the billiard ball and the HCI molecule do not have. It is intelligence that enables decision. Do you make all of your decisions instantly, on the fly, or do you stop to think on any of them? If they are all the result of causal determinism it would seem that there is no point to stop and think on them anyhow, your final choice will be the same either way. The only reason to spend time on deciding what choice to make is to utilize the benefit of free will.

[Dark Mind]

Okay, veering off track (or maybe on). Yes, I do think the scientific method is invalidated without free will. Logically, it has to be.

[Dark Mind]

It is our free will that allows us to change things, and if we couldn't change things would we need a Scientific Method to find out what the results or consequences of our actions would be?

 

If there was no free will and everything was predetermined there would be no need for the Scientific Method. Everything would have a set outcome, in my book, invalidating the scientific method. It would not invalidate a Scientific Law though.

[maddog]

Yeah, if you know all the variables. the fact that it's PRACTICALLY impossible has no bearing.

I thought up a new response to this. What good is to state were "all the variables

known" when often you don't even know how many there are. So how can you make

an arguement other than your belief. I can respect you believe that. How do you go

about validating such a proposition or proving it ? We only know what we know till

we discover more. Best guess until the chips are down. :)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I see no reason that a "changing ones mind" implies the existence of free will. Does water choose to change states when heated or cooled? Does a billiard ball choose its new direction ofter a collision? Does a HCl molecule choose to disassociate into H+ nad Cl- in aqueus solution? Things can not and do not opt for what physical laws they will follow and which they will not. Ambiguity in science arises from one of two possibilities; A) The science is incomplete or flawed; :) Not all factors have been weighed and applied in the specific situation being investigated.

Let me understand this paragraph of logic(?). Are you saying that water thinks, or

that a billiard ball thinks, or a HCl molecule thinks ?!? :) Or maybe you are saying

sentient creatures don't. If neither then how can the two situations be compared as

like instance to borrow the properties as an analogy for drawing a conclusion. I ask

cause either was all I could conclude that you believe one or the other. So if you say

inanimate objects have the capacity to think (especially if people don't) implies their

is more choice (thus Free Will) than you bargained for, and if else case then you are

continuing to posture the human beings are not sentient creatures after all.

The "mind" is the end result of a developed brain. It is no more special than the trunk of an elephant being a developed nose. It follows the basic laws of physics and chemistry to function. At what point do these basic laws get to not apply? Why would something move against a voltage potential, or against concentaration gradients? The only way this happens is with other chemical or electrical processes facilitating and these follow the basics of chemistry.

I can see the trunk of an elephant. In fact I can measure is length, diameter,

circumfrence and a bunch of other parameters. Were I to whack it off with a knife,

I could weigh this trunk. How can I do any of those things to a mind ? The

trunk of an elephant can only push so much water per unit time threw it. How much

("thoughts") can flow through a mind ? Kinda' inappropriate to compare unlike

things, eh ? :) :)

 

Maddog

[infamous]

don't tell me that GOD has made choices for me. you just made me sick to my stomache, thanks a lot.

 

Take a Pepto Bismol..............

[infamous]

It could be or it could be a choice. How could anyone prove that it was one and not the other?

 

Thats why I asked for evidence in post 157.

[maddog]

I must emphasize once more (!!) that predestination and fate are not examples of determinism. Determinism means one thing leads to another, not that the chain of events is established, even though that may appear to be the ultimate outcome -- what we see looking back.

I thought we were speaking of pre-determinism and Determinism. Unless you mean

in the context of, "He was [predestined] to do that". I guess in that way I do disagree

with you. Unless you think maybe it is post-determinism. I think this is closer. We

can always know what has occured after it has already done so. The waveform has

collapsed and the unkown known. This is how memory works (for the most part).

How does "one thing lead to another" equal determinism ? The clockwork mechanistic

comsos (as seen by 18th Century) by use of Newtonian Physics had created a

philosophy of "Determinism" because all things could be brought under scrutiny of

the pen and paper and made to behave according to Newton's three Laws. Something

I have labeled here as "Determinable". I consider this a weaker condition as "that

which can be determined". Not some perfect "pie in the sky" euphemism that is in

effect totally worthless and have no utility. :)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Yes, at what level does the brain stop functioning within the bounds of physics, chemistry and biology? At only this "nebulous" construct in our minds can free-will exist. When and where could or does this occur?

Bravo! (at least partly) Saying that you can conceive that "Free Will" can only occur in

the "mind" and at the same time you declared it to not exist. Only conclusion I can

infer is that you are in effect saying that the "Mind" is not "Real" or I say "physical".

With this, I agree with you. I don't either think so. I do think a mind exists and we

do think. We may do so in an "un-Real" way. I don't feel that brain and mind are the

same, though they are in some way connected. That systems can be "Determinable"

is one thing. This does not make the 18th Century equivalence of "Determinism" as

the same philosophy.

 

"Decision" making is a dichotomous key essentially. A tree of if then statements to arive at a conclusion. This tree is built by genetics and experience, and can vary greatly from idividual to individual. Yet for many that have had similar instruction (ie educational experience, a great deal of the tree is replicated from others that had developed that line of thought. This is all education is. Some are apt at discerning small factors that will alter each indivdual cascade of thought and can have alternate logical endings. This is how new discoveries are made).

So how many genes make up an if-then statement ? :)

 

Maddog

[C1ay]

Thats why I asked for evidence in post 157.

But you made your own claim there as well when you stated that "God has made your choice for you". If that is your opinion then OK but, if you are claiming as fact that there is a God you bear the burden of proof that such a God exists.

[infamous]

I see no reason that a "changing ones mind" implies the existence of free will. Does water choose to change states when heated or cooled? Does a billiard ball choose its new direction ofter a collision? Does a HCl molecule choose to disassociate into H+ nad Cl- in aqueus solution? Things can not and do not opt for what physical laws they will follow and which they will not. Ambiguity in science arises from one of two possibilities; A) The science is incomplete or flawed; :) Not all factors have been weighed and applied in the specific situation being investigated.

 

The "mind" is the end result of a developed brain. It is no more special than the trunk of an elephant being a developed nose. It follows the basic laws of physics and chemistry to function. At what point do these basic laws get to not apply? Why would something move against a voltage potential, or against concentaration gradients? The only way this happens is with other chemical or electrical processes facilitating and these follow the basics of chemistry.

 

Exactly Fishteacher; How far removed from an event does one need to go before the following events can be considered free from the initial stimuli. For free will to be a reality there must be a severance between cause and effect somewhere along the time line. Not possible in this universe.

[infamous]

But you made your own claim there as well when you stated that "God has made your choice for you". If that is your opinion then OK but, if you are claiming as fact that there is a God you bear the burden of proof that such a God exists.

 

I stand corrected C1ay; Let me rephrase. Former events have made the choice for me, my existence is the sum total of all former events.

[C1ay]

I stand corrected C1ay; Let me rephrase. Former events have made the choice for me, my existence is the sum total of all former events.

Everyone's existence is the sum of their own former events. In and of itself that does not support determinism or exclude the possibility of free will. The fact that you believe your own choices have been made for you is only evidence of your belief or faith in determinism. That brings us back to the point you questioned originally.

 

If your faith is strong then you believe my choices have been made for me as well. In that vein in would seem pointless for you to argue your viewpoint with any hope of changing the position that has been determined for me by the events leading to this point. If you did succeed in getting me to make a choice in favor of determinism it would require me to exercise my faith in free will.

 

In favor of your position though, I feel determined to remain in mine. I could not choose to believe wholely in determinism because I believe my intelligence gives me the free will to make my own decisions. Nothing I have read here or elsewhere has convinced me that my intelligence does not enable me to make my own decisions so maybe it's the choice to believe in free will that has been made for me by the totality of events that make up the sum of my own existence. Hopefully that is consistent with my own commitment to remain open-minded :)