Has science proven there is no "free will"?

[firedragon]

Well they would first have to understand what consciousness is before even getting to the free will question. That hasn't happened yet.

Thats true in a way. But scientists are taking a different approach.

 

[firedragon]

You would have to establish what the totality of being reality is and all the factors of it. Then define a worthy meaning to the concept of freedom. Then define what biological limitations there are on such freedom.

I have given a synopsis of what is generally understood as free will. And scientists are actually exploring to find what ever they can from a naturalistic, scientific perspective.

But you are saying "freedom" which is very different to free will so I would like to know whats your ultimate point.

Thanks in advance.

 

[George-ananda]

Thats true in a way. But scientists are taking a different approach.

As a follower of Advaita (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) Hindu philosophy, I personally believe Consciousness is non-physical and outside of science's current scope.

One way of looking at it for me is that the universe is scripted by the One Consciousness/God/Brahman of which we are One with. In that sense the entire universe is a creative endeavor of Consciousness. In that sense we are the creators of physical reality and as script writers we have ultimate free will over the script.

I am sure I just lost people but the point is that it is complicated and the answer depends on our perspective.

 

[F1fan]

This post is inspired by some who claim the heading, that science has proven there is no free will.

We all have some kind of action in our lives. We do many things on a daily basis. When you go to work without anyone forcing you, you think "I have gone to work freely". One can just stay without going to work for a week or two, or just decide "Im gonna resign, and become an entrepreneur". You are the man (or woman). And you made your choice, thus you are responsible.

Philosophers will call this free will.

This sounds to me more like executive functioning. The free will debate is more about how the subconscious influences decision making versus the conscious mind.

Most believe that they make free choices and decisions when in reality there are many subconscious influences that, by definition, the person is not aware of. So to understand this issue we need to examine what the social sciences say about this kind of cognitive process.

 

[firedragon]

Science isn't in the business of "proving" things

See, when someone says something like "science has proven that there is an ozonosphere with Ozone" that doesnt mean "science is out to prove things". Science has proven that vaccines can help curb some viruses. Does that mean "science is out to prove things"? Anyway, just a few days ago there was a huge debate with some atheists claiming "science has proven free will doesnt exist". JFYI.

What do you think about the scientific experiments conducted as cited in the OP? Do you think they are not scientists and they are just being lame or something? For example, Libet's topic unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will
in voluntary action was a huge scientific experiment. Please explain your position.

Also. God and religion is not the topic. Before any theist propagating God has brought up that subject in this thread, its strange that you had done it preemptively. Whats the reason for that? Is everything always measured against theism and God? Is it absolutely necessary to make claims like "God needs free will" in this type of discussion? Are you propagating God or an Anti God philosophy religion or philosophy? If so, why is it necessary for this topic.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

As a follower of Advaita (non-dual=God and creation are not-two) Hindu philosophy, I personally believe Consciousness is non-physical and outside of science's current scope.

One way of looking at it for me is that the universe is scripted by the One Consciousness/God/Brahman of which we are One with. In that sense the entire universe is a creative endeavor of Consciousness. In that sense we are the creators of physical reality and as script writers we have ultimate free will over the script.

I am sure I just lost people but the point is that it is complicated and the answer depends on our perspective.

Religion is not really the topic of the thread brother. I mean when I say religion, the philosophical side is valid for this thread but not faith statements. Yet I do understand Hinduism is full of philosophy.

Anyway, it seems like what you are referring to is the deterministic model of Spinoza that I kind of cited in the OP. But it is also conflicting. Do you reject Karma or is there a reconciliation?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This post is inspired by some who claim the heading, that science has proven there is no free will.

We all have some kind of action in our lives. We do many things on a daily basis. When you go to work without anyone forcing you, you think "I have gone to work freely". One can just stay without going to work for a week or two, or just decide "Im gonna resign, and become an entrepreneur". You are the man (or woman). And you made your choice, thus you are responsible.

Philosophers will call this free will.

On this particular subject there are very different and varying aspects, including arguments against free-will. For example, there were two young men who murdered another simply because "they can". Both from rich families, if not for this murder, otherwise not necessarily "wicked", both very good students and if I am not mistaken, both were the youngest graduates in their streams at their respective universities in the United States. They were on trial and the lawyer just had one task, to rescue them from being put to death. Anyway his argument was in the lines of "I really do not in the least believe in crime. There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible."

irony or providence, both of them got life in prison, one of them was killed in prison, the other got out in 3 decades or so and became a very good citizen, as he was inside jail.

Benjamin Libet came up, and his scientific approach to the brain and mind resulted in some experiments to determine if will is behind the hand to put it in my own words. The outcome of his experience in the time it takes a sensation to reach the brain and the time for action kind of provides evidence that the action is already prepared for your prior to you thinking about it. This seems like there is no free will.

What do you think? Is it as Spinoza says determined and free will is just an illusion, or as Sam Harris says we should not think we are important enough to have the power to choose?

As some say, has science proven free will does not exist?

If we don't go to work, we loose our job and no money to pay the bills. So, we have to go to work. No free will in reality.

 

[firedragon]

If we don't go to work, we loose our job and no money to pay the bills. So, we have to go to work. No free will in reality.

You just explained why its free will.

 

[firedragon]

I think you will find this interesting @shunyadragon

 

[viole]

This post is inspired by some who claim the heading, that science has proven there is no free will.

We all have some kind of action in our lives. We do many things on a daily basis. When you go to work without anyone forcing you, you think "I have gone to work freely". One can just stay without going to work for a week or two, or just decide "Im gonna resign, and become an entrepreneur". You are the man (or woman). And you made your choice, thus you are responsible.

Philosophers will call this free will.

On this particular subject there are very different and varying aspects, including arguments against free-will. For example, there were two young men who murdered another simply because "they can". Both from rich families, if not for this murder, otherwise not necessarily "wicked", both very good students and if I am not mistaken, both were the youngest graduates in their streams at their respective universities in the United States. They were on trial and the lawyer just had one task, to rescue them from being put to death. Anyway his argument was in the lines of "I really do not in the least believe in crime. There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible."

irony or providence, both of them got life in prison, one of them was killed in prison, the other got out in 3 decades or so and became a very good citizen, as he was inside jail.

Benjamin Libet came up, and his scientific approach to the brain and mind resulted in some experiments to determine if will is behind the hand to put it in my own words. The outcome of his experience in the time it takes a sensation to reach the brain and the time for action kind of provides evidence that the action is already prepared for your prior to you thinking about it. This seems like there is no free will.

What do you think? Is it as Spinoza says determined and free will is just an illusion, or as Sam Harris says we should not think we are important enough to have the power to choose?

As some say, has science proven free will does not exist?

It depends. Do you mean libertarian free will, or the compatibilist's free will? The former is ruled out by the laws of physics, the latter is not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

If we don't go to work, we loose our job and no money to pay the bills. So, we have to go to work. No free will in reality.

I believe this is an unnecessary extreme view of 'Libertarian Free Will.' Compatabilist Free Will does in varying degrees allow limited possible free will, which is in line with the present evidence concerning the nature of human will.

 

[Link]

How's free-will possible if we just a bunch of atoms? I think it's pretty much set in stone if we don't have a soul.

 

[shunyadragon]

How's free-will possible if we just a bunch of atoms? I think it's pretty much set in stone if we don't have a soul.

This is an extreme unscientific view of the nature of the nature of our physical existence and the nature of being human. Our physical existence nor the nature of being human is not just a 'bunch of atoms.' Yes, all the objective verifiable evidence determines out physical existence isdeterministic, but not rigidly mechanistically deterministic. The observed fractal nature of our physical existence results in a possible range of outcomes of all cause and effect events within a limited range of outcomes including the decision making process of our human will decision making.

A limited degree of free will is possible under strictly natural processes.

 

[Link]

This is an extreme unscientific view of the nature of the nature of our physical existence and the nature of being human. Our physical existence nor the nature of being human is not just a 'bunch of atoms.' Yes, all the objective verifiable evidence determines out physical existence isdeterministic, but not rigidly mechanistically deterministic. The observed fractal nature of our physical existence results in a possible range of outcomes of all cause and effect events within a limited range of outcomes including the decision making process of our human will decision making.

A limited degree of free will is possible under strictly natural processes.

Too limited or no free-will for my taste. It seems we are under illusion if it was the case that we purely physical - I myself don't believe free-will is possible without God and a soul.

 

[blü 2]

As some say, has science proven free will does not exist?

A clear definition of "free" is needed.

Obviously we can make choices that are free of external compulsion.

Is that what "free" means here?

Equally obviously, we can't make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making processes. (Just to be clear, these include deciding to decide by tossing a coin or drawing lots &c.)

If "free" here is mean to contradict that and assert that we can, then I'd like to hear a step by step description of just how it's said we make such decisions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Too limited or no free-will for my taste. It seems we are under illusion if it was the case that we purely physical - I myself don't believe free-will is possible without God and a soul.

OK, this is what 'you believe,' or ah . . . 'your taste.' but it, purely physical(?) or 'just a bunch of atoms(?), does not remotely reflect the scientific view of the nature of our physical existence, and objectively the possibility of free will.

The nature of our physical existence is as it is regardless of whether God(s) exist of not.

 

[Polymath257]

For free will to exist two things must be the case:

1. In some situations there is more than one possible future.

2. Which future actually happens is a matter of personal control.

Determinism negates the first. So if strict determinism is true, then there is no free will.

But, even if there is more than one possible future, it is still possible there is no free will if it is the case that a person isn't the one affecting which future is actualized.

In the OP, it is possible that the 'choice' of whether to go to work is determined by previous events and that the only possible future is the one that actually happens. In that case, there is only an illusion of free will, not the actuality. To have free will, both the future where you go to work and the future where you don't have to be possible futures.

Now, with quantum mechanics, it is known the determinism isn't the case in the real world. it is often the case that the future value of a quantum variable is undetermined by its past. This allows for a 'randomness' that some take to allow for the possibility of free will.

The problem is that which future is actualized in a quantum event is NOT under the control of any person. This means that instead of choosing the future, the specific future is actualized by something other than some person. If anything, this is worse for free will than determinism.

The Libet experiments are often debated but I have a feeling they are often misinterpreted. The interpretation is that the feeling of choice happens after the brain signals that initiate activity. I find it far more likely that the delay is due to the feedback processing for pushing the buttons. Making a decision *and* watching a timer at the same time is not a way to determine what you were thinking when a timer is at a particular point: thoughts take time and evaluating the timer takes time.

 

[firedragon]

A clear definition of "free" is needed.

Its "free will", and defined in the OP as generally defined in philosophy.

You can redefine the word free will or free if you want, but the thread is referred to as defined.

 

[shunyadragon]

Its "free will", and defined in the OP as generally defined in philosophy.

You can redefine the word free will or free if you want, but the thread is referred to as defined.

Comment: I could not choose an answer to the survey as worded.

 

[Polymath257]

On the other hand, we should also analyze what it means to say that *I* am 'making a choice'.

Even if the world is deterministic, it makes sense to say that the most relevant 'causes' for an event are affected significantly by the processing of an individual brain.

For example, if I 'choose' to pick up a rock, the later position of the rock, even in a deterministic universe', is caused by the events within my brain. Even if those events are also determined, the fact that there is a causal nexus in my brain means that *I* affected the outcome. In other words, *I* was the one that 'chose' to pick up the rock.

In this sense, people can and do make choices.

But in what sense are those choices free? if the universe is deterministic, then the choice itself was determined by previous events, right?

Well, yes, but if the events *in my brain* had been even slightly different, then a different sequences of later events would have occurred (I would not have picked up the rock). So not only is there a causal nexus in my brain, but if my brain was slightly different, then very different events would have happened. The differences might be as simple as a difference in air going over my skin, or catching a glimpse of a reflection on the rock. But if I had not caught that glint, I would not have picked up the rock *even in a deterministic system*.

So, in that sense, I am the one making the choice *and* there is more than one possible future *to within any possible means to measurement*. And in this sense, there can be free will.