Has science proven there is no "free will"?

[Polymath257]

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.

Except that is only a very general description, lacking details required to answer the question. There are too many different interpretations *within the parameters of the OP* to allow for an answer to the question.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Noted. If you have nothing to add, I have nothing to add.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Too many assumptions in the above that are not necessarily valid. Libet's and others research are important in the limiting what may be called free will, but at present inconclusive, and it cannot be determined at present that there is no free will, only that if free will exists it is limited..

Due to the complexity and fractal nature of the cause and effect relationship of human decision making it cannot be determined that there is only one possible choice in ALL human decisions.

 

[Polymath257]

Too many assumptions in the above that are not necessarily valid. Libet's and others research are important in the limiting what may be called free will, but at present inconclusive, and it cannot be determined at present that there is no free will, only that if free will exists it is limited..

But that much is obvious, I think.

We all understand that if I am in the middle of the air 1000 feet above ground with no support, I have no choice as to whether I will fall. My choices in such a situation are very limited and do not include the choice to not fall, however much I would wish otherwise.

So the question becomes when some law of physics dictates what will happen in spite of any desires I have. In such cases, it is clear 'free will' is limited. But then the question becomes when events are NOT determined by the laws of physics. In other words, when is the universe not deterministic.

 

[firedragon]

Except that is only a very general description, lacking details required to answer the question. There are too many different interpretations *within the parameters of the OP* to allow for an answer to the question.

Maybe you can refer to some of the scientific researchers like Benjamin Libet I quoted, and those who have certain criticisms of his assumptions to understand further. It is very related to the question and maybe you will understand further.

 

[firedragon]

Noted. If you have nothing to add, I have nothing to add.

I dont know what you need added to definitions. The question I have asked is far from debating the definition.

Yet, its your prerogative.

 

[dybmh]

I was trying to imagine some scenario where one might imagine an expression of free will, but I was simply conflating freedom of choice with free will.

Human speech, is the best example I can come up with for free-will. A good teacher choses when and how to teach a lesson to a child. If the initial teaching wasn't effective, the teacher chooses whether to continue teaching or to stop. Free-will is a choice when the outcome is unknown. Using this definition, many interpersonal events are examples of free-will. The concept of trust is a good one.

Beyond that, attempting to prove that choices are not deterministic seems impossible. No one can provide evidence that something doesn't exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you can refer to some of the scientific researchers like Benjamin Libet I quoted, and those who have certain criticisms of his assumptions to understand further. It is very related to the question and maybe you will understand further.

Can I recommend Dennett's discussion in the book 'Consciousness Explained'?

 

[firedragon]

Can I recommend Dennett's discussion in the book 'Consciousness Explained'?

Not the right book Poly

 

[shunyadragon]

But that much is obvious, I think.

We all understand that if I am in the middle of the air 1000 feet above ground with no support, I have no choice as to whether I will fall. My choices in such a situation are very limited and do not include the choice to not fall, however much I would wish otherwise.

So the question becomes when some law of physics dictates what will happen in spite of any desires I have. In such cases, it is clear 'free will' is limited. But then the question becomes when events are NOT determined by the laws of physics. In other words, when is the universe not deterministic.

One thing is missing is how did you get to the point you are falling through the air at 1000 feet above the ground.

I will go with our physical existence is 'always deterministic,' but from the objective perspective deterministic does not translate to always only one possible outcome, though at times physically this may be true.

The problem from the human perspective is that we cannot objectively determine whether our decision was necessarily a free will decision or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can I recommend Dennett's discussion in the book 'Consciousness Explained'?

I like Dennett, but he is only one proposal to explain Compatabilism. I do not entirely agree with him.

 

[shunyadragon]

Human speech, is the best example I can come up with for free-will. A good teacher choses when and how to teach a lesson to a child. If the initial teaching wasn't effective, the teacher chooses whether to continue teaching or to stop. Free-will is a choice when the outcome is unknown. Using this definition, many interpersonal events are examples of free-will. The concept of trust is a good one.

Actually all of the above is the product of a chain of events involving the history of the teacher, student,and prior knowledge being taught and a very limited range of possible alternatives in your synario. This cannot be used to demonstrate justify free will.

Beyond that, attempting to prove that choices are not deterministic seems impossible. No one can provide evidence that something doesn't exist.

Needs more explanation.

 

[ecco]

What do you think about Libet's scientific experiments?

How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist

Because of issues such as these—and others that I don’t have space to mention—it seems strange that such a flawed experiment has become so influential, and has been (mis)used so frequently as evidence against the idea of free will.​

What do you think about Libet's scientific experiments? If its only a philosophical one, why would scientists get involved in it? Are they just being unscientific?

You might ask: why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”)?


​

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not the right book Poly

Worth reading though. Which I probably will have to do again since I've forgotten most of it.

 

[ecco]

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"?

See, when someone says something like "science has proven accumulated overwhelming evidence that there is an ozonosphere with Ozone.
Science has proven accumulated overwhelming evidence that vaccines can help curb some viruses.
FIFY

Anyway, just a few days ago there was a huge debate with some atheists claiming "science has proven free will doesnt exist". JFYI.

Source?

If some atheists claimed "science has proven free will doesn't exist" then someone should have pointed out to them that science is not in the business of proving.

 

[ecco]

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.

You are entitled to your opinion.

If we carry your logic forward we must ask: How can a bunch of atoms assemble themselves into a sun or a rock?

It just boggles the mind.

 

[ecco]

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

More realistically: In all situations events lead to the one and only singular future. The future is nothing more than a reflection of the past.

If a star explodes today, that will be reflected in the future.
If the star does not explode for a million years, that is reflected in the future.


If I go to the movies, that will be reflected in the future.
Regardless of my going to or not going to the movies, there is only one "future", the one that reflects the choice that I actually made. There is not a future that reflects the choice I did not make. There is no need for such a future.

 

[dybmh]

Actually all of the above is the product of a chain of events involving the history of the teacher, student,and prior knowledge being taught and a very limited range of possible alternatives in your synario. This cannot be used to demonstrate justify free will.

Your opinion is noted.

Needs more explanation.

No thanks, have a nice day.

 

[firedragon]

How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist
Because of issues such as these—and others that I don’t have space to mention—it seems strange that such a flawed experiment has become so influential, and has been (mis)used so frequently as evidence against the idea of free will.

Everyone knows the criticisms of the Libet assumptions. But if someone doesnt try, whats the point of going there? Thats how science works.

You might ask: why are so many intellectuals so intent on proving that they have no free will? (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead pointed out ironically, “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”)?


I couldn't have said it better myself.

So you mean to say that science has not proven free will doesnt exist. Or do you add that it will never be?

See, when someone says something like "science has proven accumulated overwhelming evidence that there is an ozonosphere with Ozone.
Science has proven accumulated overwhelming evidence that vaccines can help curb some viruses.
FIFY

Nah. Irrelevant, but great work.

Source?

Its in this forum. So you will not get links.

If some atheists claimed "science has proven free will doesn't exist" then someone should have pointed out to them that science is not in the business of proving.

Exactly. Was never done after repeatedly asking. So this thread was born. Very good.

 

[ecco]

If its only a philosophical one, why would scientists get involved in it?

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

It looks like you agree that "free will" is a philosophical consideration.