Has science proven there is no "free will"?

[firedragon]

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

Worth reading. But its not about Free Will. Read Just deserts, and brainstorms. Old work but more relevant to the thread. Same guy, with all due respect.

 

[firedragon]

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

Also a scientific consideration.

 

[ecco]

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

That's also how woo works.

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

Science doesn't prove (have you forgotten that already?). Therefore, if for no other reason, science hasn't proven and I will add, science will never prove.

Nah. Irrelevant, but great work.

Actually very relevant. See above.

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

It's a big forum. I'll not bother to look up anything you are incapable of providing to support your own argument.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

The way I see it myself is that there is free will, but it has contrainsts to it.

 

[firedragon]

That's also how woo works.



Science doesn't prove (have you forgotten that already?). Therefore, if for no other reason, science hasn't proven and I will add, science will never prove.


Actually very relevant. See above.


It's a big forum. I'll not bother to look up anything you are incapable of providing to support your own argument.

Great.

 

[mangalavara]

Interesting question. Does world literature engage in trying to prove things like that like science does? Please explain.

Not at all. However, literary works can reveal to us what writers of various times and cultures thought about thunder or what things they associated it with. Similarly, social science can help us learn what different demographics today think about thunder. When it comes to natural science, the purpose is to explain natural, objective phenomena. Considering that thunder is natural and objective, natural science can work on explaining it, which the discipline has successfully done. Consciousness, on the other hand, may or may not be natural and it is of a subjective nature. Consequently, natural science, I think, can only say so much about it. Philosophy, which concerns itself with perception and being, among other things, is the best lens for looking at consciousness.

 

[blü 2]

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

Yet, its your prerogative.

What I said is at #35. It mentions two possible meaning of "free" in this context. Since you have nothing to add, I have nothing to add.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

But that means only one choice was actually possible (since now is the future of the past), which means it wasn't free.

 

[Polymath257]

Worth reading. But its not about Free Will. Read Just deserts, and brainstorms. Old work but more relevant to the thread. Same guy, with all due respect.

Not to mention 'Freedom Evolves', which is very relevant to this discussion.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans chose sex freely to continue life human.

Babies owned no choice factually. Born to adults who order them by being a parent.

Then you have groups of humans coercing. By tactics of ancient causes bullying. Just humans also.

My will is to not be bullied.

Science however even studied mind contact and coercion to program even worse bullying than before.

Does not make your thinking correct about a human using tactics against being human. Yet you do. Science is supposed to be correct. How correct is a bunch of bullies?

 

[firedragon]

Not to mention 'Freedom Evolves', which is very relevant to this discussion.

From Bennet?

 

[firedragon]

What I said is at #35. It mentions two possible meaning of "free" in this context. Since you have nothing to add, I have nothing to add.

Great. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Not at all. However, literary works can reveal to us what writers of various times and cultures thought about thunder or what things they associated it with. Similarly, social science can help us learn what different demographics today think about thunder. When it comes to natural science, the purpose is to explain natural, objective phenomena. Considering that thunder is natural and objective, natural science can work on explaining it, which the discipline has successfully done. Consciousness, on the other hand, may or may not be natural and it is of a subjective nature. Consequently, natural science, I think, can only say so much about it. Philosophy, which concerns itself with perception and being, among other things, is the best lens for looking at consciousness.

I agree with you.

But scientists are interested and they are doing a lot of research. Also, this thread was inspired by someone who claimed that science proved free will doesnt exist. I hope you understand.

By the way, there is a huge area of scientific research on the subject of consciousness and free-will. At the moment, only philosophy seems to have things to study on the subject, but that does not mean science is alien to it.

 

[Polymath257]

From Bennet?

Dennett. Yes. 2003

 

[firedragon]

Dennett. Yes. 2003

Does he discuss his free will ideas in it as well?

Hmm. How much?

 

[Polymath257]

Does he discuss his free will ideas in it as well?

Hmm. How much?

I'd say the book is primarily about the concept of free will and how it can make sense in a deterministic setting.

 

[firedragon]

I'd say the book is primarily about the concept of free will and how it can make sense in a deterministic setting.

Great. Thanks.

Thats typical of him.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd say the book is primarily about the concept of free will and how it can make sense in a deterministic setting.

I agree, but there are certain points I disagree with him. One his vague description of what he calls 'wiggle room'for free will. I think this book discusses this, but it has been a while. It can be concluded from his books that there is in reality 'no free will.' Other advocates of the Compatibilist position do not agree with Dennett on this.

I advocate the existence of what I call 'potential free will.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Free will, biblically to act independently of God.

Free will, to make an choice without external coercion.

Free will the ability to have made a choice other than the choice we made.

For the first two, I'd say yes we have free will.

For the 3rd, this seems a philosophical conundrum. Could you have made a decision other than the one you made?

I think Libet's experiments shows that many of our choices a subconsciously driven. It doesn't prove all of them are.
Most of the decisions we make never reach the conscious level of choice. So Libet's results are no surprise.

However some decisions reach the conscious level which we mull over. Weigh the pros and cons. Mentally examine possible outcomes and choose whichever one bring us to our desired goal.

To me, prior to making this conscious decision, the outcome is not determined. The conscious decision process is not an instantaneous on. It may take hours, days, weeks before we decide. What happens during this process is non-deterministic. Until we have gone through all of the reasoning, evaluated all of the possible outcomes. Exercised our imagination to the fullest, the choice has not been determined.

 

[Liesl Hallman]

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?

.
yes children exists ! Lol