Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[Biochemist]

...Are the determinists predestined to argue in favor of their position on determinism in order to lose the argument by winning the argument?

 

This is beginning to look like the makings of a good logic problem. :xx:

Good point.

[infamous]

While reading through the thread here I have come to an interesting observation. It seems that the determinists have come here to argue in favor or determinism because that is what they believe they were predestined to do. What's interesting is that they have come to argue this point with the believers of free will as if those very belivers had a choice to be convinced to change their minds in favor of determinism which is an act that would itself bolster the case for free will because in involves a decision to chose determinism over free will. This begs the question, "Are the determinists predestined to argue in favor of their position on determinism in order to lose the argument by winning the argument?

 

This is beginning to look like the makings of a good logic problem. :xx:

 

Why would a change of mind not be considered deterministic?? The weather changes daily and there is always a cause. And by the way, we of the deterministic persuasion just can't help ourselves, it's called predestination. Hail, hail; John Calvin!!

[Queso]

The weather changes daily and there is always a cause.

i don't believe your analogy quite fits this situation accurately.

the weather and the mind i guess COULD be similar in this case, but when you get in detail (i can't right now my mind is extremely hazy) this statement is just not true.

[infamous]

i don't believe your analogy quite fits this situation accurately.

the weather and the mind i guess COULD be similar in this case, but when you get in detail (i can't right now my mind is extremely hazy) this statement is just not true.

 

Show me the evidence for a difference between the common state and the so called detail. The mind functions the same way everything else does, changes in state are prompted by various stimuli. Simple, you only think your choice is arrived at by some unknown force within you when it is only the passage of chemical electric current across the synapse, neuron to neuron.......God has made the choice, not you.

[Queso]

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

[C1ay]

Why would a change of mind not be considered deterministic??

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

[maddog]

"Are the determinists predestined to argue in favor of their position on determinism in order to lose the argument by winning the argument?"

 

This is beginning to look like the makings of a good logic problem. :)

Hazaahh to you! That is the best synopsis of this thread I have seen heretofore.

In this I now 0realize the determistic arguement to have "Free Willers" be swayed

to "Determinism" would require any of them to weigh evidence and "change their

minds". This in of itself constitutes "Free Will" as I see it.

Hmmmm.... :xx: :xx: :)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Why would a change of mind not be considered deterministic?? The weather changes daily and there is always a cause. And by the way, we of the deterministic persuasion just can't help ourselves, it's called predestination. Hail, hail; John Calvin!!

Like Orbsycli, I see a distinction. You can measure the weather (Tempurature, Pressure,

Wind Speed, Rainfall, etc... ). How do you measure a mind being changed. For that

matter where do you find anyones mind. Brain I will grant you. We can weigh that.

How heavy is a mind ? And why if thoughts are thought to be significant that they are

"heavy" ?

So you don't think either. Your life has been layed out for before your birth. So who

is the mind that keeps track of all that and why does this start to sound like theistic

trappings of some deity keeping track of my life for since we don't think, we just

respond... :xx: :xx:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Show me the evidence for a difference between the common state and the so called detail. The mind functions the same way everything else does, changes in state are prompted by various stimuli. Simple, you only think your choice is arrived at by some unknown force within you when it is only the passage of chemical electric current across the synapse, neuron to neuron.......God has made the choice, not you.

I think you presupposing the mind and brain are the same. How does the mind

function the same way. The same way as what ? I do not to show the evidence of

a difference unless you can present a mind to measure! :xx:

 

Maddog

[maddog]

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

More than that, how could you measure any difference (this is same as proof).

How much does a decision weigh ? Silly... :xx:

 

Maddog

[Qfwfq]

A few replies:

 

This puts you firmly in one of the two camps noted in point 9). I don't agree with your conclusion here, because I think any conclusion is a decision. But it's just my opinion

Would Buridan's *** really die of hunger?

If not, would it make a decision or would it draw a conclusion?

 

My understanding of the mathematics is that this is not true. I could well be incorrect. My reading of Hawking suggested that even though Heisenberg uncertainty made particle movement/location unpredictable (and apparently random), serial Schrodinger waveforms (that describe the boundary of Heisenberg uncertainty) appear to behave deterministically. You know more QM than I do, but my understanding was that determinism was preserved above the Schrodinger waveform, so the macro world is shielded from the particle-level Heisenberg uncertainty. I do understand the butterfly effect, but in this context, it was not applicable. Am I incorrect on this?

Essentially, yes. If you want to discuss it more in detail and learn QM better, perhaps it would belong in another thread. In this thread I will just assure you that QM goes against determinism and does so macroscopically. Think of the famous example of Schrödinger's cat.

 

That's actually what I meant by A. If EVERY condition was known, it would be a valid conclusion. Sure, it's mind boggling huge, but the outcome is still valid.

I was quite confident you meant that, I guess I was nitpicking on the notation. Still, remember Heisenberg!

 

This is a trick question.

 

I assume that I can only invalidate the Scientific Method by using the Scientific Method.

 

So the issue of free will is not relevant. The answer is NO.

What question?If the scientific methold was intrinsically invalid, you certainly could not use it to invalidate itself. This is a longstanding conundrum. You can certainly argue that you don't agree with the postiion that the SM is invalidated, but it is a stretch to suggest the free will issue is irrelevant.

You say it is a stretch, I say it isn't. Could Euclid's geometry be used to invalidate Euclid's geometry? Could Logic be used to invalidate Logic? If a formal system based on logic is inconsistent, it's inconsistent, if it isn't inconsistent, it isn't inconsistent. If that's what you mean by intrinsically invalid.

 

Perhaps it would help me if you could explain this. If your will is free AND lies inside of nature, could you tell me the mechanism by which it works? Does it influence QM randomness? What do you think?

The idea that the conscious observer has a role in the collapsing wave function was an early idea, it isn't necessary and doesn't make much sense. Decoherence is the most accepted way of solving the problems.

 

This begs the question, "Are the determinists predestined to argue in favor of their position on determinism in order to lose the argument by winning the argument?

Very clever argument. Should we all convert to Hindu fatalism?

 

Again, and in all cases, remember Heisenberg!

[C1ay]

Should we all convert to Hindu fatalism?

Would that require a choice by free will or is it already predestined to be :xx:

[Fishteacher73]

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; :xx: 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.

[Qfwfq]

Would that require a choice by free will or is it already predestined to be :xx:

Ask a Hindu fatalist if he chose to be fatalist or if he was predestined to be!!! :xx:

[bumab]

The idea that the conscious observer has a role in the collapsing wave function was an early idea, it isn't necessary and doesn't make much sense. Decoherence is the most accepted way of solving the problems.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to explain? How do you define conciousness? Are you saying that conciousness itself lies outside of causality, because it can be a "first cause" in collapsing the wave function?

 

Again, and in all cases, remember Heisenberg!

 

Dont worry :xx:

 

But even if one allows for random behavior on a macroscopic scale (truely random, not just unpredictable), that still doesn't come close to a mechanism whereby the human brain can somehow bend such randomness (which would cease to be random) to it's will. If it's truely random, it's just as far outside of free will as if it were deterministic.

[lindagarrette]

Would that require a choice by free will or is it already predestined to be :)

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.

[C1ay]

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.

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