Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[bumab]

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

 

Bolding mine.

 

Exactly my point. I obviously also think free will exists, otherwise I doubt I'd be argueing about things :) However, I think it's important to realize that free will is something outside of nature, because by definition it defies causality. That's why I've been pushing ya- I want to see if you can come up with a way free will DOES NOT defy casuality. :)

 

Has nothing to do with sentient or intellegence, those are just lines in the sand. Many people think dolphins are sentient, or at least somewhat intellegent. Do they have free will? It could go on down the line. Or is that what makes humans special, is free will what Genisis was talking about: "made in God's image" ?

[TINNY]

Just want yo add. I recently read an argument against freewill from neurosurgery. the scientist observed that neural firings occured before a person 'consciously' decided to choose an action (in this case, it was to lift his hand).

Now, if I can find the info on the net... hmmm...

[Qfwfq]

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?

Sorry, as usual I wasn't online over the weekend. The pov I aired isn't mine and I disagree with it, I was saying decoherence is currently more accepted. Anyway, in early days of QM the idea of the conscious observer being the prime cause had indeed taken quite a hold, the famous Gedankenexperiment of Schrödinger's cat was based on this. An alternative was the splitting universe idea. These were justly considered quite far fetched by many. People eventually realized that the parts of a macroscopic object could hardly remain in coherent states, enough for the cat to be in a superposition of dead and alive.

 

It remains that one could never hope to simultaneously know momentum and position of a billiard ball's centre of mass better than Heisenberg's disequality, to suppose we could would lead to paradox.

 

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.

This is a good point and I agree in a sense, but it remains that QM and chaotic attractors defeat the total determinism that led philosophers to argue against free will. It remains that one can't really see a decision I make today as being determined by the state of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, which is clearly far fetched.

 

My choices are, however, quite consequential to the neural activity in my brain, electrochemical processes that are going on in the lapse of time shortly previous to the choice, and these also depend on a number of things including not only my genes but even what has been happening to me lately. I don't believe QM gives all that much overall indetermination in one firing of a single neuron, else we wouldn't even behave let alone think in a reasonable fashion useful for survival, but the brain is a complex system which allows for some degree of stochasticity, there is quite a bit of unpredictability even if you know a good deal of the boundary conditions.

 

Buridan's *** might go for the left haystack because it had long been employed to turn a mill in a counter clockwise sense and is still just slightly more ready to veer left than right. The *** itself, or even the guy that had employed it, might not think of the connection and conclude it was the asses whim to go that way. Repeating the experiment, one might think the *** has a personal preference, something we consider quite part of having free will, just like some people prefer a flavour to others.

 

Even an *** that was in no way preconditioned, surely wouldn't die of hunger for having no logical reason to prefer one haystack to the other. Neural activity would decide for one way or the other.

 

All this is quite unpredictable and has always been called "free will" or "free choice" and, imho, we can call it that way if we choose (by free will, of course!!!! :) ) or we can choose to call it something else.

 

Bolding mine.However, I think it's important to realize that free will is something outside of nature, because by definition it defies causality. That's why I've been pushing ya- I want to see if you can come up with a way free will DOES NOT defy casuality.

If you call all above "free will" then there you are. Are we able to distinguish whether free will is something less "natural", as you put it?

 

IMHO dolphins have as much free will as we do, and many other animals do too.

[Qfwfq]

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.

I understand your point but I'd like to point out the difference between SM being superfluous and it being invalidated.

 

Your argument aims at showing that stark determinism would make SM have no practical value, but I might also add that if we are predetermined to use technology, based on scientific laws, to do things that include sending probes to Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, have we been predetermined to "just do" these things? Or were we predetermined to figure out the science and, consequently, figure out how to do these things?

 

So far, I've never heard of someone having done such things without someone having figured out how. Even the strictest determinism doesn't quite claim this and, without it, even the practical value of SM isn't fully denied.

[Qfwfq]

the scientist observed that neural firings occured before a person 'consciously' decided to choose an action (in this case, it was to lift his hand).

How does that scientist determine when the subject 'consciously' decided to choose the action?

[Fishteacher73]

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.

 

What I am saying is the human thought is no more than a sieres of physical and chemical interactions. Just as molecules do not think, their combined actions really do not "think". They can cause observation and instigate causal cascades in the brain to have a reactioon, but they do not "think" and niether to we.

 

 

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

 

 

I was comparing the "mind's" evolution to that of an elephant's trunk. Just a hyper-evolved organ that helps the organism function with a higher degree of sucess. Textbook evolutionary process.

[Fishteacher73]

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.

 

Biological and chemical processes take time. Ever sit and watch something reflux for an hour in Organic lab?

 

I still simply ask, show me an example that demonstrates free-will. I have yet see an example. Any decision in the end is a simple either or result. You cannot simultaneously come to two different "decisions". One can go through the process again., but new factors have been added to the process so each outcome is therefore going to be unique to the causal circumstances (Not to say that it cannot coincide with previous outcomes).

[Qfwfq]

What I am saying is the human thought is no more than a sieres of physical and chemical interactions. Just as molecules do not think, their combined actions really do not "think". They can cause observation and instigate causal cascades in the brain to have a reactioon, but they do not "think" and niether to we.

That's a slightly extreme step. Sounds a bit like:

 

A piston or some other mechanical part cannot supply propulsion, their combined actions can't really "supply propulsion". They can function in causal cascades in the engine but they don't "supply propulsion" and neither does a car's engine. :)

[Fishteacher73]

 

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

 

You misread my first quote. The mind is a function of the brain. The brain is a chemical/electrical "machine". Part of the result is the human mind. This allows the human to take in information and use it to their advantage (usually). So I will rephrase, the mind is an extension of the brain; at what point do chemical reactions and electrical impulses get to do what they want and not waht the basic laws of nature demand?

 

 

Again, I think you mistook my second quote. The "decision" making trees are not genetic, but the individual's ability to construct them accurately is. This can be fine tuned through experience. This advanced ability is what make humans much more adaptable and successful so far.

[Fishteacher73]

I thought that I had brought this up, but sometimes I respond and somehow forget to submit the post.... :)

 

I think an excelent example of the absence of free-will is psychological profiling. This is a fantastic example of causality and similar outcomes. Granted it is not an exacting science as of yet, but it can be quite accurate as well. There are definately other factors that can help sway someone from talking to their neighbors dog, boiling young boy prostitutes, or being a normal person. There are still holes in this practice, and I think it will never fully be developed, but again I think it is a good illustration of the deterministic nature of the universe and specifically humans.

[bumab]

Sorry, as usual I wasn't online over the weekend.

 

No worries, I'm never around much either!

 

My choices are, however, quite consequential to the neural activity in my brain, electrochemical processes that are going on in the lapse of time shortly previous to the choice, and these also depend on a number of things including not only my genes but even what has been happening to me lately. I don't believe QM gives all that much overall indetermination in one firing of a single neuron, else we wouldn't even behave let alone think in a reasonable fashion useful for survival, but the brain is a complex system which allows for some degree of stochasticity, there is quite a bit of unpredictability even if you know a good deal of the boundary conditions.

Buridan's *** might go for the left haystack because it had long been employed to turn a mill in a counter clockwise sense and is still just slightly more ready to veer left than right. The *** itself, or even the guy that had employed it, might not think of the connection and conclude it was the asses whim to go that way. Repeating the experiment, one might think the *** has a personal preference, something we consider quite part of having free will, just like some people prefer a flavour to others.

 

Even an *** that was in no way preconditioned, surely wouldn't die of hunger for having no logical reason to prefer one haystack to the other. Neural activity would decide for one way or the other.

 

All this is quite unpredictable and has always been called "free will" or "free choice" and, imho, we can call it that way if we choose (by free will, of course!!!! :) ) or we can choose to call it something else.

 

If you call all above "free will" then there you are.

 

Thanks! I personally would not call that free will, since it is still outside our control (if our sense of self is not an illusion), but if that's your definition, I think it holds water. But, I would still argue with it- unpredictability is not "free." I think you've got a good arguement for a will, however, that will is still not free to do as it wills. So we're still in the dilemma, it's just gotten a little less predictable.

 

Steering it back to the topic- now our will is even LESS predictable, without freedom. That makes the scientific method ever more in danger!

 

Are we able to distinguish whether free will is something less "natural", as you put it?

 

I was wondering that, and I raised the question in another thread... Assuming free will DOES exist, is it even possible science could "find" it, since science only looks for cause and effect? I would say science is, in a way, biased against it, since we look for a cause and effect pattern in everything. When it comes to free will, the option of reality is never present, since we define reality as a causal relationship to other things (partially).

 

Of course, if you don't think it exists to begin with, that's all a moot point. However, it requires dismissing a lot of human experience.

[bumab]

Biological and chemical processes take time. Ever sit and watch something reflux for an hour in Organic lab?

 

Oh gosh yes... :) . Those experiments prove time can slow down.

 

I still simply ask, show me an example that demonstrates free-will. I have yet see an example. Any decision in the end is a simple either or result. You cannot simultaneously come to two different "decisions". One can go through the process again., but new factors have been added to the process so each outcome is therefore going to be unique to the causal circumstances (Not to say that it cannot coincide with previous outcomes).

 

While I agree with your description of an appropriate SCIENTIFIC test for free will, you must admit that an experiment like that is impossible, and quite literally CANNOT be done. Science is set up to find causal relationships, as such, it's not set up to ask questions like this.

 

So unless you claim nothing that is not scientifically provable exists, we're in a quandary! :)

[bumab]

I think an excelent example of the absence of free-will is psychological profiling. This is a fantastic example of causality and similar outcomes. Granted it is not an exacting science as of yet, but it can be quite accurate as well. There are definately other factors that can help sway someone from talking to their neighbors dog, boiling young boy prostitutes, or being a normal person.

 

That is a good example- hadn't thought of that.

 

Here's some for free will, however:

 

Suicide

Celibacy

Religion

Self-mutilation

 

Those are things not found in the animal kingdom (to my knowledge), and all are very anti-evolution, thus, one wouldn't expect to find them in humans.

-Note: I AM NOT argueing against evolution at all. It happens, and happened. But that's the evidence I can think of at the moment. Let's not get into evolution!

[Fishteacher73]

Humans do a very good job at developing and altering the causal mental cascade through experience. (See my post in "Where does intelligence come from?").

 

This does not mean that poor outcomes are impossible. Religion, celibacy, and suicide I think are good examples of causal pathways that man has fashioned. There are detrimental results and personally conforting results that can find causation. This in the end allows humans to form illogical deductions (IMO per religion). Celibacy and suicide I think most anyone could atribute to religious themes. (I know many religions denounce suicide, but many do not and all religions have a "better place" to go to when you die).

 

Self-mutilation I think actually describes a causal situation and not a free-will decision. Who would want to slice themselves up? Those that do have usually one of two physhological urges. Predominantly this is a masochistic outlet, a neurological and psychological link to a positive brain response (ie endorphins, etc.). The other cause usually is a psychological disorder stemming from self-loathing caused by some sort of traumatic event. This is not a controllable urge.

[Queso]

the urge may not be controlable but the actual lift of the knife and running it across your flesh is controlable.

[bumab]

This does not mean that poor outcomes are impossible. Religion, celibacy, and suicide I think are good examples of causal pathways that man has fashioned. There are detrimental results and personally conforting results that can find causation. This in the end allows humans to form illogical deductions (IMO per religion). Celibacy and suicide I think most anyone could atribute to religious themes. (I know many religions denounce suicide, but many do not and all religions have a "better place" to go to when you die).

 

There was a thread on religion and suicide, it seems that there is no significant connection. Suicide and celibacy take you out of the gene pool, intentionally. Your use of the term "comforting" implies we CHOOSE it because it's comforting.

 

Self-mutilation I think actually describes a causal situation and not a free-will decision. Who would want to slice themselves up? Those that do have usually one of two physhological urges. Predominantly this is a masochistic outlet, a neurological and psychological link to a positive brain response (ie endorphins, etc.). The other cause usually is a psychological disorder stemming from self-loathing caused by some sort of traumatic event. This is not a controllable urge.

 

Good rebuttal to that example.

[Fishteacher73]

Maybe for some, but not most. I have a friend that will often not even realize he is cutting on his arm... This can also be an oultet of OCD. (Mutilation, not suicide).