Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[bumab]

Let's see you have started this line of thinking by "Claiming" that "Free Will" were it to exist MUST be OUTSIDE of Nature and CAUSALITY. I would wish for you to Show me an example of a Causal Event that would be Broken.

 

You chose to eat a peanut butter sandwhich for lunch. Were you in that exact situation again, you could have chosen tuna fish. Causality is broken, because two identical inputs produced different results, and you were in control of it.

 

Hence, I would say free will is supernatural, i.e. not governed by natural laws- in fact, if you think about it, it's pretty awe inspiring (if we have it, eh guys? :) )

[bumab]

I see your point, if you make the distinction between "our will" and "our will" then what I call will isn't free to do as it wills!!! :) Maybe it's because I'm agnostic but I don't worry about that distinction. I feel OK even if it's only unpredictability that makes me different from a simple mechanism.

 

Fair enough. I guess I'm just uncomfortable with being a random machine, as it were :) But I understand your position... Although, are you comfortable with the idea that your actions are random, then, and not really under your control? And where does the sense of "you" (or "me") come from, if not from our decisions and how we shape our lives?

 

I don't consider science as being biased against it. Some scientists are, some are biased the opposite way.

 

I didn't mean the scientists, but rather science as a process.

 

I have a hard time keeping up too! Good stuff :)

[bumab]

Do dolphins pray? Most celibacy is linked to religious purity. Remember, everything alters the pathways. Many inputs do not drastically alter ones nature, but a culmination of these can. Religious indoctrination would be one way to. (I do not mean to start a bad religion thread, but I think it is an apt and powerful example). Sexual fetishes also illustrate this pretty well. These serve no intrinsic reproductive aim, but are usually rewarded by the brain in the same way.

 

I agree- a culmination of inputs can. But those inputs can be seen as evidence of free will. Religion, for example: What purpose does that serve? What purpose does conciousness serve?

 

Obviously, each of these (and many more) examples can be debated both ways. I merely bring them up as possible (although certainly not absolute) examples of what a mind capable of free will would create.

[maddog]

You chose to eat a peanut butter sandwhich for lunch. Were you in that exact situation again, you could have chosen tuna fish. Causality is broken, because two identical inputs produced different results, and you were in control of it.

 

Hence, I would say free will is supernatural, i.e. not governed by natural laws- in fact, if you think about it, it's pretty awe inspiring (if we have it, eh guys? :) )

I don't see how Causality was broken by eating the Tuna sandwich instead of the

peanut butter one. I could see how Causality could have been broken by eating the

tuna sandwhich he discovered he had really eaten the peanut butter one instead. Or

that the peanut butter sandwhich ate me. Or by eating the peanut butter sandwich

that tuna sandwich is missing. If I have two sandwiches to choose from one a

peanut butter and another of tuna. I like peanut butter better than tuna so I would

normally eat peanut butter. My eating the tuna sandwich does not break causality...?!?!

Causality would be broken like I said above. I eat the tuna sandwich and the

peanut butter sandwich disappears, yet the tuna sandwich is still there. That is

acasual. :) :)

 

maddog

[Qfwfq]

Although, are you comfortable with the idea that your actions are random, then, and not really under your control? And where does the sense of "you" (or "me") come from, if not from our decisions and how we shape our lives?.

I'm comfortable enough with being a random machine, as it were, but one with the type of capabilities we have developed. I'm content with the sense of "me" that I have, however it works. Whatever this "me" is, it is capable of deciding things even in Buridanic situations. Some people are content to toss a coin in such situations, instead of letting neural activity act as the coin. In many other situations, the weight of different pro's and cons may be enough to base a choice on, perhaps even overcoming whatever weaknesses we might have. In some cases we let our less logical drives guide us. So many things can influence us that we aren't always aware of, it's hard to even distinguish the "I" from the rest.

 

However it comes about, we call it "choice" and we like to consider it as "my" choice that "I" made. I consider it this way whether or not there is anything behind it that goes beyond physiology. Some of us worry about the distinction, some of us don't...

 

I didn't mean the scientists, but rather science as a process.

IMHO neither is the process, it's an issue that can be theological and/or metaphysical, not quite up to experimental determination.

[Qfwfq]

Or that the peanut butter sandwhich ate me.

Another one of my author's characters, Agilulfo the nonexistent knight, has an assistant named Gurdulù who suffers confusion of this type in his perception of things, even of what he is doing. Charlemagne found it amusing to assign Agilulfo this assistant and remark: "What a pair, Agilulfo, who knows he is but does not exist, and Gurdulù, who exists but doesn't know it"

[paultrr]

In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,National Academy of Sciences, 1998: 7). Science is based upon observational and experimental evidenceand not actually upon guess work. Scientific explanations of the natural world are tested against nature itself, and discarded if they do not work.

 

There are debates among scientists about the particulars of cosmic, planetary, and biological evolution(The Hows & Whys). The nature of science requires continual questioning of ideas, evidence and theories. Theoretical scientists consider what we know, and pose new ideas and models to explain the natural world. From these new tests are proposed and later utilized to test the boundries of what we do know. But in the end run it is nature itself that does the proving, not math, not human thought, but just simply nature which is what science is out to study in the first place. Recently,on another related subject a member of SETI made the comment that when it comes to the search for earth like planets the agnostic position was the safest. I think in line with being honest and objective the same applies to most every other area of scientific research. We scientists see nature as speaking volumes of information about itself and its origin. Its that informational data bank that we let do the talking,not some human made up concept of a big brother in the sky.

[lindagarrette]

I agree- a culmination of inputs can. But those inputs can be seen as evidence of free will. Religion, for example: What purpose does that serve? What purpose does conciousness serve?

 

Obviously, each of these (and many more) examples can be debated both ways. I merely bring them up as possible (although certainly not absolute) examples of what a mind capable of free will would create.

As pointed out many times in this and other threads, free will would generate an event that is unconstrained by the laws of science (nature). If that were possible, I could "will" myself to fly like a bird, or to have an IQ of 3000. Remember either it exists or it doesn't. There's no partial or in between.

[C1ay]

As pointed out many times in this and other threads, free will would generate an event that is unconstrained by the laws of science (nature). If that were possible, I could "will" myself to fly like a bird, or to have an IQ of 3000. Remember either it exists or it doesn't. There's no partial or in between.

Free will doesn't mean the ability to violate nature to me, it simply means that someone can make a decision or choice between actions that could be taken. I think you could choose to have chicken soup instead of tomato soup but you could not choose to fly like a bird. Why would it be a requirement of free will that we could violate physics?

[bumab]

Why would it be a requirement of free will that we could violate physics?

 

And again...

 

If, given identical conditions of the world, you could EITHER tomato or cheese soup, you have violated causality, upon which physics depends. That means if you could replay the exact PHYSICAL conditions of this afternoon- all your brain cells are the same, the weather is the same, you smell the same smells, etc etc (impossible in reality, but this is a thought experiment)- and MENTALLY you could "decide" to have a different soup, you've violated physics because the same input (pre-existing conditions) returned a different output (your choice of soup).

 

I think this is strong evidence for free will, Linda sees it as strong evidence against free will. Either way, it's a good, defining question :rant:

[C1ay]

I think this is strong evidence for free will, Linda sees it as strong evidence against free will. Either way, it's a good, defining question :rant:

I think it simply boils down to the question of whether or not we are simply electro-chemical reactions defined solely by chemistry or we have a concious thought process that extends our ability to control those reactions, i.e. we have a finite set of choices that are causal but the free will to choose amongst them.

[infamous]

As pointed out many times in this and other threads, free will would generate an event that is unconstrained by the laws of science (nature). If that were possible, I could "will" myself to fly like a bird, or to have an IQ of 3000. Remember either it exists or it doesn't. There's no partial or in between.

 

I must agree with Linda on this point; our mental processes are controlled by physical laws. For anyone to assume that they could come to a different conclusion under identical circumstances violates these laws. For one to assume that they can operate under the notion of free will is giving themselves to much credit. Our minds and the decisions we make are limited to the available input of information that we receive from our physical surroundings. Cause and affect, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. To produce an unsponsored thought would be like pulling oneself up by their own boot straps.

[paultrr]

I've never myself seen why some people have to associate free will with a violation of nature. I think the real problem is free will implies to them their nice perfectly predictable worlds are not as predictable as they think. Yet it is interesting how many of the scientists out there would tend to disagree with them in the first place. Let's see, here alone on this forum we've quoted Hawking, and several other major one's all tending to find us as more than just the sum of our parts. I believe the us includes our minds and its ability to decide something on its own.

[C1ay]

our mental processes are controlled by physical laws. For anyone to assume that they could come to a different conclusion under identical circumstances violates these laws.

Can you prove that point? Yes or no?

[lindagarrette]

Can you prove that point? Yes or no?

You question is not valid. Scientific theory does not imply proof, only well substantiated evidence. There is no evidence to indicate that we are not deterministic beings, ruled by the same laws of cause and effect as every other physical entity. If you phrased your question differently : Can you disprove that point, then the answer would be NO.

[lindagarrette]

Free will doesn't mean the ability to violate nature to me, it simply means that someone can make a decision or choice between actions that could be taken. I think you could choose to have chicken soup instead of tomato soup but you could not choose to fly like a bird. Why would it be a requirement of free will that we could violate physics?

Something would cause you to choose chicken soup instead of tomato soup. You just aren't aware of all the conditions in your mind at the time so you think you have just randomly selected. Nature and the laws of cause and effect do not allow random in space/time reality.

[infamous]

You question is not valid. Scientific theory does not imply proof, only well substantiated evidence. There is no evidence to indicate that we are not deterministic beings, ruled by the same laws of cause and effect as every other physical entity. If you phrased your question differently : Can you disprove that point, then the answer would be NO.

 

Thank you Linda; my thoughts exactly.