Is the Scientific Method invalidated without Free Will?

[C1ay]

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.

Can you disprove the possibility of free will?

[C1ay]

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.

Can you prove that to be absolute? As far as I'm concerned there are aspects to the human mind we will not even have the technology to understand for ages yet to come. IMO, any declaration that we must be absolutely deterministic or free will absolutely cannot exist without proof to support such claims, is merely a leap of faith.

[maddog]

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.

These seem more "flights of fantasy" than "free will". If I could do this, "I am willing

$1,000,000,000,000.00 to appear in front of me know in crisp $100 bills !!!" I'll let you know if they

appear... Free Will for me is more like, I am looking at a glass of water filled half-way. Do I see it as

"half-full" or "half-empty". Either way this is my interpretation (Optimistic or Pessimistic). Because I am

considering your proposition that thought can generate reality. I would concur with feeling of the

contributers of this thread. That would definitely be defined by MOST people as be "supernatural" as

the English language uses that coined word.

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

Like C1ay, I would like you to corroborate that claim. Also LindaGarratte's claim that the proof burden

lies with opposing point of view is unfounded. You make the claim, BACK it UP or acquiesce! :rant:

 

Second you are supposing that a "thought" is nothing more than chemicals mixing and electrical signals

firing. This is also a hypothesis with no undeniable proof. There is no current method to measure the

energy of a thought in any way I am aware of. I have heard where emotions have been detected by

plants, not thoughts.

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

You know we cannot disprove it and neither can you prove it. I would even be willing to hear the

evidence. The mind has not been brought under the knife so I don't know how you are going to

substantiate whether thinking is deterministic in any way... :rant:

 

maddog

[maddog]

As far as I'm concerned there are aspects to the human mind we will not even have the technology to understand for ages yet to come. IMO, any declaration that we must be absolutely deterministic or free will absolutely cannot exist without proof to support such claims, is merely a leap of faith.

YEP! Kinda' seems like religious dogma to me... ;-)

 

maddop

[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.

 

 

Despite these practical difficulties, scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century, there have been two developments that show that Laplace's vision, of a complete prediction of the future, can not be realized.—Steven Hawking

[paultrr]

YEP! Kinda' seems like religious dogma to me... ;-)

 

maddop

 

I think you have hit the gist of the problem. While the rest of the scientific world rather abondoned pure determinism during the 20th century some people have held on to something out of what does boil down to a belief in something called total determinism. They perfer the ordered, perfectly robotic world to a world where while patterns can be detected there are still things that defy one's ability to totally pin down. What they are left with is a faith system of their own with no absolute ability to to actual show scientific evidence for such on all levels. Sounds a lot like dogma to me too. That in itself is more I think the origin of the idea that free will most somehow run counter to nature. I believe that only the religious themselves ascribe miricles and free will together.

 

Simple put,we live in nature and are a part of nature. Either the laws of nature such as they are apply equally or they do not. Nature includes both what we know to be random and what we know to follow a general pattern. But no where have I ever seen evidence that randomness can generate mircles either. The speculation that somehow free will would allow one to violate some law of nature is itself as unfounded in the scientific evidence as proofs against evolution often raised by the believers.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

With respect to the Scientific Method, very beautifully put, Paultrr. There is an element of logic that lends itself directly to that which is beautiful. This is so fun.

 

You should be right, except for one thing: we cannot measure the expansion of the universe and the simultaneous expansion of all particles within it because whatever we would use to measure that expansion is itself expanding, rendering us blind to this one ubiquitous phenomenon.

 

Well, not exactly blind. We can feel the effect that we call gravity. We can infer it. We can measure the speed at which an object ‘drops’ and by applying that speed to half the diameter of the earth we can infer the result and arrive at a working rate of expansion.

 

It’s all in McCutcheon’s book.

 

With respect to Free Will, very nice arguments on both sides.

 

Is it possible to believe in 'free will' and 'determinism' simultaneously? If not, why are they mutually exclusive terms?

 

I think it would help, for those who disagree about the existence of free will, to try and work back to some point where there is common ground. Then move forward, slowly, and see where the divergence occurs. As soon as a divergence happens, stop. Don't go any further. Resolve the difference or simply agree to disagree.

 

It would help, assuming it is possible.

 

That is something that we are not used to doing but if the point is to understand, then I see no other way. If you choose to do this, then the determinists will say that you were forced to where as the free willers will say they weren't. Perhaps an argument for free will would be made if both parties went against their own beliefs and took the other point of view. Of course, the determinists could argue that my statement plus other factors, forced that to happen.

 

Coming at this from the long view, we're in an area doing something that has never really been done before. We are able to quickly freeze our thought processes and provide an audit trail and get feedback almost immediately. Let's use this to get somewhere.

 

Winning isn't everything guys, only the truth is. And we should keep in mind that both parties in a disagreement can be wrong.

[Qfwfq]

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.

:eek: Well, I must say, I sure don't have free will!!!

 

I'm not sure many other people around me do, either.

[bumab]

Simple put,we live in nature and are a part of nature. Either the laws of nature such as they are apply equally or they do not. Nature includes both what we know to be random and what we know to follow a general pattern. But no where have I ever seen evidence that randomness can generate mircles either. The speculation that somehow free will would allow one to violate some law of nature is itself as unfounded in the scientific evidence as proofs against evolution often raised by the believers.

 

Bolding mine.

 

So why would you suppose that, without supernatural help, you could operate independent of those laws of nature and control your own thoughts, independent of nature. Either you believe in the supernatural (usually God giving humans this ability), or you have a really inflated sense of your own mind's abilities!

[Queso]

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.

 

this probably makes the most sense out of anything in this thread. i'm amazed again. ;) ;) ;) :xx: :xx:

[Biochemist]

..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.

This is a non-sequitur. Certainly free will has boundaries. I don't understand why you would CHOOSE to define the only possible framework for free will as one that is readily disprovable. Granting humans freedom to make independent decisions does not obligate one to grant them freedom from all constraints of the physical universe.

 

But this is a convenient straw-man argument to invoke to overturn the common experience of daily free-will decisionmaking.

[Fishteacher73]

Yet to imply that the bio/chemical/electrical framework of our brain can go against established laws of nature is as paramount as saying that the apple will fall up from the tree.

[Biochemist]

Yet to imply that the bio/chemical/electrical framework of our brain can go against established laws of nature is as paramount as saying that the apple will fall up from the tree.

This is really interesting. So you are saying that for free will to exist, it has to violate ALL laws of physics, not just causality for choice?

[bumab]

;) Well, I must say, I sure don't have free will!!!

I'm not sure many other people around me do, either.

 

Now, this is where you can realize that free will is evidence of some supernatural entity, or ability. I don't think you should discount free will at all, I think there is great evidence it exists. It takes a lot of denial of the whole of human experience to accept the fact that free will does not exist, and I think that denial is a tragic mistake. I do think that a naturalist explanation of free will is impossible, a deist explanation is very simple.

 

The common argument from theologians is "free will is a supernatural ability. we have this ability, so something must have given us this ability, if we came to exist by natural means." Hence, some sort of divine intervention.

 

Obviously free will is limited, for some reason. I think Linda's point is a great one- why can't we alter the laws of nature on the large scale, if we can on the small scale? This provides a little more tangental evidence of a God, because a limitation of power for our own beneift is pretty easy to understand. Due to our natures, I don't think it's a good idea to give us unlimited creative control over the environment, at least at this point. But that's for another thread, and I'm getting ahead of myself. I just wanted to give credit to Linda's great question.

[C1ay]

Yet to imply that the bio/chemical/electrical framework of our brain can go against established laws of nature is as paramount as saying that the apple will fall up from the tree.

Not really. Maybe it's as simple as being able to control which electrical circuit out of 2 or 3 fires with each circuit complying with the laws of nature. The same way a processor turns on one transistor or the other based on analyzing input.