ITT: We Discuss Whether free Will exists

[Granger]

Dear LadyC,

you are misled and - as a consequence - trying to mislead others.

Science can not prove free will any more than religion can prove it not.

Science can (and, if possible, will) prove if something is or isn't, religion can only believe (or dictate what to believe) in something.

And there you go. You believe or you do not.

Fallacy: You project from yourself onto others.

In the end however the sumation will be I do not truly know.

Yes, with your mindset your summation will be: You do no truly know.

With science one starts with a belief (hypothesis) and then comes the hard part of checking all the facts and in case reality is different to discard the idea and start again.
With religion one just believes in something (without even checking facts) and in case science (or reality) comes and proves it wrong one just adds another layer of unproven falsehood around the disproved one in a futile attempt to shield it from the harsh reality.

Bottom line: the difference is in the ability to adapt to reality, which seems to be lacking in case you're infected with religion.

[LadyV]

@Granger

Granger you are most welcome to your views. However you certainly can not claim the moral high ground since your goal is to tear apart religion, nothing more. I am far from narrow minded. As for my assertions except one faith example and me saying I am a person of faith every one of them were based on scientific reports and observations.

If you seriously wish to discuss this topic then do so. Having an axe to grind against someone who believes differently is your issue. I do no wish anyone ill.

Good day

[AnnaC]

Science can (and, if possible, will) prove if something is or isn't, religion can only believe (or dictate what to believe) in something.

I'm not against "science", but most pro-science people always fall into this trap. Scientific method is an empirical epistemology, and there are enough demonstrable concepts that could never have occured from empirical reasoning (from an epistemological standpoint). Not to mention that empiricism will never be able to answer some questions because some questions exist outside of the observable universe.

Bottom line: the difference is in the ability to adapt to reality, which seems to be lacking in case you're infected with religion.

Empirical experience from my lifetime from pre-internet childhood (80s and into the 90s with the rise of the neo-christianity boom) to modern mass media Internet; that "real-life" made me dislike religious people, but the more recent years with the internet made me downright hate "atheists".

Unbelievable that this passes for an intellectual conversation nowadays.

I saw you get geeked! Drake's gonna get you Armitage, no matter where you go!

[jcm2214]

We're starting to get off topic from the original topic of "We Discuss Whether free Will exists"

[AnnaC]

We're starting to get off topic from the original topic of "We Discuss Whether free Will exists"

Not really because free will requires defining causality and human epistemology.

[overtyped]

Unlike animals whoms reaction is linked to thier genes like a programm to its script there is always a free will for us humans and we can always decide what kind of person we are due to our reflexive consciousness. though it seems easier to do "wrong things" (other subject) and outer influences / genes might make u some decisions harder u ALWAYS have a decision do do the right thing for example.
would be kind of silly if wed be condemned for killing someone if its in our genes to kill and there would be no way to stop us.

Where is your proof that free will exists? All the evidence points towards the contrary.
At any one moment in time our brains have developed in one particular way and that way controls the statistical likelihood of certain behaviors occurring under certain circumstances. For example serial killers were almost destined to see human lives as expendable, they don't develop certain bonds or attachments that a normal person would. This is rather an extreme case, but I think it clarifies my point that your brain is who you are, you don't really have a choice.
This in no way says we should let people who commit crime and killers go free. If you do think we have free will then you may say " then isn't it cruel to lock people up for stealing if they weren't in control?
Yeah well that's a necessary evil for society to function.

[Ravenclaw]

Where is your proof that free will exists?

Maybe we are talking of different things. For me free will is the ability to choose what we want to do / what we want to be / what we want to beliefe. The privilege and responsibility of making personal moral decisions. Its more about making the decision then executing it. I can only say from my peronal experience that everyone (except some mentaly ill people) can change into an completely different person than his tendency of personality if he chooses too (often only with help from outside though).
There is maybe no proof for this but is there proof against it? Please let me know.

For example serial killers were almost destined to see human lives as expendable, they don't develop certain bonds or attachments that a normal person would.

True, but u are talking of people with serious mental diseases which are really heritable. What I meant where humans who know whats wrong and right.

At any one moment in time our brains have developed in one particular way and that way controls the statistical likelihood of certain behaviors occurring under certain circumstances. [...] This is rather an extreme case, but I think it clarifies my point that your brain is who you are, you don't really have a choice.

That sounds like an very lazy excuse. We can change our future only limited but we can still choose the right decisions and try over and over again.

This in no way says we should let people who commit crime and killers go free. If you do think we have free will then you may say " then isn't it cruel to lock people up for stealing if they weren't in control?
Yeah well that's a necessary evil for society to function.

True. Well this world is very cruel to be honest O.o

I myself am not really convinced of the theories that science claims to be truth nor am I of the conflicting nonsense that the common religions preach. For me the most stupid person is who just beliefes without thinking. If u dont stop searching u will always find the truth.

very cruel

[/size]

[Ninijutsu]

For example serial killers were almost destined to see human lives as expendable, they don't develop certain bonds or attachments that a normal person would.

True, but u are talking of people with serious mental diseases which are really heritable. What I meant where humans who know whats wrong and right.

It's an extreme example, but it applies to everyone in a way. You were destined to pick the career that you do, you were destined to pick an apple over a banana yesterday morning even if you like them equally, etc.

[borka]

if you interprete it narrowly:

If there would be a "free Will" you'd just experiment and decide to drop dead ...

The result will give you the answer: there is no "free Will"

ok with a lot of training you might be able to stop breathing or stop your heart beating - self-immolating people or "torture resitant trained" agents prolly are also examples for "strong Will" but not for "free Will"

For me free will is the ability to choose what we want to do / what we want to be / what we want to believe.

"free Will" is a different term than "Freedom of choice"

"free Will" is just an idealistic idea ... nothing real - sad but true

[MissSiri]

Science can (and, if possible, will) prove if something is or isn't, religion can only believe (or dictate what to believe) in something.

This depends on what you mean by 'prove'. Science cannot technically prove anything, and accepts provisionality as one of its guiding principles.
What I call 'true' free will would necessitate some sort of independent homunculus whose volition determines the courses of action that I take.
The existence of such a homunculus is untestable, and therefore nothing that the natural sciences would concern themselves with.

You could argue that the existence of such a homunculus is unnecessary, as consciousness and volition can be shown to originate from purely physical electrochemical processes in the brain.
While this is not actually the case yet, I do find it likely that advancements in neuroscience will eventually give us an effectively complete understanding of the brain, and consequently, consciousness/will. Environmental factors (especially physical trauma) have been shown to significantly alter cognition and behavior, lending credence to the 'purely physical' hypothesis.

Even so, superfluousness does not necessarily equal nonexistence, and perhaps free will is an 'emergent' phenomenon, with an external homunculus 'tethering' itself to a 'like-minded' body, brain lesions would inhibit this 'connection', resulting in altered behavior.

Though, if the homunculus does exist, would that really confer free will. How would the homunculus make decisions? We would be free of natural interference with free will, but at some point we would have had to develop a personality, which requires experiencing external stimulus, which is ultimately beyond our control.

Yes, with your mindset your summation will be: You do no truly know.

Assuming you hold some sort of naturalistic worldview, neither do you. Indeed, regardless of your worldview, you'll find that there are only a handful of things that we can 'truly' know,
You might find a short reading on the Münchhausen Trilemma a bit interesting

With science one starts with a belief (hypothesis) and then comes the hard part of checking all the facts and in case reality is different to discard the idea and start again.
With religion one just believes in something (without even checking facts) and in case science (or reality) comes and proves it wrong one just adds another layer of unproven falsehood around the disproved one in a futile attempt to shield it from the harsh reality.

Bottom line: the difference is in the ability to adapt to reality, which seems to be lacking in case you're infected with religion.

You seem to have a fairly narrow concept of religion.
While many religions do incorporate a well-defined set of 'unchanging' core beliefs (stymieing adaptation), and then declare heterodox practitioners heretics, this is by no means universal.
Suppose someone chose to adhere to religious doctrine with the understanding that beliefs do not amount to knowledge, freely adapting these beliefs as they are made privy to new information (many fundamentalists do this as well, while maintaining the 'same' position, but refuse to admit it).

and proves it wrong

There are myriad religious beliefs that science has not, and will not ever, 'prove' wrong, simply because they are untestable hypotheses, confined to the realm of metaphysics.
Ultimately, your position is dependent on external stimulus and the foundational axioms through which you filter that stimulus to arrive at conclusions, idols carved from the same arbitrary granite as those you deride.

With regards to the topic:
I suppose free will may or may not exist, I could lean one way or the other depending on how it is defined.