Free Will and Science

[inocente]

but do we make free choices? what does that mean? free from what?

When it comes to the last chocolate chip cookie, I know what exactly you mean.

if someone else had lived my life and had had all the exact same experiences i have had up until now, wouldn’t they do exactly what i will do right now? if not, why not? in what sense would such a person even be “someone else”?

The problem there is we can’t rerun history, and if the experiment is unrepeatable then how could we know?

Perhaps it’s an illusion brought on by complexity, or perhaps complexity leads to something more, but either way I’ve no idea how we could we find out for sure.

 

[inocente]

This thread is heading into 60’s territory.

60’s comedy - I know you know. I know you know that she knows. I know you know she knows that I know.

 

[Rocinante]

The problem there is we can’t rerun history, and if the experiment is unrepeatable then how could we know?

Perhaps it’s an illusion brought on by complexity, or perhaps complexity leads to something more, but either way I’ve no idea how we could we find out for sure.

the problem for someone who bases their philosophy on the insistence that we have free will, is that that person ought to be able to answer these questions so that we can know what free will is and if we really do have it. otherwise the term “free will” is just mumbo jumbo. it just seems to be an out for those trying to reconcile god’s omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence that doesn’t work upon reflection because the term doesn’t mean anything. that is, unless someone can say what free will is supposed to be free from.

rocinante

 

[Anselm33]

What is ‘free will’ anyway? I never heard a good definition.

I heard a definition of a ‘will’ - the ability of agents to make decisions. Sounds good enough for me. But what is the ‘free’ part? How do you define what constraints an agent has to be free from to qualify for ‘free will’?

If you go to the web sites where Robert Koons discusses this (post 62) you’ll see some good, concise definitions of “free will”. If you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you’ll also see some good definitions of free will, including compatibilist and non-compatibilist options:
stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/compatibilism/

stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/freewill/

That’s standard stuff and not what I’m interested in as the OP. This thread has got off topic, lead astray by the Screwtape amongst us. PLEASE, let’s get back to the original question: science and free will, with respect to 1) Libet’s experiments (neurophysiology) and 2) the delayed choice experiments (quantum mechanics).

If you don’t want to comment on either of those, please start up your own thread on free will and whatever. Thanks.
Anselm

 

[Rocinante]

If you go to the web sites where Robert Koons discusses this (post 62) you’ll see some good, concise definitions of “free will”. If you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you’ll also see some good definitions of free will, including compatibilist and non-compatibilist options:
stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/compatibilism/

stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/freewill/

That’s standard stuff and not what I’m interested in as the OP. This thread has got off topic, lead astray by the Screwtape amongst us. PLEASE, let’s get back to the original question: science and free will, with respect to 1) Libet’s experiments (neurophysiology) and 2) the delayed choice experiments (quantum mechanics).

If you don’t want to comment on either of those, please start up your own thread on free will and whatever. Thanks.
Anselm

i know that you like to insist that people adhere to your particular definitions of words, so could you please provide your favorite “good, concise definition” that you would like to work with rather than making me dig through a bunch of articles you keep linking to?

thanks,
rocinante

 

[Anselm33]

If you go to the web sites where Robert Koons discusses this (post 62) you’ll see some good, concise definitions of “free will”. If you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you’ll also see some good definitions of free will, including compatibilist and non-compatibilist options:
stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/compatibilism/

stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/freewill/

That’s standard stuff and not what I’m interested in as the OP. This thread has got off topic, lead astray by the Screwtape amongst us. PLEASE, let’s get back to the original question: science and free will, with respect to 1) Libet’s experiments (neurophysiology) and 2) the delayed choice experiments (quantum mechanics).

If you don’t want to comment on either of those, please start up your own thread on free will and whatever. Thanks.
Anselm

I don’t know what rocinante (screwtape) has said; he’s on my ignore list. But I’ll add to the above…I would hope that those among you who are interested in exploring topics aren’t too mentally lazy to explore what the experts, philosophers and scientists have to say about a subject, and will follow links that explore a subject in a depth too large for a post, but not as large as a book (and there have been loads and loads of books on free will). Again, I’d really hope for comments addressed to the original post, about the science–neurophysiology and quantum mechanics. All other comments, please do your own thread.

 

[Rocinante]

I don’t know what rocinante (screwtape) has said; he’s on my ignore list. But I’ll add to the above…I would hope that those among you who are interested in exploring topics aren’t too mentally lazy to explore what the experts, philosophers and scientists have to say about a subject, and will follow links that explore a subject in a depth too large for a post, but not as large as a book (and there have been loads and loads of books on free will). Again, I’d really hope for comments addressed to the original post, about the science–neurophysiology and quantum mechanics. All other comments, please do your own thread.

after a couple days it seems clear that everyone is (in your words) “too mentally lazy” to read up on “what the experts, philosophers, and scientists have to say about the subject” by following every link that you post.

perhaps, like me, people tend to think that someone who accuses others of being “intellectually lazy” ought to instead explain the relevant portions of the links to make his point (if he has one) instead of assigning everyone homework to try to guess what your point is. so i invite you again to please provide a definition of free will rather than referring us to to a bunch of links (containing among other things many disparate definitions of free will) so the conversation can move forward about what science has to say about it.

rocinante

 

[Anselm33]

I don’t know what rocinante has said; he’s on my ignore list. But I’ll add to the above…I would hope that those among you who are interested in exploring topics aren’t too mentally lazy to explore what the experts, philosophers and scientists have to say about a subject, and will follow links that explore a subject in a depth too large for a post, but not as large as a book (and there have been loads and loads of books on free will). Again, I’d really hope for comments addressed to the original post, about the science–neurophysiology and quantum mechanics. All other comments, please do your own thread.

I’ll add one more comment to the above quote; please see the thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=509550
It’s about the taxonomy and care of trolls, particularly screwtape trolls.
anselm.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

If you 2 can’t make up and argue (!), this may well become a rather confused thread…

 

[Anselm33]

If you 2 can’t make up and argue (!), this may well become a rather confused thread…

As original poster, all I’m trying to do is to keep this thread on the topic I started it with.

Moderator Note: Edited for uncharitable language