5 ms·

You could argue that it has been shown that it isn't so black and white, not all decisions are a result of pure free will in all cases. But there has not been s

You could argue that it has been shown that it isn't so black and white, not all decisions are a result of pure free will in all cases. But there has not been some conclusion that there is no free will by "mainstream science" as it is still an open topic. It's also not necessarily contradictory for it to be a bit of both.

amasad 9y ago
Do you agree with the following: - Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism. - Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ. - Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation. What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, but a moral one).
- 77pt77 9y ago
  > What you're left with is determinism Not true even at a fundamental level. Why should it be true at a macro/aggregate one?
  - ak4g 9y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean? How are we not left with determinism at a fundamental level? (And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's possible that it's not deterministic. It's perfectly compatible with determinism, just not (AIUI) (and IANATP) currently known whether or not it is the case.)
    - acover 9y ago
      Quantum mechanics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_... Edit: why downvote this?
      - MacsHeadroom 9y ago
        It's widely accepted that QM is fully deterministic, even if the future is unpredictable in practice. Broglie–Bohm, being an equivalent and sound interpretation, is poof of this. Quantum randomness isn't truly random. There's no free lunch for free will to be found in QM.
        acover 9y ago
        Sorry, I am reading conflicting information. The Wikipedia page seems to say the opposite. > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities > Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. > A critical finding was that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. This would suggest there are no hidden variables, although many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the issue This appears to be an open issue. With evidence pointing towards true randomness. You mentioned the pilot wave theory. Is there experimental evidence in favor of it beyond standard quantum mechanics? > Bohmian mechanics has never been widely accepted in the mainstream of the physics community. [0] Thanks. This is all quite over my head. [0] - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
        77pt77 9y ago
        > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities This is the crux you should retain.
- tacomonstrous 9y ago
  None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. --I don't know what 'physicalism' means. --Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. --Science does not operate on the principle of causation. The point is to make falsifiable predictions that can, when verified, be considered as evidence that your hypothesis for how things work might just be how they work. There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance.
  - amasad 9y ago
    >None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. >--I don't know what 'physicalism' means. Is "well-defined" a codeword for "I don't understand"? Physicalism is as well-defined of a concept as anything can be. >--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. Since you don't understand what is "physicalism" I don't think you're going to get this point. The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. >--Science does not operate on the principle of causation. So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". >There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance. Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      >The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question. >So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". A scientist has a model for certain phenomena that can be verified experimentally. One can call this causality, sure, but that it leads inexorably towards determinism seems far from clear to me. >Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will. I have no opinion on the question of 'free will' as you frame it. Is it part of the human condition that one's circumstances have a large role to play in how life proceeds? Certainly! I'm just against the view that science has anything to say about it.
- taneq 9y ago
  If we had free will we'd choose not to get into big online discussions about whether or not we have free will, without first defining what we meant by free will...
  - amasad 9y ago
    I tend to agree with you -- the universe can't be so lazy as to generate such a useless string of words that is your comment. For the definition I refer you to introductory philosophy texts.
    - taneq 9y ago
      > For the definition I refer you to introductory philosophy texts. Because that's the definition that everyone is using in this kind of free-form conversation? Nah. If we were all using the same definition, it wouldn't generate this much discussion.
      - amasad 9y ago
        We're commenting on an article by a philosopher about an advanced text about human behavior by a top scholar that is also making claims about philosophy. Surely, I can't be faulted for assuming some competency in basic philosophy in the discussion.
- szemet 9y ago
  Science needs only methodological naturalism not metaphysical naturalism. There are religious scientists - they personally believe that miracles exist so they oppose the real methaphysical naturalism but they assume naturalism during work (that is the methodolical kind), and that is enough for progress, science doesn't care.
- majewsky 9y ago
  I'm wondering where science would end up if it operated with the same methods, but started from different underlying assumptions than those that you listed. If it would be able to build unexpected, but nonetheless verifiable theories; or if it would just end up being unable to produce anything useful whatsoever without these axioms.

amasad 9y ago

Do you agree with the following: - Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism. - Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ. - Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation. What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, but a moral one).

77pt77 9y ago
> What you're left with is determinism Not true even at a fundamental level. Why should it be true at a macro/aggregate one?
- ak4g 9y ago
  Can you clarify what you mean? How are we not left with determinism at a fundamental level? (And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's possible that it's not deterministic. It's perfectly compatible with determinism, just not (AIUI) (and IANATP) currently known whether or not it is the case.)
  - acover 9y ago
    Quantum mechanics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_... Edit: why downvote this?
    - MacsHeadroom 9y ago
      It's widely accepted that QM is fully deterministic, even if the future is unpredictable in practice. Broglie–Bohm, being an equivalent and sound interpretation, is poof of this. Quantum randomness isn't truly random. There's no free lunch for free will to be found in QM.
      - acover 9y ago
        Sorry, I am reading conflicting information. The Wikipedia page seems to say the opposite. > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities > Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. > A critical finding was that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. This would suggest there are no hidden variables, although many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the issue This appears to be an open issue. With evidence pointing towards true randomness. You mentioned the pilot wave theory. Is there experimental evidence in favor of it beyond standard quantum mechanics? > Bohmian mechanics has never been widely accepted in the mainstream of the physics community. [0] Thanks. This is all quite over my head. [0] - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
        77pt77 9y ago
        > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities This is the crux you should retain.
tacomonstrous 9y ago
None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. --I don't know what 'physicalism' means. --Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. --Science does not operate on the principle of causation. The point is to make falsifiable predictions that can, when verified, be considered as evidence that your hypothesis for how things work might just be how they work. There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance.
- amasad 9y ago
  >None of your postulates are accurate or well-defined. >--I don't know what 'physicalism' means. Is "well-defined" a codeword for "I don't understand"? Physicalism is as well-defined of a concept as anything can be. >--Mainstream science doesn't even claim to know what consciousness is, let alone what it can be reduced to. Since you don't understand what is "physicalism" I don't think you're going to get this point. The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. >--Science does not operate on the principle of causation. So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". >There is just so much we don't know. Using science to justify some new-agey claptrap about determinism is just malfeasance. Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    >The idea is that everything is reduced to elementary physical structures. Therefore nothing can be extra-physcial, super-natural or otherwise. I.e. non-dualist. Therefore the mind must be reduced to physical structures. I understand that some people claim this to be a definition, but that hardly makes it one. What's 'extra-physical'? To do this, you must first define what boundaries physicality has. I don't think there is any good definition to be offered here without begging the question. >So is there anything that is uncaused? When the scientist constructs an experiment do they think "oh what if the billiard ball moved without cause?". A scientist has a model for certain phenomena that can be verified experimentally. One can call this causality, sure, but that it leads inexorably towards determinism seems far from clear to me. >Actually "new-agey" thought tries to do the exact opposite: save dualism and free will. I have no opinion on the question of 'free will' as you frame it. Is it part of the human condition that one's circumstances have a large role to play in how life proceeds? Certainly! I'm just against the view that science has anything to say about it.
taneq 9y ago
If we had free will we'd choose not to get into big online discussions about whether or not we have free will, without first defining what we meant by free will...
- amasad 9y ago
  I tend to agree with you -- the universe can't be so lazy as to generate such a useless string of words that is your comment. For the definition I refer you to introductory philosophy texts.
  - taneq 9y ago
    > For the definition I refer you to introductory philosophy texts. Because that's the definition that everyone is using in this kind of free-form conversation? Nah. If we were all using the same definition, it wouldn't generate this much discussion.
    - amasad 9y ago
      We're commenting on an article by a philosopher about an advanced text about human behavior by a top scholar that is also making claims about philosophy. Surely, I can't be faulted for assuming some competency in basic philosophy in the discussion.
szemet 9y ago
Science needs only methodological naturalism not metaphysical naturalism. There are religious scientists - they personally believe that miracles exist so they oppose the real methaphysical naturalism but they assume naturalism during work (that is the methodolical kind), and that is enough for progress, science doesn't care.
majewsky 9y ago
I'm wondering where science would end up if it operated with the same methods, but started from different underlying assumptions than those that you listed. If it would be able to build unexpected, but nonetheless verifiable theories; or if it would just end up being unable to produce anything useful whatsoever without these axioms.