4 ms·

what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?

by noodle 16y ago

amichail 16y ago
One can ask something similar about proving the existence of God. Why should you not believe in God on faith but believe in free will on faith?
- noodle 16y ago
  sigh. i was really hoping you were trying to take this in another direction. free will is an objectively observable phenomenon, and the burden of proof is on disproving existence or providing an alternate explanation for the observable. we might not be able to show the mechanisms for why it exists, but we can show that it exists. god is not objectively observable, and so the burden of proof is on proving existence.
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    > free will is an objectively observable phenomenon Not true. To observe free will, you must have a really big picture view. You must have enough information at hand to be absolutely confident that the action was not a direct result of all prior experiences of the actor. Until you have that kind of measurement, free will is a matter of faith. > god is not objectively observable That is a very human-centric view, and it would behoove any rational thinker to look beyond their own limitations. Again, it is all about having an appropriate instrument to observe Him. But you may have a point about who owns the burden of proof. (I will not argue either way on who owns it, and whether we should prove or disprove.) Edit: Sorry, my definition of "objectively" is skewed. Both free will and God can be objectively observed. You just have to have the right instruments, enough information.
    - noodle 16y ago
      > To observe free will, you must have a really big picture view. why? can you justify this statement? beyond that, that is not how the scientific method works. you make conclusions on observable data, and if more data becomes accessible, you reconsider conclusions. you can't dismiss conclusions you disagree with by simply saying "you don't have enough data yet to justify my conclusion". > Again, it is all about having an appropriate instrument to observe Him. could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively?
      - Xurinos 16y ago
        > why? can you justify this statement? Yes. Based on your next sentence, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You state that the scientific method is about making conclusions on observable data and then discarding them when new data arrives. This is incomplete. Good scientific experiments depend on variables under your control. In layman's terms, you must be in control of everything, know what is going on, and test the specific thing, the one variable you are not controlling. And there are varying degrees of variables involved in the scientific method, along with their complexities. Now, just in case we already agree and that your statement assumed all that, then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. We already know what you are missing. You need the entire set of experiences that someone has stored in their brain. You need to know the state of the body as well, so that you can identify additional influences (such as a headache, making for hastier decisions based on more recent experiences). You need instruments that can provide you this data, and then you can run your statistics and learn something. And, of course, you need to have an understanding of the influences of the various experiences and body issues; so you have many studies to run before you get to tackle the issue of free will. Fortunately, we have a LOT of these studies already (and a lot more to do). See psychology, etc. > could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively? I am in full agreement with your criteria. Maybe one day we will have the technology to do this. Right now, I cannot imagine what the instrument is. I would propose that another god could observe God, or the context of the universe around God could be used in some fashion or produce an instrument to observe God. Maybe in God's metauniverse, there are entities analogous to our rocks, plants, and so forth that could be used to observe His passing. Taking another approach, this might be akin to gut bacteria trying to prove the existence of Earth. If existence as we know it is an extension of God, how can we identify God? (Trying to avoid the obvious circular argument.) Anyway, this is all freshman philosophy stuff. Good fodder for coffee talk. Suffice it to say that when we are talking science, we are indeed talking about using tools that "appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively". Just because we do not have those tools does not invalidate truths about our universe. We did not have a yardstick until the 10th century. We have come a long way since then, and we have a long way to go.

what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?

by noodle 16y ago

what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?

One can ask something similar about proving the existence of God. Why should you not believe in God on faith but believe in free will on faith?

noodle 16y ago
sigh. i was really hoping you were trying to take this in another direction. free will is an objectively observable phenomenon, and the burden of proof is on disproving existence or providing an alternate explanation for the observable. we might not be able to show the mechanisms for why it exists, but we can show that it exists. god is not objectively observable, and so the burden of proof is on proving existence.
- Xurinos 16y ago
  > free will is an objectively observable phenomenon Not true. To observe free will, you must have a really big picture view. You must have enough information at hand to be absolutely confident that the action was not a direct result of all prior experiences of the actor. Until you have that kind of measurement, free will is a matter of faith. > god is not objectively observable That is a very human-centric view, and it would behoove any rational thinker to look beyond their own limitations. Again, it is all about having an appropriate instrument to observe Him. But you may have a point about who owns the burden of proof. (I will not argue either way on who owns it, and whether we should prove or disprove.) Edit: Sorry, my definition of "objectively" is skewed. Both free will and God can be objectively observed. You just have to have the right instruments, enough information.
  - noodle 16y ago
    > To observe free will, you must have a really big picture view. why? can you justify this statement? beyond that, that is not how the scientific method works. you make conclusions on observable data, and if more data becomes accessible, you reconsider conclusions. you can't dismiss conclusions you disagree with by simply saying "you don't have enough data yet to justify my conclusion". > Again, it is all about having an appropriate instrument to observe Him. could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively?
    - Xurinos 16y ago
      > why? can you justify this statement? Yes. Based on your next sentence, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You state that the scientific method is about making conclusions on observable data and then discarding them when new data arrives. This is incomplete. Good scientific experiments depend on variables under your control. In layman's terms, you must be in control of everything, know what is going on, and test the specific thing, the one variable you are not controlling. And there are varying degrees of variables involved in the scientific method, along with their complexities. Now, just in case we already agree and that your statement assumed all that, then I would find fault with the theory that you have sufficient "observable data". That is the entire problem. We already know what you are missing. You need the entire set of experiences that someone has stored in their brain. You need to know the state of the body as well, so that you can identify additional influences (such as a headache, making for hastier decisions based on more recent experiences). You need instruments that can provide you this data, and then you can run your statistics and learn something. And, of course, you need to have an understanding of the influences of the various experiences and body issues; so you have many studies to run before you get to tackle the issue of free will. Fortunately, we have a LOT of these studies already (and a lot more to do). See psychology, etc. > could you elaborate on an appropriate instrument to appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively? I am in full agreement with your criteria. Maybe one day we will have the technology to do this. Right now, I cannot imagine what the instrument is. I would propose that another god could observe God, or the context of the universe around God could be used in some fashion or produce an instrument to observe God. Maybe in God's metauniverse, there are entities analogous to our rocks, plants, and so forth that could be used to observe His passing. Taking another approach, this might be akin to gut bacteria trying to prove the existence of Earth. If existence as we know it is an extension of God, how can we identify God? (Trying to avoid the obvious circular argument.) Anyway, this is all freshman philosophy stuff. Good fodder for coffee talk. Suffice it to say that when we are talking science, we are indeed talking about using tools that "appropriately observe and identify him in a way that is reproducible for others to also observe objectively". Just because we do not have those tools does not invalidate truths about our universe. We did not have a yardstick until the 10th century. We have come a long way since then, and we have a long way to go.