4 ms·
No, your response is not scientific. The default, rational assumption is that the brain works through normal physical processes. In order for free will to exis
by CooCooCaCha 2y ago
No, your response is not scientific. The default, rational assumption is that the brain works through normal physical processes.
In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics that influences the physical world.
No evidence for this force of nature exists. And, at a high level, this is no different from other quackery like psychics, witchcraft and other similar nonsense where people insist that their minds can influence the physical world beyond normal physics.
- mkleczek 2y ago> In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics that influences the physical world. I guess this could be something analogous to dark matter... It is as much physics as any other unexplainable "fundamental" concept.
- QuantumG 2y agoNormal physical processes are not deterministic. You don't need to speculate on a source of non-determinism, it's right there in the substrate. Penrose's entire argument is based on a fallacy (you need quantum effects for a system to be non-deterministic) and we've known this since the double-pendulum.
- antiquark 2y ago> In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics Is this an axiom?
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoNo it’s just logical. If the brain is just normal physics then your behavior is dictated by the laws of physics. This is not what most people consider free will. Therefore, you would need something outside of physics for there to be free will. Like a spirit.
- PreachSoup 2y agoI think it's just most people don't really understand physics. If they get the concept of emergent effects, complexity and how free will vs no free will are basically indistinguishable to the humans, I doubt they would still agree with the same conclusion.
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoMost people consider free will as an ability to make one's own decisions not coerced by someone else. It doesn't conflict with laws of physics. And even if they believed otherwise, it wouldn't mean much, as it won't be the first wrong belief about reality.
- antiquark 2y agoYou're ignoring the whole Compatibilism argument of free will. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoThat’s operating at a higher level. I’m talking about base level fundamental reality. I fully acknowledge that we feel like we have free will and that we should act like we have it. But it’s still an illusion.
- ellyagg 2y agoIt's not an illusion any more than Vegas odds are an illusion. Free will is the (correct) perception by an agent that its actions can't be predicted by other agents. My guess is that there will never be an agent that can predict my moment-by-moment thoughts and actions, so I'll always have free will.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoNo, that definition is arbitrary. Free will is the idea that there is a "you" and you are the author of your actions, or at least you can significantly influence your actions. Of course, your actions are authored by the neurons in your brain but most people speak as if there is more to it than that. As if there is a "you" that exists outside the brain.
- alserio 2y agoIf there are processes outside of physics that influence the physical world, aren't they inside physics?