Comments on: Free Will Requires the Supernatural, and Thus the Burden of Proof Falls on the Believer Rather Than the Skeptic http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic grep understanding Fri, 25 May 2012 02:15:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Chris http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-257744 Chris Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:50:00 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-257744 <p>But what made you make those decisions? Why did you have the desire to make a particular decision? You can't will or decide to believe, to want something if you just don't want it. And if you decide to try to want something, that was determined by other inputs that made you think trying to want something you don't currently want will be good for you. The chain of causality goes back and back and back, but is never truly free.</p> But what made you make those decisions? Why did you have the desire to make a particular decision? You can’t will or decide to believe, to want something if you just don’t want it. And if you decide to try to want something, that was determined by other inputs that made you think trying to want something you don’t currently want will be good for you. The chain of causality goes back and back and back, but is never truly free.

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-257504 CarlM Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:26:00 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-257504 <p>I swear that sometimes you deliberately miss my point. I never said that consciousness is supernatural. Indeed, I believe exactly the opposite. I was drawing a parallel. I'll use your framework here.</p> <p>I would say that it is OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY that consciousness is natural. So, I call it natural (not supernatural as you imply I implied). The fact that we don't know the natural mechanisms by which consciousness arises DOES NOT REQUIRE the insertion of a supernatural mechanism.</p> <p>Now, replace "consciousness" with "free will" and you have the parallel I was making.</p> <p>Yes, they are somewhat different things, but as I said a year ago, it seems to me that they are closely tied together. At the very least, I can't see how free will could exist in any meaningful way without consciousness also existing. So, consciousness is (it seems to me) a necessary component (or at least a precursor) of free will. PERHAPS when we understand the mechanisms by which consciousness arises, we will have some insight into free will.</p> <p>But honestly, as I've said before, I believe that the free will disagreement may well be a semantic one.</p> I swear that sometimes you deliberately miss my point. I never said that consciousness is supernatural. Indeed, I believe exactly the opposite. I was drawing a parallel. I’ll use your framework here.

I would say that it is OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY that consciousness is natural. So, I call it natural (not supernatural as you imply I implied). The fact that we don’t know the natural mechanisms by which consciousness arises DOES NOT REQUIRE the insertion of a supernatural mechanism.

Now, replace “consciousness” with “free will” and you have the parallel I was making.

Yes, they are somewhat different things, but as I said a year ago, it seems to me that they are closely tied together. At the very least, I can’t see how free will could exist in any meaningful way without consciousness also existing. So, consciousness is (it seems to me) a necessary component (or at least a precursor) of free will. PERHAPS when we understand the mechanisms by which consciousness arises, we will have some insight into free will.

But honestly, as I’ve said before, I believe that the free will disagreement may well be a semantic one.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-257501 Daniel Miessler Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:31:00 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-257501 <p>So it just came to me that this is the same conversation as atheist vs. agnostic. If lightning is OVERWHELMINGLY PROBABLY natural then I call it natural. It is up to you to explain why you think consciousness is any different. THAT is the claim that requires explanation -- not anything I'm saying.</p> So it just came to me that this is the same conversation as atheist vs. agnostic. If lightning is OVERWHELMINGLY PROBABLY natural then I call it natural. It is up to you to explain why you think consciousness is any different. THAT is the claim that requires explanation — not anything I’m saying.

]]> By: Carl Youngblood http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-257500 Carl Youngblood Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:11:00 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-257500 <p>How is not believing in free will practical? It seems to me that, as far as our everyday life is concerned, believing in free will seems to be more conducive to widely-shared notions of success than denying free will.</p> How is not believing in free will practical? It seems to me that, as far as our everyday life is concerned, believing in free will seems to be more conducive to widely-shared notions of success than denying free will.

]]> By: CuriousGeorge http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-2#comment-254335 CuriousGeorge Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:28:00 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-254335 <p>Although I am not very educated in physics…i ran into this thready today and it caught my interest. It also appears that I am a year late. However, because I find it interesting and in the off chance that somebody will receive notification of my post and actually care, I will state my thoughts anyways.</p> <p>I too seem to be confused as to how non-deterministic processes would somehow allow for free will to exist. Just because this scenario would prove determinism false, it does not follow that it introduces the possibility of free will being true. This is because the claims of libertarian free will are stronger than non-determinism.</p> <p>The problem with libertarian free will is not its claim of the ability to do otherwise, but more with its claim of the control to do otherwise. We might say that matter involved in non-determined events has the ability to behave differently, yet we would not say that this matter has the control to behave differently. But the very essence of libertarian free will includes that the agent has the ability to control. That one can control the outcome. That one can control certain (albeit not all) thoughts. That one can control the brain and can control the body.</p> <p>In both a deterministic and a non-deterministic materialist framework, it seems to be impossible to describe free will as “An individual’s ability to control an outcome”. Consider the statement “I control my body”. This sentence is understandable if I think of “I” (the self) as a non-material agent. But what does “I control my body” mean when the self equates to the physical matter constituting the body.</p> <p>I do agree that the existence of non-deterministic events will allow us to say phrases like “I could have done otherwise” or “I had the ability to do otherwise” but these statements should be read more like “This action was the result of non-determined neurophysical events in my brain and those events could have had different outcomes resulting in a different action being performed”. But this statement seems pretty far away from a libertarian free will statement that would try to assert that “It was in my control to do otherwise.”</p> <p>In summary, it seems to make sense to say that matter has the ability to produce a non-deterministic outcome, but it doesn’t seem to make sense to say that matter can control the outcome.</p> <p>Do the minds trained in physics have some ideas about the plausibility of matter being able to control an outcome? Could it make sense to talk like this?</p> Although I am not very educated in physics…i ran into this thready today and it caught my interest. It also appears that I am a year late. However, because I find it interesting and in the off chance that somebody will receive notification of my post and actually care, I will state my thoughts anyways.

I too seem to be confused as to how non-deterministic processes would somehow allow for free will to exist. Just because this scenario would prove determinism false, it does not follow that it introduces the possibility of free will being true. This is because the claims of libertarian free will are stronger than non-determinism.

The problem with libertarian free will is not its claim of the ability to do otherwise, but more with its claim of the control to do otherwise. We might say that matter involved in non-determined events has the ability to behave differently, yet we would not say that this matter has the control to behave differently. But the very essence of libertarian free will includes that the agent has the ability to control. That one can control the outcome. That one can control certain (albeit not all) thoughts. That one can control the brain and can control the body.

In both a deterministic and a non-deterministic materialist framework, it seems to be impossible to describe free will as “An individual’s ability to control an outcome”. Consider the statement “I control my body”. This sentence is understandable if I think of “I” (the self) as a non-material agent. But what does “I control my body” mean when the self equates to the physical matter constituting the body.

I do agree that the existence of non-deterministic events will allow us to say phrases like “I could have done otherwise” or “I had the ability to do otherwise” but these statements should be read more like “This action was the result of non-determined neurophysical events in my brain and those events could have had different outcomes resulting in a different action being performed”. But this statement seems pretty far away from a libertarian free will statement that would try to assert that “It was in my control to do otherwise.”

In summary, it seems to make sense to say that matter has the ability to produce a non-deterministic outcome, but it doesn’t seem to make sense to say that matter can control the outcome.

Do the minds trained in physics have some ideas about the plausibility of matter being able to control an outcome? Could it make sense to talk like this?

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-2#comment-244519 Daniel Miessler Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:42:33 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-244519 <p>Very interesting point--this discussion of what realm this belongs in. I'll<br>have to think about this more and address it later, as I'm at work now.</p> Very interesting point–this discussion of what realm this belongs in. I'll
have to think about this more and address it later, as I'm at work now.

]]> By: Shenpen http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-2#comment-244518 Shenpen Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:37:14 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-244518 <p>I think the problem is that you are trying to turn a philosophical problem into a problem of natural science, which is in itself not a wrong idea, but then trying to import the result back into philosophy and this is what wrong is.<br><br>It's OK to say that withing the realm, within the point of view of natural sciences, everything we are is a material process, because these are the processes natural science is able to investigate. Thus, indeed, natural science must indeed delegate the problem back to philosophy, from the natural science point of view, it's super-natural i.e. outside the scope of natural sciences. Thus, the natural scientist must not assume it exists, neither that it doesn't exist, but must simply say it's not in his field of study, he will assume neither but simply go on studying all those 100000000000 interesting things he is well equipped to study. There is no such thing as a burden of proof within the scope of natural sciences in the question of free will once we agree that it's something that's by DEFINITION outside the material realms and therefore natural science shouldn't even bother about it. It's exactly the same problem as the existence of a god or reincarnation or afterlife or anything: plain simply not in the field of natural sciences, neither a positive, nor a negative assumption, nor any kind of burden of proof exists, rather it's simply off the table. It's like when the physicist is asked to translate Shakespeare to Chinese: he would say it's not his job, leave him alone with it. This is the correct approach.<br><br>Thus, the natural science must delegate the problem back to philosophy. But in philosophy why on Earth would anything "super-natural" i.e. anything outside the scope of natural sciences automatically require a direct proof or be considered bullshit? From the viewpoint of philosophy the whole field of natural sciences is one of applied philosophy, largely the philosophy of empiricism. If empiricism is not suitable for investigating a problem, the philosopher shouldn't worry much, there are thousand and one other philosophical ways to approach such problems, from Platonic realism through Cartesian principles to social constructionism etc. etc. etc.</p> I think the problem is that you are trying to turn a philosophical problem into a problem of natural science, which is in itself not a wrong idea, but then trying to import the result back into philosophy and this is what wrong is.

It's OK to say that withing the realm, within the point of view of natural sciences, everything we are is a material process, because these are the processes natural science is able to investigate. Thus, indeed, natural science must indeed delegate the problem back to philosophy, from the natural science point of view, it's super-natural i.e. outside the scope of natural sciences. Thus, the natural scientist must not assume it exists, neither that it doesn't exist, but must simply say it's not in his field of study, he will assume neither but simply go on studying all those 100000000000 interesting things he is well equipped to study. There is no such thing as a burden of proof within the scope of natural sciences in the question of free will once we agree that it's something that's by DEFINITION outside the material realms and therefore natural science shouldn't even bother about it. It's exactly the same problem as the existence of a god or reincarnation or afterlife or anything: plain simply not in the field of natural sciences, neither a positive, nor a negative assumption, nor any kind of burden of proof exists, rather it's simply off the table. It's like when the physicist is asked to translate Shakespeare to Chinese: he would say it's not his job, leave him alone with it. This is the correct approach.

Thus, the natural science must delegate the problem back to philosophy. But in philosophy why on Earth would anything “super-natural” i.e. anything outside the scope of natural sciences automatically require a direct proof or be considered bullshit? From the viewpoint of philosophy the whole field of natural sciences is one of applied philosophy, largely the philosophy of empiricism. If empiricism is not suitable for investigating a problem, the philosopher shouldn't worry much, there are thousand and one other philosophical ways to approach such problems, from Platonic realism through Cartesian principles to social constructionism etc. etc. etc.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-2#comment-243483 Daniel Miessler Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:42:33 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-243483 <p>Very interesting point--this discussion of what realm this belongs in. I'll<br>have to think about this more and address it later, as I'm at work now.</p> Very interesting point–this discussion of what realm this belongs in. I'll
have to think about this more and address it later, as I'm at work now.

]]> By: Shenpen http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-2#comment-243482 Shenpen Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:37:14 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-243482 <p>I think the problem is that you are trying to turn a philosophical problem into a problem of natural science, which is in itself not a wrong idea, but then trying to import the result back into philosophy and this is what wrong is.<br><br>It's OK to say that withing the realm, within the point of view of natural sciences, everything we are is a material process, because these are the processes natural science is able to investigate. Thus, indeed, natural science must indeed delegate the problem back to philosophy, from the natural science point of view, it's super-natural i.e. outside the scope of natural sciences. Thus, the natural scientist must not assume it exists, neither that it doesn't exist, but must simply say it's not in his field of study, he will assume neither but simply go on studying all those 100000000000 interesting things he is well equipped to study. There is no such thing as a burden of proof within the scope of natural sciences in the question of free will once we agree that it's something that's by DEFINITION outside the material realms and therefore natural science shouldn't even bother about it. It's exactly the same problem as the existence of a god or reincarnation or afterlife or anything: plain simply not in the field of natural sciences, neither a positive, nor a negative assumption, nor any kind of burden of proof exists, rather it's simply off the table. It's like when the physicist is asked to translate Shakespeare to Chinese: he would say it's not his job, leave him alone with it. This is the correct approach.<br><br>Thus, the natural science must delegate the problem back to philosophy. But in philosophy why on Earth would anything "super-natural" i.e. anything outside the scope of natural sciences automatically require a direct proof or be considered bullshit? From the viewpoint of philosophy the whole field of natural sciences is one of applied philosophy, largely the philosophy of empiricism. If empiricism is not suitable for investigating a problem, the philosopher shouldn't worry much, there are thousand and one other philosophical ways to approach such problems, from Platonic realism through Cartesian principles to social constructionism etc. etc. etc.</p> I think the problem is that you are trying to turn a philosophical problem into a problem of natural science, which is in itself not a wrong idea, but then trying to import the result back into philosophy and this is what wrong is.

It's OK to say that withing the realm, within the point of view of natural sciences, everything we are is a material process, because these are the processes natural science is able to investigate. Thus, indeed, natural science must indeed delegate the problem back to philosophy, from the natural science point of view, it's super-natural i.e. outside the scope of natural sciences. Thus, the natural scientist must not assume it exists, neither that it doesn't exist, but must simply say it's not in his field of study, he will assume neither but simply go on studying all those 100000000000 interesting things he is well equipped to study. There is no such thing as a burden of proof within the scope of natural sciences in the question of free will once we agree that it's something that's by DEFINITION outside the material realms and therefore natural science shouldn't even bother about it. It's exactly the same problem as the existence of a god or reincarnation or afterlife or anything: plain simply not in the field of natural sciences, neither a positive, nor a negative assumption, nor any kind of burden of proof exists, rather it's simply off the table. It's like when the physicist is asked to translate Shakespeare to Chinese: he would say it's not his job, leave him alone with it. This is the correct approach.

Thus, the natural science must delegate the problem back to philosophy. But in philosophy why on Earth would anything “super-natural” i.e. anything outside the scope of natural sciences automatically require a direct proof or be considered bullshit? From the viewpoint of philosophy the whole field of natural sciences is one of applied philosophy, largely the philosophy of empiricism. If empiricism is not suitable for investigating a problem, the philosopher shouldn't worry much, there are thousand and one other philosophical ways to approach such problems, from Platonic realism through Cartesian principles to social constructionism etc. etc. etc.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242882 Daniel Miessler Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:58:09 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242882 <p>Agreed.</p> Agreed.

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242881 CarlM Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:48:08 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242881 <p>Oh, and one other thing. I wouldn't use a survey in an effort to get at the "truth" in a scientific argument. A survey can only gauge the degree to which a theory has wide acceptance - and can only give THAT information if it is a well designed and carefully carried out survey.</p> Oh, and one other thing. I wouldn't use a survey in an effort to get at the “truth” in a scientific argument. A survey can only gauge the degree to which a theory has wide acceptance – and can only give THAT information if it is a well designed and carefully carried out survey.

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242880 CarlM Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:29:44 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242880 <p>In my exhaustion upon returning to the hotel last night after a long day at a family reunion, I overstated something and left out a couple of things I meant to say.<br><br>First of all, it's probably more accurate to say that I neither believe nor disbelieve in free will as you define it, Daniel. I think that the jury is still out, but if I had to pick a side I would say that free will probably exists. I'm comfortable with this ignorance. Anyway, I wanted to clarify this since I overstated my position in the response last night. <br><br>Next, when pointing out that you've made good arguments against free will (the standard arguments .. well delivered) I meant to point out that you failed to point out some additional weaknesses in my arguments. If there is any randomness in the world, then the chain of causality need not go back to the origin of the universe (think butterfly effect). Also, for essentially the same reason, the future need not be predictable (even in theory) for a very long period.<br><br>Finally, I want to return to my earlier comments about semantics. I think that this is largely a semantic argument. I would agree with you that OF COURSE we are products of our past and that our decisions are products of our history. I'm not convinced that this (alone) precludes some sort of freedom on our choices.</p> In my exhaustion upon returning to the hotel last night after a long day at a family reunion, I overstated something and left out a couple of things I meant to say.

First of all, it's probably more accurate to say that I neither believe nor disbelieve in free will as you define it, Daniel. I think that the jury is still out, but if I had to pick a side I would say that free will probably exists. I'm comfortable with this ignorance. Anyway, I wanted to clarify this since I overstated my position in the response last night.

Next, when pointing out that you've made good arguments against free will (the standard arguments .. well delivered) I meant to point out that you failed to point out some additional weaknesses in my arguments. If there is any randomness in the world, then the chain of causality need not go back to the origin of the universe (think butterfly effect). Also, for essentially the same reason, the future need not be predictable (even in theory) for a very long period.

Finally, I want to return to my earlier comments about semantics. I think that this is largely a semantic argument. I would agree with you that OF COURSE we are products of our past and that our decisions are products of our history. I'm not convinced that this (alone) precludes some sort of freedom on our choices.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242634 Daniel Miessler Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:58:09 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242634 <p>Agreed.</p> Agreed.

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242633 CarlM Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:48:08 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242633 <p>Oh, and one other thing. I wouldn't use a survey in an effort to get at the "truth" in a scientific argument. A survey can only gauge the degree to which a theory has wide acceptance - and can only give THAT information if it is a well designed and carefully carried out survey.</p> Oh, and one other thing. I wouldn't use a survey in an effort to get at the “truth” in a scientific argument. A survey can only gauge the degree to which a theory has wide acceptance – and can only give THAT information if it is a well designed and carefully carried out survey.

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242632 CarlM Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:29:44 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242632 <p>In my exhaustion upon returning to the hotel last night after a long day at a family reunion, I overstated something and left out a couple of things I meant to say.<br><br>First of all, it's probably more accurate to say that I neither believe nor disbelieve in free will as you define it, Daniel. I think that the jury is still out, but if I had to pick a side I would day that free will probably exists. I'm comfortable with this ignorance. Anyway, I wanted to clarify this since I overstated my position in the response last night. <br><br>Next, when pointing out that you've made good arguments against free will (the standard arguments .. well delivered) I meant to point out that you failed to point out some additional weaknesses in my arguments. If there is any randomness in the world, then the chain of causality need not go back to the origin of the universe (think butterfly effect). Also, for essentially the same reason, the future need not be predictable (even in theory) for a very long period.<br><br>Finally, I want to return to my earlier comments about semantics. I think that this is largely a semantic argument. I would agree with you that OF COURSE we are products of our past and that our decisions are products of our history. I'm not convinced that this (alone) precludes some sort of freedom on our choices.</p> In my exhaustion upon returning to the hotel last night after a long day at a family reunion, I overstated something and left out a couple of things I meant to say.

First of all, it's probably more accurate to say that I neither believe nor disbelieve in free will as you define it, Daniel. I think that the jury is still out, but if I had to pick a side I would day that free will probably exists. I'm comfortable with this ignorance. Anyway, I wanted to clarify this since I overstated my position in the response last night.

Next, when pointing out that you've made good arguments against free will (the standard arguments .. well delivered) I meant to point out that you failed to point out some additional weaknesses in my arguments. If there is any randomness in the world, then the chain of causality need not go back to the origin of the universe (think butterfly effect). Also, for essentially the same reason, the future need not be predictable (even in theory) for a very long period.

Finally, I want to return to my earlier comments about semantics. I think that this is largely a semantic argument. I would agree with you that OF COURSE we are products of our past and that our decisions are products of our history. I'm not convinced that this (alone) precludes some sort of freedom on our choices.

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242631 CarlM Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:59:13 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242631 <p>Question: What experiment can you design that would DISPROVE your <br>hypothesis that free will doesn't exist?<br><br>I ask because if there isn't one, then it seems to me that your <br>position is outside the realm of science (and perhaps lies entirely in <br>the realm of philosophy).</p> Question: What experiment can you design that would DISPROVE your
hypothesis that free will doesn't exist?

I ask because if there isn't one, then it seems to me that your
position is outside the realm of science (and perhaps lies entirely in
the realm of philosophy).

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242630 CarlM Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:54:10 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242630 <p>Hmmm... So, you concede that you can have a conscious thought and <br>THEN carry out an action based on that thought. For example, if you <br>were hooked up to an FMRI and asked to raise either your right hand or <br>your left hand (your choice), you could make a CONSCIOUS choice and <br>then raise that hand. You're agreeing now that this is possible? <br>Then what are these experiments that supposedly give evidence against <br>free will?<br><br>Maybe I'm misrembering the results (because I could think of so many <br>follow-up experiments I'd want to do that I was entirely unconvinced <br>that they disproved free will). Remind me what it is that the <br>experiments show that argues against free will.<br><br>It seems (if I am remembering them correctly) that you've abandoned <br>those experiments and are instead arguing from a strictly <br>deterministic perspective. You're making all the right arguments from <br>that perspective, and (though you've taken a couple of tangents) <br>you've correctly pointed out several weaknesses in my argument (at <br>least in a deterministic world). For the record, I DO understand all <br>the points you've been making. They're not slipping by me. I simply <br>don't find them entirely convincing, but as I'm pretty sure I've <br>already said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if free will proves to <br>be an illusion. My point has been that you can't so easily dismiss <br>the evidence in favor of free will and assert that the burden is on <br>those who believe that it exists. We just don't know for certain one <br>way or the other, and until we are, I'm OK with being unsure. As it <br>stands, I believe that free will exists and you don't. I'm OK with us <br>having different beliefs on this (just don't get evengelical). By the <br>way, I'm still waiting to hear what you believe about consciousness.</p> Hmmm… So, you concede that you can have a conscious thought and
THEN carry out an action based on that thought. For example, if you
were hooked up to an FMRI and asked to raise either your right hand or
your left hand (your choice), you could make a CONSCIOUS choice and
then raise that hand. You're agreeing now that this is possible?
Then what are these experiments that supposedly give evidence against
free will?

Maybe I'm misrembering the results (because I could think of so many
follow-up experiments I'd want to do that I was entirely unconvinced
that they disproved free will). Remind me what it is that the
experiments show that argues against free will.

It seems (if I am remembering them correctly) that you've abandoned
those experiments and are instead arguing from a strictly
deterministic perspective. You're making all the right arguments from
that perspective, and (though you've taken a couple of tangents)
you've correctly pointed out several weaknesses in my argument (at
least in a deterministic world). For the record, I DO understand all
the points you've been making. They're not slipping by me. I simply
don't find them entirely convincing, but as I'm pretty sure I've
already said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if free will proves to
be an illusion. My point has been that you can't so easily dismiss
the evidence in favor of free will and assert that the burden is on
those who believe that it exists. We just don't know for certain one
way or the other, and until we are, I'm OK with being unsure. As it
stands, I believe that free will exists and you don't. I'm OK with us
having different beliefs on this (just don't get evengelical). By the
way, I'm still waiting to hear what you believe about consciousness.

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242628 Daniel Miessler Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:49:45 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242628 <p>I agree that most polling would be ineffective, except here's one that I consider pretty good that supports your position:<br><br><a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747%2Cy.0%2Cno.%2Ccontent.true%2Cpage.1%2Ccss.print/issue.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747...</a><br><br>"Now when we raise <br>our hands we could be automata, but HOW do the machines (our bodies) turn an observation (the total number of runs) into an action (one or the other hand going up)? Isn't this a part of what you say can't happen? If you CAN turn an observation into an action, then why can't you turn a thought into an action?."<br><br>Imagine a laser sensor that sits perpendicular to a train track, so that when a train drives by it breaks the laser and re-routes the track 1000 feet ahead.<br><br>Train comes. Laser breaks. The track gets moved. The train takes another path. This is observation leading to an action. I would agree with you that thought is just the same. Yes, thought can lead to action--absolutely.<br><br>But a thought is nothing more than an event--an event with a cause. And yes, in my model you did NOT have a choice to design this experiment, as there were physical causes to every variable that lead to you designing it. That's precisely my point.<br><br>I still feel you are attempting to break the causal relationship between input leading to a thought, leading to an idea, you voicing the idea, me reading it, us taking action, etc. This is all linear and physical. And just because it feeds off itself, and leads to increasingly more complex interaction based on the output of input of output as input...does nothing to change the fact that x cause x+1 caused x+2.<br><br>Let me as you this: where do you think your idea for your experiment came from? In what sense do you think it was "free"?</p> I agree that most polling would be ineffective, except here's one that I consider pretty good that supports your position:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747…

“Now when we raise
our hands we could be automata, but HOW do the machines (our bodies) turn an observation (the total number of runs) into an action (one or the other hand going up)? Isn't this a part of what you say can't happen? If you CAN turn an observation into an action, then why can't you turn a thought into an action?.”

Imagine a laser sensor that sits perpendicular to a train track, so that when a train drives by it breaks the laser and re-routes the track 1000 feet ahead.

Train comes. Laser breaks. The track gets moved. The train takes another path. This is observation leading to an action. I would agree with you that thought is just the same. Yes, thought can lead to action–absolutely.

But a thought is nothing more than an event–an event with a cause. And yes, in my model you did NOT have a choice to design this experiment, as there were physical causes to every variable that lead to you designing it. That's precisely my point.

I still feel you are attempting to break the causal relationship between input leading to a thought, leading to an idea, you voicing the idea, me reading it, us taking action, etc. This is all linear and physical. And just because it feeds off itself, and leads to increasingly more complex interaction based on the output of input of output as input…does nothing to change the fact that x cause x+1 caused x+2.

Let me as you this: where do you think your idea for your experiment came from? In what sense do you think it was “free”?

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242627 Daniel Miessler Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:27:49 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242627 <p>So here's some evidence that most scientists (in this sample) <em>do</em> believe in free will.<br><br><a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747%2Cy.0%2Cno.%2Ccontent.true%2Cpage.1%2Ccss.print/issue.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747...</a><br><br><grumble></p> So here's some evidence that most scientists (in this sample) do believe in free will.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747…

<grumble>

]]> By: CarlM http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic/comment-page-1#comment-242625 CarlM Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:26:14 +0000 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/free-will-requires-the-supernatural-and-thus-the-burden-of-proof-falls-on-the-believer-rather-than-the-skeptic#comment-242625 <p>You are welcome to conduct any poll you wish. I think that there is a <br>lot of evidence that there are physicists on both sides of the free <br>will issue (I have no idea what proportion is on each side and I doubt <br>that any survey we conducted would tell us those numbers).<br><br>I think I need to say something again. I DO NOT think that free will <br>requires anything outside of physics (even the physics we know <br>today). But you missed the point of the experiment (even though I was <br>explicit in my follow up). The creation of the experiment is evidence <br>of free will.<br><br>You claim that there is no free will. Then I had no choice but to <br>design the experiment (because of the direction of this discussion <br>which exists because of an earlier thread because of ... because of <br>the initial conditions of the universe). My statement of the "rules" <br>of the experiment become input into our machines. Now when we raise <br>our hands we could be automata, but HOW do the machines (our bodies) <br>turn an observation (the total number of runs) into an action (one or <br>the other hand going up)? Isn't this a part of what you say can't <br>happen? If you CAN turn an observation into an action, then why can't <br>you turn a thought into an action? (They seem pretty similar to <br>me ... I can make up a score - 7 to 5 - note that the total is even <br>and raise the appropriate hand ... I haven't raised the hand yet ... <br>My knowledge of the total is not only in my consciousind, but i've <br>documented it here ... I'll raise the appropriate hand after I re-read <br>which hand us for an even total).<br><br>If you CAN'T turn an observation onto an action, then the action must <br>also have been inherent in the universe before this discussion <br>started. I am skeptical of this.</p> You are welcome to conduct any poll you wish. I think that there is a
lot of evidence that there are physicists on both sides of the free
will issue (I have no idea what proportion is on each side and I doubt
that any survey we conducted would tell us those numbers).

I think I need to say something again. I DO NOT think that free will
requires anything outside of physics (even the physics we know
today). But you missed the point of the experiment (even though I was
explicit in my follow up). The creation of the experiment is evidence
of free will.

You claim that there is no free will. Then I had no choice but to
design the experiment (because of the direction of this discussion
which exists because of an earlier thread because of … because of
the initial conditions of the universe). My statement of the “rules”
of the experiment become input into our machines. Now when we raise
our hands we could be automata, but HOW do the machines (our bodies)
turn an observation (the total number of runs) into an action (one or
the other hand going up)? Isn't this a part of what you say can't
happen? If you CAN turn an observation into an action, then why can't
you turn a thought into an action? (They seem pretty similar to
me … I can make up a score – 7 to 5 – note that the total is even
and raise the appropriate hand … I haven't raised the hand yet …
My knowledge of the total is not only in my consciousind, but i've
documented it here … I'll raise the appropriate hand after I re-read
which hand us for an even total).

If you CAN'T turn an observation onto an action, then the action must
also have been inherent in the universe before this discussion
started. I am skeptical of this.

]]>