No. of Recommendations: 0
Anthony and I are taking the null hypothesis (i.e. 'no free will'). The burden should be on those taking the opposing view.

The most precise definition of the null hypothesis is a statistical one, there is no significant difference between two sets of observations. Yours is not a statistical argument. Your use of the term is pretty arbitrary as is your identification of which alternative should be the null hypothesis. Lots of people, perhaps most, have the experience of free will that you are claiming is false. Certainly the vast majority of laws are based on the assumption that people are responsible and accountable for their behavior. The vast majority of parents, I suspect even you, raised their kids on the presumption that they were responsible for their behavior. I don't know how one can be held accountable in the absence of free will.

If you are claiming all these folks are wrong then I think the burden of proof is on you.

All without any evidence more compelling than "I feel the spirit of the lord" (which neither you nor I would accept either). Personal experience is not evidence of anything other than one's personal experience, and said experience often does not match up with objective reality.

As I have mentioned before, the evidence for free will is exactly the same as that for consciousness. What objective proof do you have that you are conscious? Can you prove to someone else that you have subjective experiences? If personal experience is not sufficient to demonstrate free will then you should also be skeptical about whether you have consciousness and are experiencing subjective feelings.

Most recently you bring up quantum effects in biology without explaining how those could be related to free will (an especially tough challenge given that QM is probabilistic, not "willed" in any way that I'm aware of).

There have been many proposals linking quantum mechanics to consciousness and free will. Stuart Kauffmann's is simply one of the more recent. Two of the founders of QM, John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner, proposed that consciousness was necessary to cause wave function collapse. In other words, smarter minds than mine are considering the possibility and have proposed models.

As I recall you further posit that this something is innate to the universe, and you label it "conscious".

It isn't my idea. For example, the Free will Theorem was published in the Foundations of Physics and states that "... if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles."

So it would appear that if free will exists, it is universal.
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.