Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
Like me, you've said that you experience free will and now you say there is no "actual evidence" for or against.

So why do believe you lack free will in the absence of "actual evidence" against?


How can I discount my subjective experience? Because I’m scientifically trained, like you. I know that the subjective is inadmissible. I’m not quite sure why you make an exception for “free will”. I do not. (note: reading that it may sound harsh or condescending…I hope not as that was not my intent in any way) I would love to toss in a genetic analogue to this, but alas it’s too far outside my field. Suffice to say that if your “subjective experience” of some experiment told you one thing, but your actual measurements (from some instrument you’re using) said something else, you would -I’m sure- publish the instrument reading. As you should.

As I believe I said earlier, I know my brain lies to me. Yours lies to you. It’s part of how it functions. I “go with it” because I don’t really have much other choice (absent instrumentation, which isn’t common in daily life). Obviously it does reasonably well as I haven’t walked off a cliff when I thought I was crossing a street.

As for burden of proof, that is on you. You are claiming a new property of matter. Not I. The burden is on you to justify that claim if you want to take it any further than a moderately interesting discussion on a message board. It is an extraordinary claim, and is going to require some extraordinary evidence. I’m more than open to it in the presence of such evidence, but otherwise I must take the “I don’t believe that” stance. Doesn’t mean I can’t be swayed with data. I can be. I’m not saying “I believe matter does not possess free will”, but rather “I don’t believe matter possesses free will”.

I don't let theists get away with it when they "feel the presence of the lord", and I can't let you get away with "I feel that I have free will". To me those assertions are comparable.

How is it possible that stuff that can be measured can give rise to something that cannot be measured?

There's probably a really good explanation for that, but I do not know what it is. The best I could do is what benjd25 did, and give you a list of examples.

This indicates that human choices are at least as unpredictable as astronomical methods of generating randomness, which strongly suggests that human choices are not predictable by classical determination.

Or that the entanglement isn't affected by the original notion posited by Bell with respect to EPR. Difficult to know if it says the randomness is equal, or the lack of relevance is equal. Bell was just positing a possible problem with entanglement and trying to measure/gauge it. It was never a certainty that his objection was actually a problem. At least not that I'm aware of. As I recall it was more of a possible variable that should be eliminated "just in case".
Print the post  

Announcements

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.