One of the most powerful and compelling () intellectual arguments is that a human being has yet to be observed to perform a physical act that violates the laws of material science. Therefore the logic goes, man is restrained to the physical, and is a machine. This is a perfectly reasonable argument. A supernatural human force of free will is thus dismissed by a lack of any 'evidence' (scientifically biased of course, but all supporters are biased.). Thus what we thought was free will is the illusion of a machine (but perhaps a compelling and necessary illusion for social cohesion).

Zetherin

That humans cannot violate physical laws does not support the claim that humans have no choice. I have absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion....

That machines cannot violate the laws of physics is a very simple argument and somewhat obvious. Have you really never considered it?

Choice as to be done in equality of circumstances !!!

Haha, it's the battle of the hard and soft determinists here. I love it. :poke-eye:

lol. you know thinking about this(and as an aspiring engineer), I'm remineded of an old joke about a mathmatician, a physicist, and an engineer.

All 3 are placed some distance away from a beautiful woman(say 10 feet) and told that at every interval of a predetermined time delay they may move half the distance toward her until they meet.

Well the mathematician concludes that they will never meet as the series is infinite and so he gives up.

The physicist says if interval requires a finite amount of energy then the energy required will be inversely proportional to the distance remaining and he gives up too.

The engineer starts walking, saying, "10 feet, 5 feet, 2.5 feet, 1.25 feet, 7.5 inches", at which point he says, "good enough for all practical purposes."

Zetherin

Humans, nor machines, violate the laws of physics. However, machines do not have choice, humans do. This is because humans bear intentionality and machines do not.

But for many the fact that humans have never exhibited the ability to violate the laws of physics is a strong argument for seeing humas as machines.

I honestly don't think it would even be possible to write down every contributing factor that goes into a choice, even in a controlled environment. Because the simple fact that we interfered in the process would alter the process.

However, that aside, if it were possible, what is being proposed here is that if one could know every contributing factor, then one could write an equation that would always predict a persons choice. I don't see that as possible or plausible

And maybe, perhaps, the reason has something to do with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Quantum entanglement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[IMG]file:///C:/Users/FILIPE%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/FILIPE%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/FILIPE%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/FILIPE%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG]
Quantum entanglement, also called the quantum non-local connection, is a property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart-even if the individual objects are spatially separated in a spacelike manner. The property of entanglement was understood in the early days of quantum theory, although not by that name. Quantum entanglement is at the heart of the EPR paradox developed by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen in 1935. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations.
Quantum mechanics holds that observables, for example spin, are indeterminate until some physical intervention is made to measure an observable of the object in question. In the singlet state of two spin, it is equally likely that any given particle will be observed to be spin-up or spin-down. Measuring any number of particles will result in an unpredictable series of measurements that will tend to a 50% probability of the spin being up or down. However, the results are quite different if this experiment is done with entangled particles. For example, when two members of an entangled pair are measured, their spin measurement results will be correlated. Two (out of infinitely many) possibilities are that the spins will be found to always have opposite spins (in the spin-anti-correlated case), or that they will always have the same spin (in the spin-correlated case). Measuring one member of the pair therefore tells you what spin the other member would have if it were also measured. The distance between the two particles is irrelevant.
Theories involving hidden variables have been proposed in order to explain this result. These hidden variables would account for the spin of each particle, and would be determined when the entangled pair is created. It may appear then that the hidden variables must be in communication no matter how far apart the particles are, that the hidden variable describing one particle must be able to change instantly when the other is measured. If the hidden variables stop interacting when they are far apart, the statistics of multiple measurements must obey an inequality (called Bell's inequality), which is, however, violated, both by quantum mechanical theory and in experiments.[citation needed]
When pairs of particles are generated by the decay of other particles, naturally or through induced collision, these pairs may be termed "entangled", in that such pairs often necessarily have linked and opposite qualities such as spin or charge. The assumption that measurement in effect "creates" the state of the measured quality goes back to the arguments of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen[citation needed] and concerning Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and its relation to observation (see also the Copenhagen interpretation).
The analysis of entangled particles by means of Bell's theorem can lead to an impression of non-locality, i.e. that there exists a connection between the members of such a pair that defies both classical and relativistic concepts of space and time. This is reasonable if it is assumed that each particle departs the location of the pair's creation in an ambiguous state (thus yet unobserved, as per a possible interpretation of Heisenberg's principle). In such a case, for a given observable quality of the particle, all outcomes remain a possibility and only measurement itself would precipitate a distinct value. As soon as just one of the particles is observed, its entangled pair collapses into the very same state. If each particle departs the scene of its "entangled creation" with properties that would unambiguously determine the value of the quality to be subsequently measured, then the postulated instantaneous transmission of information across space and time would not be required to account for the result of both particles having the same value for that quality. The Bohm interpretation postulates that a guide wave exists connecting what are perceived as individual particles such that the supposed hidden variables are actually the particles themselves existing as functions of that wave.
Observation of wavefunction collapse can lead to the impression that measurements performed on one system instantaneously influence other systems entangled with the measured system, even when far apart. Yet another interpretation of this phenomenon is that quantum entanglement does not necessarily enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light because a classical information channel is required to complete the process.[citation needed]

to make the assertion that we could not have done otherwise given the circumstances is to presume to know something that could not be known.

Of course we could have done otherwise but through deliberation we did not.

It would seem to me that you're inferring that since only one alternative is ever chosen that means that only one alternative could have been chosen. Well there is no way to verify this that I can see so stating it as fact seems a little presumptuous.

*** EDIT FOR ADDITIONS***
As I've said everything(IMO) needs a cause minus the(an) original cause or causer. In the case of our actions, I submit that my free will is an original cause. Now at the same time we can want to do something and still not be allowed to do it, but in such cases someone or something has to negate our will.

For example, say I want to get through a doorway that someone is blocking and that person says they have orders not to let me through. Now say I still will(or desire or choose or whatever word you want to use) to go in the other room so I try and make a break for it and in the process he knocks me unconscious. My will has just been negated by an outside force but this did not negate that I desired or willed to go to the other room

I think if you separate the will from the act it becomes clearer(for me at least). We are compelled, but the only compelling force that matters is our will.

I guess it reminds me of a quote I heard one time which was "A man can do what he wants, but he can't will what he wills"
which I always took to mean that while I can do anything, the things I desire to do, aren't up to me. For example, I can do school work, but I can't make myself have a yearning for it.

hi Amperage

well i agree that just because we do not violate the laws of physics then it doesn't follow we are machines without choice/free will. Nor do i believe that free will is without very obvious constraints.

But there are potential willed paranormal phenomenon. They have never been measured as anything but statistical noise or non events in the lab .......... For some that is conclusive. (But not me.)

The point is that with regard to those contrary philosophies, how do we account for a lack of measurable distinction between a machine and a human? Free will is necessarily not measurable scientifically as i wrote before, and the only potential 'scientific' clue that something 'odd' is going on is if we can point to human beings producing unexplainable scientific measurements. If we believe that humans do have free will AND however they always conform to the laws of physics, then both camps are ultimately based upon faith.

We should honestly note that although a lack of evidence is not the same as an evidence of lack, nevertheless it can be compelling from a pragmatic perspective. Scientific materialism is nothing if not pragmatic.

1.4. Finally, why should it be thought that if I do X, it is only if I can do other than X in exactly identical condition I did X, that this would be acting of my own free will? First of all, no one (except some theologians and philosophers who ape them) use the term "free will" that way. Second of all, as Daniel Dennett puts it, why would anyone even think such indeterministic free will was worth having?

It seems to me you'd make a horrible, horrible judge. Would anyone ever go to jail or be accountable for their actions? You would conclude that everyone must have done as they did! :perplexed: