Hypothetically, science proves free will isn't real

[Edwardo Piet]

Science has already' proved' that incompatabilist free will isn't real. Not that it needs to -- it's a logically incoherent concept anyway.

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/bra...you-decide

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/f...8.751.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/metaphysics/201...44868.html

http://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...145705.htm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...ure-moves/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious "intentions" have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation with causation by believing that conscious awareness necessarily causes the body's movement. This possibility is bolstered by findings in neurostimulation, brain damage, but also research into introspection illusions. Such illusions show that humans do not have full access to various internal processes. The discovery that humans possess a determined will would have implications for moral responsibility. Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris believes that we are mistaken in believing the intuitive idea that intention initiates actions. In fact, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. Harris argues "Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion"

[Edwardo Piet]

As for compatabilist free will, it's trivially true and irrelevant to the actual question. No one doubts that we have that anyway.

[Edwardo Piet]

If determinism is true a sentient entity cannot determine otherwise because there is no otherwise in determinism.

If indeterminism is true a sentient entity cannot determine otherwise because there is no determining in indeterminism.

[robvalue]

As for compatabilist free will, it's trivially true and irrelevant to the actual question. No one doubts that we have that anyway.

That's why I find the idea so useless. It's just a tautology, not a position.

[The Grand Nudger]

For the others in the thread, do you think finding out you aren't responsible for who you are would decrease the enjoyability of your circle jerks?

Nope.

[GrandizerII]

For the others in the thread, do you think finding out you aren't responsible for who you are would decrease the enjoyability of your circle jerks?

Except not having free will does not mean I can't still take responsibility for myself.

[ignoramus]

Guys, you know how we don't have free will. How thoughts pop into our heads before we thought of them?

I had thought that I should go out and buy some urgently needed mustang parts.
I told the wife that the decision was not mine because we have no free will!

I said I did it because our future is predetermined and that fighting it was futile as it was bound to eventuate that way anyway!

Anyway, she's agreed and Ill be OK soon!

---

---

[Edwardo Piet]

[henryp]

If there is nothing but pure determinism, and we somehow learn this, we will react and continue to act in precisely the one way that we are determined to act anyway.

We could speculate on what that is of course. But you can't "choose" to act in a reality where there is no choice.

I don't think anyone said choose.  As you say, I am merely asked people to speculate on the course.  For whatever reason, I'm programmed to find such things interesting.  Not my fault.

[robvalue]

Sure, no. I was just pointing it out.

A faulty machine always blames its programming!

It's not inconsistent with some religious claims like forms of Calvinism.

If I found this out, I wouldn't be surprised.