> On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself.
Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural phenomena.
I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's not science.
Regarding nature being random, there is no physics that suggest it is. "The wavefunction evolves deterministically", it's just that we as non-fundamental particles can't observe all amplitudes realized at once. (I suppose if you're a Copenhagen believer, the idea of collapse is non-deterministic...) Also, being uncertain about a system's future because one does not know the system's initial conditions doesn't mean the system is random.
For free will: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 (My paraphrased tl;dr for programmers in case you're a Sith: you can't possibly have any sort of will, free or otherwise, in a non-deterministic world; furthermore, we can create narrow AIs whose deterministic function is to search a space of possibilities and if it finds what looks like a good solution, it settles on that, or we can instruct it to search for other solutions, and this is what our will somewhat looks like from the outside--a search algorithm through future possibilities, some of them just as impossible physically speaking as our AI picking a solution that isn't past the stopping threshold--while what it feels like on the inside is that "we could realize any possibility[, if we felt like it]")
I'd say its rather simple, and similar to what has been done already. Wire up someone to an (eeg if i recall rightly), have them "choose" between two disparate things. Measure the brain response.
If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That is, your conscious mind is only deluding itself into thinking it chose what processes in the brain have already decided.
I think that was the gist of the study, its been a while so I might be off. Corrections welcome!
That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree. That said its just a thought experiment at this point. Maybe this is a "bad" approach to determining it, but the experiments do cast doubt on at the very least our perception of free will and determinism.
> That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree.
I was just thinking about this the other day. What occurred to me is that we tend to think of legal and moral punishments in a vengeful kind of way (sort of "getting back" at people for doing something wrong), which I agree makes little sense if we think the people involved had no choice in the matter.
But if you think about it, it's really a lot like training an artificial neural network. If it gives you an incorrect output (does something bad), you give it a negative feedback to train it not to do that anymore. In that context, you're not punishing it per se, and there's no consciousness or will or intention involved, but it amounts to basically the same as punishing a person for stealing or something. It's just a form of training.
Except it isn't that easy to. There is probably going to be some bias, not to mention that subtle unconscious hints from participants could be picked by the participants.
Also it's important to remember most of science theories can be overturned easily by new evidence. So I'm not sure science is 100% certain in either way.
> If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will.
That doesn't follow. It's still their brain making the decision. The experiment simply pushes free will into the unconscious mind, it doesn't show you don't have it. You are still your mind, and those are still your decisions.
If you aren't conscious of it, how do you have any control of it?
We have strong enough science to believe (though further testing is always appreciated) that the brain is a fully causal machine. That is, each brain state is based on causal antecedents of both internal and external factors. One antecedent brain state and feedback from the nervous system leads to the next brain state. The brain is not "making" the decisions, they are made. They just happen. It makes no sens to say that "you are your mind" because there is no evidence for a "mind." Just a hunk of meat in the head of that same person, all wrapped up in itself, not separate at all, that happens to be the part of the body that lends itself to acting.
> If you aren't conscious of it, how do you have any control of it?
Define "you". It's your brain, it's all you. You don't control you subconscious behavior real-time, but you do control it because you programmed it and you can reprogram it.
> That is, each brain state is based on causal antecedents of both internal and external factors.
Yes, but those internal factors are things like your past experiences, and thus are you.
> The brain is not "making" the decisions, they are made.
Semantics; they are the same thing.
> It makes no sens to say that "you are your mind" because there is no evidence for a "mind."
What? Mind is just a word, not a physical thing, to describe the state of the network that is your brain. Mind is what the brain does.
> Just a hunk of meat in the head of that same person, all wrapped up in itself, not separate at all, that happens to be the part of the body that lends itself to acting.
Of course it's just a hunk of meat, but it's not just meat, it's processes, those are the mind.
But I'm not actually claiming there is or isn't free will, read my statement again; I'm simply saying that detecting an action before you're aware of it doesn't prove or disprove free will.
If I consciously train myself to say "shit" every time I hear a particular word to the point where this behavior becomes sub-conscious and automatic, as all learned behaviors eventually do, that doesn't suddenly make it not my free will. It's still my brain, I trained it to do that, it's responding in the manner I previously chose, it's still my will.
Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural phenomena.
I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's not science.