Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

news.ycombinator.com

1–10 of 84 posts

Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#1
There is no scientific evidence for free will. It may just be an illusion.

Moreover, there's scientific evidence against it: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unconscious-decisions

How do you reconcile your rationality and a belief in free will?

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#5
post #4
post #3

predictability doesn't necessarily preclude free will. free will doesn't imply randomness.

There is no scientific evidence for free will. So why believe in it?

what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#6
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no scientific evidence for free will. So why believe in it?

what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?

One can ask something similar about proving the existence of God.

Why should you not believe in God on faith but believe in free will on faith?

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#8
post #7

This is a Pascal's Wager question. If there is no free will, I have no choice over whether to believe in free will or not. If free will does exist and I believe in it, I am correct to do so.

Exactly what I mean with linguistic/logic side-effects.

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#9
post #6
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what defines free will, and what scientific evidence would sufficiently prove your definition of free will?

One can ask something similar about proving the existence of God. Why should you not believe in God on faith but believe in free will on faith?

sigh. i was really hoping you were trying to take this in another direction.

free will is an objectively observable phenomenon, and the burden of proof is on disproving existence or providing an alternate explanation for the observable. we might not be able to show the mechanisms for why it exists, but we can show that it exists.

god is not objectively observable, and so the burden of proof is on proving existence.

Post reply on HN