[madnak]

I started a whole big post with arguments and such, but then my phone line went out. And stayed that way for a week. As if it's not bad enough to be on dial-up... I'm pretty fried from skimming all the new posts, but I thought I should follow up on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not true.. it seems you're this idea with the Uncertainty Principle. Or, if it is true it isn't widely known and accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

What don't you think is true and why? I'm being simplistic, granted, because the point is that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your novel metaphor is that someone wrote the novel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just talking about the whole as opposed to the parts. I'm not getting into the issue of intelligent design in this thread, I don't see how it's relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how I am confusing materialism with determinism, I am aware they are different ideas that are often held by the same people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said that the atheist worldview is empty and meaningless, and then used materialist assumptions to support your assertion. Regardless, it's semantic. I'd rather stick to free will because the subject of whether atheism is "cold" will just derail things.

[ QUOTE ]
Then you should seriously give consideration (perhaps you have) to an all knowing and all powerful God. I have and for a variety of reasons it doesn't sit with me. I have also done the same with determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But I don't get the impression you've familiarized yourself with determinism.

[ QUOTE ]
My definition was a perhaps poor attempt to use what your first definition was minus the part where human's selections do not have an impact on the world. I don't understand that part nor how it is consistent with determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That they do have an impact.

[ QUOTE ]
However, my reason for believing in free will is actually not at all arrived at from logic. Logically consistent systems can be created on top of free will or on top of determinism.

One might think, "everything is an illusion, it only seems real" (like the matrix) or, "everything is real." How do you determine which is true? Well you cannot. If you believe everything is an illusion, then anything used to prove otherwise is an illusion in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "illusion" and "real?"

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be how determinists deal with the fact that our choices feel free. Free being original and not exclusively coerced factors leading to decisions. No one is trying to deny subconscious choices etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean exactly by "coerced?" It seems like you're riding the line of compatibilism. If that's your perspective, then I see no contradictions. If not, then I do.

[ QUOTE ]
To me, I arrive at the conclusion of free will not from intuition, because actually my intuition tells me that the world follows physical laws and we are a part of the world, and we therefore follow physical laws in an albeit more complex manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like a logical conclusion, not an intuitive conclusion. But you still aren't explaining why your view of free will and is mutually exclusive with physical laws.

[ QUOTE ]
I experience free will very directly and when I do as Descartes did and not make any assumptions about anything. I disregard everything and start with what can I know? Well the only thing I know is that I have original control over images and thoughts in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "original," and what do you mean by "know?" Descartes couldn't construct a valid argument for the life of him, and even dualists rarely accept the Cartesian premise unaltered. Descartes pretended to remove all assumptions, and consistently failed to do so. I'd love to know how you think you can instantaneously do away with your accumulated biases.

[ QUOTE ]
Granted, that could be an illusion. But it could only be an illusion in the way that everything is an illusion, its not provable or unprovable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be, if you define your terms and premises. So far what you're saying is largely nonsensical.

[ QUOTE ]
Some might say well you can prove it, actually. Look at physics. And I say, LOOK AT PHYSICS! The thing about quantum mechanics that leaves the door open for free will is that when there is a probability wave that collapses, its not just that there was a wave breaking when we touch it; it's that when it collapses into a particle we cannot know where that particle is going to collapse.

That is, over an infinite amount of electrons we can tell what the wave pattern will look like when they hit a photographic plate. However, we cannot know where ONE will hit. Not that we don't know how and that some day we will learn, but it is inherent that there is an element of randomness in each particular particle even though on average we can know a great deal about them in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, there appears to be true randomness in each particle. This refutes free will. That is, unless you suggest that free will is actually randomness. Of course, that's just probabilistic determinism, it's a form of compatibilism.

But this isn't what you're saying. You're not saying that your actions are random, you're saying that you control your actions. And while it's possible that you could be doing so at the quantum level, this would result in patterns (corresponding to your choices). Eventually we may be able to determine that quantum events in the brain really are random, and then there will be nowhere for supernatural perspectives to hide. There's the die roll, and there's the causal mechanism, and your actions are one or the other (or both).

And such patterns would only further remove the issue - there would be no indication that causal factors aren't responsible for them. We would simply be unable to identify such factors.

It gets to the point of hair-splitting. If you really want to believe that your physical actions are controlled by magical nonphysical factors that are neither random nor caused, you can throw out empiricism entirely. So even if we do disprove free will using physics, it won't end the issue. You can continue to believe what "feels right" to you - just as people have (often incorrectly) for millenia. This is true of any claim. So we can't know that free will doesn't exist.

What we can know is that there is no basis for believing that free will exists. Or at least, we can empirically establish this. But if your basis isn't logical, so be it. There are a number of serious dilemmas raised by the adoption of beliefs purely on the basis of your own personal perceptions, but I don't want to write out my post again, particularly since nobody may be listening. I may come back to it if the thread revives. But you're basically suggesting the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this is one of those cases where it's a valid reference. You claim to have some special knowledge that free will exists that is personal, that can't be logically described, and that is unique to you and people like you (or at least, that doesn't exist for me and people like me). And this special knowledge that you claim to have is your only basis for believing in free will.

And you think that's compelling? Well, given that I lack this "special knowledge," I hope you can appreciate my incredulity. Hell, I myself have had spiritual experiences and have felt "communion with God," so at least I can confront believers on that level. I've never experienced free will, so I'll just have to conclude that I'm a zombie and you're a real person (except that a true pzombie would claim to experience free will - I should have copied that other post into notepad...)