I'll be there for #3000.




Here are some examples of what I mean:

(1) Need drives some acts as in hunger:eat

Of course how much we eat more or less
than what we need need is a matter of will.


(2) Instinct drives some acts as in sex:gratification

Of course whether we take any action
to gratify our instinct is a matter of will.


(3) Random impulse drives some acts
as in pick up a rock:throw the rock

Of course we may assume or repress the whims
of random impulse as a matter of will.


(4) Restraint prevents some acts as in a prisoner in jail.

Of course the jailer is going to provide us with
less choices to 1-2-3 above than if there were
no jailer.





I thought you had dropped determinism,
including scientific determinism, as a basis
for your argument.

Since you brought it up again let me try this:

Thought is a part of consciousness, and
observation is also a part of consciousness.

Consciousness is the parent of both.

One extreme version of Quantum Mechanics
takes the view that nothing but nothing is real
unless it is observed.

If this interpretation is true, then observation
attains parity with the elements the observer
is made of, including electrons and chemicals.

More than that, consciousness, being the parent
of observation, should attain parity with something
deeper than mere electrons and chemicals.

Maybe Free Will has something to do with the deeper parity
bequeathed to us by our consciousness.




See above.




No, it means we have a will: to create the jet and fly it.




I think complexity DID create Free Will.

Whatever else you may say about the Universe
is it really, really complicated.

It is so complicated that even Newton, Einstein,
and thousands of other people almost as smart
as they were have not come close to figuring it out.

The Universe is also huge, huge on the cosmic scale
and huge on the subatomic scale, and huge on every scale
in between.

Such complex hugeness obviously allows for a lot
of possibilities. I think Free Will is likely to exist
somehwere in all these possibilities, and it may
as well be us.




I was not declaring absurdity in place of anything.

What you said is absurd.

Here it is again:

Absurd.


I'm out of steam. I'll get to the rest later.

This argument might work if the rock could
throw us.




Rolling into something is not the same
as throwing it.




This is the David Bohm "Pilot Wave"
interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
according to which:

Everything in the Universe no matter how small
affects everything else in the Universe instantly
("Instantaeously" in the jargon of Physics).

The effect is produced by "Pilot Waves" of everything
in the universe, all bumping against all others
throughout Space with no lapse in Time.

I am actually attracted to Bohm's whole idea.

If the experts say Bohm is deterministic,
they must be right.

Best from my point of view would be
an indeterministic corollary, experts being shortsighted.

Pilot Waves sound cool!

I keep appointments.


I do not have the ability to understand the absurd.

There is no understanding it.

Originally Posted by atheistwoody I know im the atoms. I dont really get the point your making, its probably just me being a bit dense. Your saying we dont have freewill because were made up of atoms that are controlled by the laws of physics. While yes this is true of course, I would say we do have free will as physics is not concious. If I wanted to cross a road there is nothing anyone or anything could do to stop me. I think universally we dont have free will due to physics However mentally we do

I had planned to drop out of this thread.

Now I feel the need to speak again.

The premise that atoms would have to control themselves
in order for us to control them is invalid.




Your fallacy is assuming that because I am made entirely of atoms
then I can therfore control none the atoms I am made of.

Before your next post please decide exactly what you mean by "control".

For now I am going to assume that when a limb is amputated the atoms
of the amputated limb have in some way been "controlled". They were
connected to the atoms of the rest of the body, then they were no longer
connected, and were dispersed to the ground and air.

In no sense did the amputated arm or leg fly off the rest of the body
all by itself. The doctor performed the operation with the approval
of the patient. The doctor and the patient are also composed of atoms,
the patient having fewer atoms after the operation. Between the doctor
and the patient we have a gargatuan number of atoms, none of them
able to control anything, according to you.

I agree.

So what is in "control" of the operation?

You seem to be saying "the Laws of Physics"

If your argument is based on physics then here is all you have to work with
that is now known are the Four Forces of Nature (in order of strength, strongest first):

(1) the Strong Nuclear Force

(2) Electromagnetism

(3) the Weak Nuclear Force

(4) Gravity

If your argument is based on physics then you must say that what I am misidentifying
as Free Will is actually "control" exercised by those Four Forces of Nature.

Can you please give us some specifics?

How do they do it?

Whatever your solution is, it is complicated.

You have a lot of work to do!

Is your solution less complicated than assuming that ego is equal although not superior
to the other forces, and that ego choses its own fate within the limits prescribed by all forces?




Fine.

Ask any scientist if his science is even close to square one in explaining ego.
Please link me to any scientist who answers "yes". I would really like to see that.




Here is something I mentioned earlier which bears repeating:

If the amount of fat (made of 1000s bazillion atoms) in our bodies
is controlled by our diet, and if our diet is controlled by our will
then the will does control how much fat its human bearer has.

Similarly if our will controls the amount of exercise we get, and whether
we use steroids or HGH, the will would control how much of what we
are is muscle.