IATIA,
We have already been down this road. Remember this -
I do not believe any such proof of free will is possible, any more than you do, as long as things like the computer simulation alternative are impossible to discount, but there is observed evidence for free will out the wazoo.
No. It is both an observation and direct experience. I roll the dice. How do I prove that the roll was random? In other words, how do I prove that the roll could have come up otherwise? I roll the dice again and again, observing that the results are random. I now know that all rolls are random, even the very first roll I made. It is the same with direct experience of free will. I make a choice. Over time, under identical relevant conditions, I make another and another and another. I observe that my choices vary, and are neither random nor demanded by any external necessity.
If I was appealing to the argument from popularity I would agree. But I am not. I am appealing to the universal repeatability of the test and its results. Everybody experiences life the same way. They report the same results of their own continuing testing. Free will is not a claim. It is an observed characteristic of people. The evidence is overwhelming.
Yet free will cannot be proven, because just as you said, it relies on the dependability of our memories, and our entire memories could be a lie. But if that were the case, then we could not be sure that the roll of the dice is random, or that causation is valid, because those rely on the dependability of our memories just as much. So either we can rely on our memories, and observe that within appropriate boundaries causation exists, randomness exists, and free will exists, or we must necessarily throw them all away.
Are you saying that those two articles are your evidence? If so, please say so clearly. If not, please clarify what you meant, and present a summary of your evidence.
So, I absolutely admit that I do not have proof of free will, but instead have nothing more than overwhelming evidence of it. And that gives you the opportunity to prove your counter-claim. You claim that we are robots, absolutely determined by causation and randomness. So by all means - make a choice. Now prove to me that you were constrained to that choice and no other.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
IATIA Wrote:Make a choice. Now prove to me that you could have chosen differently.
We have already been down this road. Remember this -
IATIA Wrote:You do not know for a fact (nor can you) that you are nothing more than a computer simulation that was just started at this moment and everything you know was just simply programmed into your avatar.
Shadow_Man Wrote:Agreed. Nor can we know whether the simulation has been running for millenia, and we are just the current generation of avatars.
I do not believe any such proof of free will is possible, any more than you do, as long as things like the computer simulation alternative are impossible to discount, but there is observed evidence for free will out the wazoo.
Shadow_Man Wrote:My entire life is a constant test and verification of my own free will.
IATIA Wrote:No, it is not. That is strictly an assumption on your part. A claim.
No. It is both an observation and direct experience. I roll the dice. How do I prove that the roll was random? In other words, how do I prove that the roll could have come up otherwise? I roll the dice again and again, observing that the results are random. I now know that all rolls are random, even the very first roll I made. It is the same with direct experience of free will. I make a choice. Over time, under identical relevant conditions, I make another and another and another. I observe that my choices vary, and are neither random nor demanded by any external necessity.
Shadow_Man Wrote:Everybody around me reports the same results in the ongoing test that is their lives.
IATIA Wrote:Just because "everybody' thinks it so, does not make it so.
If I was appealing to the argument from popularity I would agree. But I am not. I am appealing to the universal repeatability of the test and its results. Everybody experiences life the same way. They report the same results of their own continuing testing. Free will is not a claim. It is an observed characteristic of people. The evidence is overwhelming.
Yet free will cannot be proven, because just as you said, it relies on the dependability of our memories, and our entire memories could be a lie. But if that were the case, then we could not be sure that the roll of the dice is random, or that causation is valid, because those rely on the dependability of our memories just as much. So either we can rely on our memories, and observe that within appropriate boundaries causation exists, randomness exists, and free will exists, or we must necessarily throw them all away.
IATIA Wrote:I have already shown reasonable evidence that we do not have free will.
(and it is initially based randomly. You apparently skimmed past those parts.)
Are you saying that those two articles are your evidence? If so, please say so clearly. If not, please clarify what you meant, and present a summary of your evidence.
IATIA Wrote:(and it is initially based randomly. You apparently skimmed past those parts.)I read the articles carefully. I even quoted from the first article to clearly show that the article itself categorizes neural randomness as an assertion of the Spanish researchers. But, by all means, I invite you to quote from the articles themselves to show me what I skimmed over, and prove wrong my conclusion that those articles demonstrate the exact opposite of your claim that our will is random.
So, I absolutely admit that I do not have proof of free will, but instead have nothing more than overwhelming evidence of it. And that gives you the opportunity to prove your counter-claim. You claim that we are robots, absolutely determined by causation and randomness. So by all means - make a choice. Now prove to me that you were constrained to that choice and no other.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
