Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

Which is precisely why they argue against the brain between their ears Faith. What we do know conflicts with the magic they wish to be present, and so rather than attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the known, they attempt to remove what is known from the discussion. It's complete bullshit. This is exceedingly simple. No one has ever demonstrated such a thing as free will, the very concept runs counter to a great deal that we do know about both ourselves and the universe which we live in. Not only this, we have demonstrated that the mind is capable of forming very effective illusions, and that we use these illusions as part of our very human, very natural, very material OS. So, what to do? Redefine, wriggle, make comments about relative worth or value, and at all times....argue anything else. I'm wondering, do single celled organisms have free will? They would seem to meet every "qualification" put forward by the pro free will camp. So do plants.

Am I one of the "they" ?

The free-will, as you understand it, is indemonstrable, because it is by its very nature supernatural (by virtue of being free from causation). It is also a relic of the dark ages where belief in supernatural entities such as a soul or spirit was not to be questioned. Correction in understanding of free-will is in order with our current knowledge.

As for the single celled organism - certainly one qualification for having a free-will is having a will - which requires a certain level of cognition, motivation and affection. Do single cell organisms (or plants) have one of those?

[The Grand Nudger]

It requires a will, a level of cognition...so, you mean some sort of "brain" eh? Back to square one. I've been trying to get this across the entire time. That "will" free or otherwise, is an effect. Let's up the ante, worms have a very simple brain. Do worms have free will? Or do they "do what their will tells them to do", their will being a set of simple reactions to external and internal stimuli?

[genkaus]

I'm not searching for entity within, am I? I am accepting that the adder is the entity. Again, this sort of argument is precisely why I am frustrated. "You" are all of the things which comprise you (speaking generally). Toenails to split ends. They are all natural, all material, and in each and every part, completely in thrall to determinism as far as we can tell in every particular. Now what? Is there some particular that you feel has been left out, has some part of us escaped what no other part of us has, is some part of us, this "entity" separate from the rest? Over, above, or around those processes which constrain the rest. Care to demonstrate which part? How this might be accomplished? Perhaps even though each and every part can be shown to act in accordance to these laws that we have described, the whole is somehow able to transcend these laws? Where? When? How?

The idea of the brain being the "self", specifically when we refer to our thoughts is not the product of fuzzy thinking, and definitely doesn't lead us to souls or spirits. It is the product of observation, experimentation, and replication. It is one of the largest factors that went into making the idea of a soul, or spirit untenable, so I'm not entirely sure why you would choose to blather on about such a hard won insight as being essentially interchangeable with superstition. I'm guessing that there is something else attached that you would like to believe in which would severely compromised by these, demonstrable, insights.

I don't think that I have found a single part of this argument which is inconsistent with my beliefs except for the bolded part. If you look back, this was the content of my argument while replying to apophenia's comment about simply equating a human being to a brain and hand-waving it away. You entered the discussion when you misunderstood the point of my analogy as referring to complexity rather than emergent entity.

[The Grand Nudger]

No problem, I misunderstood you (anything to remove opportunity for diversion), still wondering about free will though, and whether or not we're ever going to see a demonstration. Also wondering about my worms, and their free will. You don't actually have to tell me about worms, could cut to the chase and point to which creature could be the first to be said to have a free will, on the branching ladder of neurological complexity.

[genkaus]

Your argument appears to state;

You have a triangle.

Take away one side, is that the triangle? No?
Take away another side, is that the triangle? No?
Take away the last side, is that the triangle? No?

Then you now have nothing left, THEREFORE the triangle transcends its sides.

Which is obvious bullshit.

My (maybe presume our) position is that the triangle is the whole thing, and nothing you can do can change it from being a triangle without adding the supernatural.

Bullshit. I never stated anything about transcendency - only being emergent.
Where the hell did you get the idea that I was adding something supernatural to the equation? My position is and always has been that a triangle is the combination of all three sides in a particular arrangement.

[The Grand Nudger]

He probably got that idea from your arguments to the effect of there somehow being a difference between causality as it applies to free will, and how it applies to everything else. You seem to be arguing for a special case without realizing it.

[genkaus]

Is there a problem with discarding free will as natural law? I've never heard of the Law of Free Will. I didn't realize that there was such a thing?

It is a problem only if you are entering the discussion about existence of free-will with that premise.

You keep claiming that you are arguing for a completely "natural" free will compliant with causation, Faith has been trying to show you that you haven't been.

Faith has been trying to show that I'm not arguing according to his understanding of free-will - to which I've been replying "Ofcourse not."

[The Grand Nudger]

That's all well and good, but again, elaborate upon your "free will". Show us why you call it "free will", and tell us how it differs from the "free will" of others. Convince us that it is more than a clever illusion. In lue of a demonstration, of course.

[genkaus]

It requires a will, a level of cognition...so, you mean some sort of "brain" eh? Back to square one. I've been trying to get this across the entire time. That "will" free or otherwise, is an effect. Let's up the ante, worms have a very simple brain. Do worms have free will? Or do they "do what their will tells them to do", their will being a set of simple reactions to external and internal stimuli?

I'd say no, because it is not just "some" sort of brain, but a specific sort of brain which is capable of cognition, i.e. the ability to conceptualize. I'm not sure, but I don't think that worm-brains are complex enough to form concepts.

---

No problem, I misunderstood you (anything to remove opportunity for diversion), still wondering about free will though, and whether or not we're ever going to see a demonstration. Also wondering about my worms, and their free will. You don't actually have to tell me about worms, could cut to the chase and point to which creature could be the first to be said to have a free will, on the branching ladder of neurological complexity.

Demonstration - I'm writing this post. I consider that an expression of my free-will because the causes external to me are insufficient to constraint me to write it.

As for the neurological complexity part, I think we've had this discussion somewhere. I cannot point to a specific level or find a line of demarcation. Here's a list according to my current understanding.

Humans - Yes.
Other great apes - Yes.
Dolphins - Yes.
Octopuses -Yes.
Elephants - Yes.
Dogs - Maybe yes.
Cats - Maybe yes.
Birds - Dunno.
Fish - Dunno.
Bears - Dunno.
Rats - Maybe No.
Ants - No.
Snakes - No.

and so on. As you may notice, most of the animals would come under "dunno".

[The Grand Nudger]

So, again, it is complexity? How does this complexity affect causality then? Worms brains are not "complex enough", human brains, though operating on an expanded worms brain, and under completely identical laws are. Would that be a fair appraisal of your position? Worms exhibit behaviors, as do plants, so, an effect is not good enough to qualify as "free will"? Can we get less complex than a human brain and still have "free will"?