(December 15, 2018 at 7:20 am)The__Chameleon Wrote: > The term "free" as it refers to the notion of free will asserts that if it would be natural for us to choose one thing we have the capacity to freely choose something else instead. If the universe determines we should go left, we can consciously choose to ignore this prompting and choose to go right. It is the notion that we (our conscious sense of mind) are free from (independent of) "nature".
So free will is free from our nature.
What is our nature? You mean free will is free from influence by instinct?
So basically what you are referring to is cognition vs emotion / instinct.
Both cognition, emotions and instincts are generated by the brain.
Why call it free will?
(December 15, 2018 at 7:20 am)The__Chameleon Wrote: > I assert that what said people like to think of as free will isn't free because they are not conscious of their own decisions, therefore their conscious sense of mind has no authority, and furthermore, since they qualified the nature of their decision making as "intelligent" (free thinking) it means that since this thinking is done by "nature" prior to the false sense of conscious authorship, nature is intelligent.
> If nature is an intelligent (free thinking, consciously self-deterministic) being (entity, agent, whatever) then to all intensive purposes nature is a god. In order to reject this possibility and still claim that nature is not intelligent one can claim that there is really no such thing as intelligence apart from the purely illusory sense of conscious authority over self. And in either case, human intelligence is an illusion. The conscious mind is slave to nature, not in authority of it.
First define what you mean by intelligent, and what you mean by nature as a single being.
Is a weather system intelligent? A mountain range?
