(March 14, 2012 at 9:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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?
