Is free will real?

[The Grand Nudger]

The argument is that free will does NOT exist as we experience it-- a belief based not on our experiences, but on ideas we have about the nature of the universe and its constituent parts, the rules of which we must necessarily follow.

Whereas I think that free will -is- based on our experience, particularly the flaws we've discovered regarding that experience, and ways in which that sort of experience could be generated.

In other words, since no part of the physicalist model of the universe allows for true freedom, we take that free will, which FEELS real, is not "really real"-- it is illusory.

If true freedom is absolute freedom, or in the periphery - it's not an issue of whats allowed...we just don't find any of it (the model isn't a bouncer at a club - it doesn't kick things out because there's no room left - it tries to describe and explain). That won't make our shiny red car disappear, it won't be any less real. We'll just have the explanation wrong. We've been there plenty of times. When you use your "free will" you're doing something yeah? That something won't cease to be just because we answer a question about it the wrong way.

I think we have to agree to disagree about what makes complex experiences "real" to an observer. You see a shiny red object, the monkeys see an object in the same point in space, and to you, this represents a shared experience.

Sure...in that we are sharing an experience. Seems cut and dry. I have reasonable expectations of what a monkey can or cannot see. I think they'd notice a ferrari for essentially the same reasons that I would. We would both be looking at and seeing the same thing. Wherever a monkey thinks it sees a ferrari...I'm probably going to think I see one as well (and vv). Personally...I think that's probably because the ferrari is there - not a concept, or a collection of immaterial thoughstuff. A thing - dimensions, colors, angles......mass. (As a side note, some species of monkey toil under monochromacy - but so do some humans - again, monkeys and humans are so close - I think that you could make the point much better with other species, and I do think you're expressing a very interesting point - but as you know, you and I start at that place and go opposite directions from it.)

I see the ideas and feelings connected to the object, and know that monkeys can never share those ideas and feelings, and see that the experience of "Ferrari" cannot be shared with that species. Both species see shiny red objects, and those objects are real. But only people can really see "Ferrari."

I probably don't connect the same ideas and feelings to the brand that you do - so we can't share that experience either - not in any way more meaningful than you and a monkey might. You and I have separate experiences regarding the Ferrari, so I don't see why humans and monkeys wouldn't...but I also don't know what that would signify - isn't it to be expected? Isn't there also quite alot about the experience that we would expect points of commonality on? You think that your description of a ferrari (whatever that entails) is better than the monkey's, or likely more accurate. You can "really see" the ferrari - monkeys, you reckon, can't. That's suspect though...human thinks human description is better/more accurate than non-human description, surprise surprise. Monkeys would probably think that our descriptions of our experiences (or our experiences) were shit as well. We gain depth in one direction, they in another. We're both (the monkeys and ourselves) expressing toddlers experiences relative to each others frame of reference...nevertheless, the car remains - and remains unchanged by all of this consideration (or the lack thereof).