Full circle

[Whateverist]

*steps back silently, turns and exits the thread*

[Esquilax]

For free will to be a product of physiology, there must be a chemical reaction to initiate the thought or desire. What initiated this reaction?

Or a series of chemical interactions. Or a specific arrangement of brain matter plus those. Don't oversimplify this.

And if we don't know the answer, that doesn't mean it's impossible. Like I said, neither side has a demonstrable answer just yet, so there's no reason to discard physiology, which at least has the advantage of being readily apparent.

Either we run into the infinite regression paradox or free will is not generated by physiological functions.

Just because one thinks it is real, does not make it so.

How is infinite regression remotely connected to free will? And how is it even a problem? It's not like you've bothered demonstrating that infinity can't exist.

Material things are not just restricted to what they are composed of, else we'd never have machinery or electrical engineering.

hock:

A car cannot fly. It is restricted to it's design. Your laptop cannot get up and dance, it is restricted to it's design. Etc..

Yes, but a pile of plastic and metal can't run a computer program, but my laptop can. According to your logic, my laptop is just a pile of plastic and metal, and therefore can only do the things that plastic and metal can do.

Unless... you accept that the arrangement of such matter can produce a different effect to the parts on their lonesome, in which case, what's your excuse for thinking the brain can't do that too?

[IATIA]

How can a thought initiate a chemical reaction? What initiated the thought?

Infinity does exist. However, an infinity has no end, so an infinity cannot pass, therefore there can be no infinite trail of events leading to the present.

Yes you are correct, a pile of plastic and metals cannot build a computer any more than a computer can do something it is not designed to do.

[Esquilax]

How can a thought initiate a chemical reaction? What initiated the thought?

Why are the only options you're considering thoughts or magic?

Infinity does exist. However, an infinity has no end, so an infinity cannot pass, therefore there can be no infinite trail of events leading to the present.

"An infinity" is not a thing, because infinity is not a unit of time. It's a description of a set without end. Infinity wouldn't stop, but there would still be discrete moments of time present within one. If you existed on earth, in an infinity, you would still be able to mark time in the usual way; the day would still be 24 hours, and you'd still be able to sit in that infinity for twenty four hours and know that a day has passed by. It would just mean there would be an infinite amount of days yet to come.

Yes you are correct, a pile of plastic and metals cannot build a computer any more than a computer can do something it is not designed to do.

Are you misunderstanding me on purpose, or are you just not capable of remembering your own argument?

[bennyboy]

I don't think this counts as philosophy, since it's not rooted in any logical thought, or any attempt to understand the facts of existence.

Of course it does.

Either we have no free will and are simply a product of biochemical reactions, which makes this all moot or we have free will that must fall outside these reactions.

If we have free will, where does it come from. What physiological process could possibly invoke free will?

"We dunno therefore (idea I pulled out of my ass)," is not, contrary to popular belief, a philosophical argument. That you think it is represents an insult to organized thought.

[IATIA]

"We dunno therefore (idea I pulled out of my ass)," is not, contrary to popular belief, a philosophical argument. That you think it is represents an insult to organized thought.

I disagree and believe you to be wrong.

What would you consider a 'philosophical argument' that is not an "idea I pulled out of my ass".

[Esquilax]

"We dunno therefore (idea I pulled out of my ass)," is not, contrary to popular belief, a philosophical argument. That you think it is represents an insult to organized thought.

I disagree and believe you to be wrong.

Do you honestly think that the argument from ignorance is a cogent philosophical argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's pretty simple to see how a "thought" -could- initiate a chemical reaction. It's also trivial to lay out a list of conditions that -could- initiate a "thought". Is your bar for "free will" the bar of being absolutely free of causality? The idea that something may make any choice in any situation, regardless of previous conditions or constraints? Without having a better idea of what you're asking how could anyone answer those questions to your satisfaction?

"Infinity has no end, so it cannot pass" is an artifact of language between passing/ending. The -therefore- doesn't follow anyway, I guess that makes the artifact irrelevant but it's interesting when we see them. Have you considered that a contributing factor in our inability to discuss infinity (and our dissatisfaction with the discussion) is due to our inexperience with the subject? Our notions of time (and our experience of time) were not built with an eye for accomodating infinity. How would, as a fun side note, something with "thoughts" built out of matter process infinity? How might that be accomplished? How are we to treat infinity as a variable?

[IATIA]

Hey Rhythm, how are you?

Free will by necessity must be free of direct causality. I have a choice, turn left and drive off a cliff or turn right and continue on my merry way. Causality would force on or the other, whereas free will allows for the choice. One could drive off the cliff albeit not necessarily in their best interest.

[The Grand Nudger]

By necessity of what? I think that you're vastly oversimplifying the options one has available in the cliff situation in order to present a false dichotomy (that has clearly convinced you of something). Perhaps I "choose" to turn right but my tire pops and i fly into the ravine anyway? If all (causal) roads lead to the ravine, does that mean that I didn't at least -make the choice- not to end in the ravine..despite my inability to actualize that? I think that you might find that in any situation where we consider whether or not a choice is made some point of reference has been chosen as the mark, the metric. Meanwhile, why are we determining that causality would force one or the other? Can't it be a floating range of probabilities...altering constantly? I don't actually put much weight in free will - especially as you've described what it must necessarily be, just to be upfront.

(I'm aight, btw, not much sleep - chop da wood, chop da wood)