cognitivemagic (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

If I choose to use drugs and my brother doesn't, then what "law" can you invoke to explain these differences? Is there a unique "law" guiding me and another "law" which guides my brother? But how is that a "law"?Appealing to "unique molecular structures"--as an answer to the problem of behavioral differences--doesn't solve this since biology, itself, is bound by laws. In principle, physics operates uniformly; humans do not.And so, "freewill" is the proverbial "law unto itself".

cognitivemagic (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"Rationality" requires libertarian freedom.The fact that there is a contrast between the beliefs of freedom and determinism, on the one hand, and your particular belief in "determinism", on the other, is good evidence that you are "free". Why believe that there's any "rational" difference between "freedom" and "determinism" if your beliefs happen to be wholly determined? Why believe that you believe anything at all, if beliefs are merely a matter of "causal" necessity?

mtheoryrules (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

This would be true if there was no way to increase a probable outcome. However conscious interaction can have a causal effect on a system to increase a probable event occurring vs the probability of that same occurrence without conscious interaction.Did you even look up my suggested example?See the delayed choice quantum easer.I would argue that will is free by virtue of self owned consciousness but that the power to choose is hedged by probability.At any rate determinism is not absolute

jayo18010 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

'uncertainty principle' alludes to randomness not free will-free will must allow actions to be determined by the agent. The 'will' is always free. objective reasoning allows us to transcend prior inclinations

mtheoryrules (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

For an example of free will, as supported by a materialist world view, see the deleyed choice quantum easer experiement.Once again I am saying that free will exists.That hard determinism can not be said to exist as it would violate intrinsic qualities of our universe. And that I am not a dualist or idealist, nor am I a theist.What are you, a new age stoic?

mtheoryrules (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Free implies self owniship.Will implies choices can effect a probable outcome.Causal determinism has been redifined by quantum mechanics. Unless you are one those small precent that actually subscribes to a non-local hiden variables interpretation. Even so there remains a degree of probability do to the uncertianity principle as it applies to space-time. The point is that so long as an event has a degree of probability then self owned will is possible.Physicalist, monist, logical empiricist.

secretcheef (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

why not examine the free will of the gunman.

isso09 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

common sense?Also, why are you vlogging from a mailroom?

cruelfate45 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Will is not choice. So what does choice have to do with free will? You must be talking about free choice or something.

firesteel1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thank you, but modesty aside I think I may already be right when is comes to whether or things are totally determined. The inherent randomness found in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is what we consider to be true randomness. It's nothing to do with complexity or human being's limited capabilities, but with the very nature of what it is.