Re: Free Will not an illusion

From: Phillip Huggan (
Date: Fri Dec 16 2005 - 14:23:02 MST

"S" is meaningless. Proof of Free-will is physics, not philosophy. Sure, free-will (if it exists) must be derived from unchosen factors because it is possible to trace the chain of causality backwards to when *you* were just your Dad's cumshot and your Mom's ova. In my model, somewhere around E(one billion), you are two years old and your neurons are on the verge of firing; you are deciding whether or not to eat paint. The 1st time you sampled paint (E-500 million), it was inevitable. This time around your brain isn't sure. Part of your decision is based upon your memory of tastes you like. You remember that you enjoyed the taste of paint and would prefer to experience the qualia again. When whether or not your neurons fire depend upon electrical actions in parts of your brain that constitute self (including memory), you are exercising free-will. It doesn't happen too often (and not at all if this model of the brain is faulty).

Eric Rauch <> wrote: <SNIP> Assume that a person (P) is born with certain endowments, genetics and
physical factors in general (G), and maybe a spirit or some other
ethereal energy (S). So at time 0, before the person has had any
experience with the world or had the opportunity to make any choices,
the total contents of the person will be P = G + S. None of these
factors are the product of free will. G is the product of the parents
union, and S (if it is nonzero) is chosen by god or some other
ethereal force. At time 1, the person makes its first contact with
the world (W), another non-chosen factor, and has experience E(1).
E(1) is necessarily the result of W, G, S, or some combination of the
three. Regardless of the permutation, the experience is not the
result of free will unless free will is defined as the product of
non-chosen factors.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT