Re: Free Will not an illusion

From: micah glasser (
Date: Sat Dec 17 2005 - 00:16:40 MST

If you define free-will in terms of causality then, of course, there is no
free-will. However, I think that there is something that is meant by
free-will and it really has nothing to do with causality. The issue, I
think, is in what faculty of the mind governs a person's actions - instinct
or reason. We all know people who's lives are governed by instinct almost
exclusively. these people act more like animals than people. The truly free
individual is the rational individual. It is a state of consciousness that
can be achieved. The ability to achieve this state of rationality may be
determined by a combination of genetics and environment, but nevertheless,
that person is 'self-determinate'. This idea is the crux of almost all of
German philosophy - everything from Kant's categorical Imperative to
Nietzsche's Will to Power. Man is a being who has the power to direct his
own actions based on reason (modelling the universe and acting toward a
super-goal). This same idea can be found also in the theology of St. Paul.
Paul who constantly makes references to the bondage of the flesh (instinct)
and admonishes his followers to "take the mind of Christ" (rationality) in
order to gain freedom over the bondage.

On 12/16/05, Phillip Huggan <> wrote:
> "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

I swear upon the alter of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny
over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson

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