Article on free will in Wired. Based on research.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Well, if free will doesn't exist, a proof that depends on it goes up in smoke.

True, but Ian's proof is a proof that free will exists.

As I say, you probably can't get a watertight proof because of the problem about definitions, which in turn boils down to the fact that you do not accept the normal meaning of 'free will'.

Ian's proof does not use this supposed normal meaning of free will, either. His definition is along the lines of "mental causation."

There is no normal definition of free will.

Well, how did the ancients learn about fire (or almost any other phenomenon). They didn't start by requiring impossible (at that stage) definitions, which is exactly my point!

Fire is a physical thing with a separate existence, making it amenable to investigation. Is that what we should assume about free will?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

How sad, poor Paul doesn't have any free will ....... perhaps I can help you .....just use your free will to become a dualist. Paul it is not compulsory or written in the origin of the universe that Paul must be a materialist monist, you can use your free will and change opinion

Do you have some evidence for dualism?

Note that I am not a materialist. I do not think it makes sense to hold any particular ontological position.

Then most of the hard philosophical problems of free will dissolve.

How so?

So you are saying we are Pinocchio puppets without control of our strings? How did a sense of 'conscience' evolve via natural selection? If, as you are suggesting, that actions are always based upon prior conditioning, what is the evolutionary advantage of 'conscience' unless we have a degree of free will?..... tell me how it evolved....or do I hear the sound of crickets?

Perhaps it evolved along with altruism, with positive benefits for survival.

How does dualism fix this problem of being Pinocchio puppets? Who is controlling the strings under dualism?

~~ Paul