You wouldn't be able to see a picture or video stored in your computer's memory or HD if you opened it up and looked inside. — punos

That may be because it is not there, what is stored is only a technique to reproduce the experience. The seeing makes the image. Otherwise there exist only pixels on a screen. Likewise for any record.

Image Reconstruction From Human Brain Waves in Real-Time — punos

Brain waves are indeed very good candidates for the stuff our thoughts are made of.

Brain waves are indeed very good candidates for the stuff our thoughts are made of. — Olivier5

I think you're half right. Brain waves are not too different than any other electro-magnetic waves. The real difference is in the patterns carried by those waves (like a radio broadcast). The stuff of thoughts are the patterns of electro-chemical activity in the brain, and the waves are byproducts of that activity.

If i remember correctly i think the first EEG was made to investigate telepathy.

The stuff of thoughts are the patterns of electro-chemical activity in the brain, and the waves are byproducts of that activity. — punos

Most probably there are several levels of transmission and cognition: electro-chemical, but also wave-based. And perhaps others yet to be found.

I have never in my life even heard of anyone that has ever given a logical, and reasonable account of how free-will actually works. All i ever hear is basically that free-will is real because i know "because i decided i know". If reasons are given as to how they know, the reasons are always subjective in nature. My questions are never answered in any appropriate way, although it will always be claimed to be appropriate just because. — punos

I think this is because of a deep seated conceptual difference. What I say will not make sense to you if you approach it from a position of materialism. This is not an argument that materialism is false. But if you treat physical reality as the reality, and consider only explanations that describe physical phenomena as a "logical, reasonable account", then it is no surprise that you have never been satisfied.

Indeed, given the premise that (only) physical reality is ultimately and definitely real, I'd agree with you. Free will makes no sense in a strictly physical framework.

However, we do not actually life in a strictly physical framework. We have an internal perspective, where we experience ourselves as a specific individual, rather than a collection of physical phenomena.

The step required to understand my perspective, if that is what you want, is to take seriously this internal perspective. To not start with the assumption that this perspective must necessarily be the result of an underlying physical reality.

Consider that the physical reality is a mental model in your mind. Now consider that you have a complementary model of yourself as an actor that manipulates said physical reality. What if both of these models are equally true, just two different ways of looking at the same underlying reality? That is, your mind is not a result of physical processes. Rather, physical processes are a mental representation of some underlying reality that causes both your causal "outside view" and your free "inside view".

Can you see what I mean?

All of these things and more signal to me that this thing is objective. — punos

But all of these are just observations. How can you conclude, based on observations, that the brain exists regardless of observations?

How do you tell the difference between outside stimulus, and what is labeled as part of yourself? — punos

I know which thoughts are part of my "self" and which are not. This is a basic distinction my mind makes, there is no "telling the difference", it's a very basic experience.

What are these epistemological principles that you are referring to? — punos

These would be that
a) there is an outside reality that's affecting me,
b) I can experience these effects via sensory data,
c) I do not have any non-sensory source of information on the outside world.

From these it follows logically that to speculate about the outside world, I need to consult my sensory data, and only that which accounts for this data can be true.

Yes everyone is born with the machinery to process logic, but we are not born knowing how to use it. If we did then the world wouldn't be the way it is. — punos

Well, you need to be taught to use formal logic. But it seems quite evident that some basic logical operations are hard wired. Indeed it's hard to see how a mind could ever "get going" if it didn't start with some basic way to process information.

For example, there is evidence small children can do very basic mathematical operations long before they learn to speak.

And the laws we build from our observations tell us that there are no exceptions to the rules, like gravity, or the conservation of energy, etc.. — punos

That there be no exception to the rules is a norm we impose on our rules.

Don't you perceive and observe your own thoughts? When you have a thought how do you know you had it if you didn't observe yourself having the thought. I observe my thoughts, my emotions, my dreams, my opinions, etc.. anything i know has been observed at some point or i would not know it. — punos

This definition of "observe" is too broad for my purposes. I differentiate between observation and experience more generally. I reserve the term "observation" for experience related to sensory data.

Your "stream of consciousness" is an experience, but not an observation under my terms. I hope that clears it up.

Can you name just one thing that you know without having observed it at some point in your life? — punos

I know that, given the premise: "if A, then B",
I can conclude: "Not B, therefore not A"

But I cannot conclude: "not A, therefore not B".

If we count this as knowledge, then it's not based on any observation.

Replying to the OP here, I think of determinism like I do solipsism. Technically cannot be disproven, but not especially helpful most of the time.

To put another way, I think that determinism is a way of talking about the world of atoms and physics. This is great, when you're operating at this level. But most of us aren't, for most of our lives.

In contrast, free will is a part of a "language game" that exists at a high, emergent, level. This is where we live our lives, practically speaking.

So "free will" exists in a similar way as other high-level concepts like "you" and "me" and "choice" and "accountability" do.

Indeed, given the premise that (only) physical reality is ultimately and definitely real, I'd agree with you. Free will makes no sense in a strictly physical framework. — Echarmion

Yes but the problem is that i am not a physical materialist. Sometimes i may speak in a way that sounds like i am, but what i am doing is moving in an out of different perspectives of reality depending on the context im dealing with.

I believe that both determinism and indeterminism are both actual conditions in the universe (classical and quantum respectively) and things need to be thought of differently in those realms. I am also a non-materialist and a materialist, but fundamentally a non-materialist. The universe has both cases at different levels. There is also the issue of relativity (not just Einstein) which tends to warp our sense of reality, from which i believe stems the misconception of "will" as "free-will".

You are right in that a free-will does not make sense in a strictly physical framework (classical determinist), but it also doesn't make sense in a strictly non-physical framework either (quantum indeterminate). Combining the two also does not allow it.

All i need to be convinced of free-will at a minimum is just one actual or hypothetical mechanism (doesn't have to be real or actual, just logical) by which any law of nature can be overridden in favor of another arbitrary pattern. Such as the three charged particle example i gave a few posts ago.
I chatted with Christopher Langan a couple weeks ago on YouTube and he never answered my question either. In fact he mysteriously disappeared after that question, and he's supposed to have one of the highest IQs in the world... supposedly.

I have a concept that may seem or feel like free-will but is not really. I call it "causal reflection", in which regular bottom-up deterministic cause and effect processes are able to in a sense turn around and affect the thing that affects it in a top-bottom fashion. The "causal loop" that gets set up in the brain is what i believe is responsible for the feeling of free will. The universe is a big place and i don't want to exclude anything from it if i don't have to, including free-will, god, and whatever else.

That there be no exception to the rules is a norm we impose on our rules. — Echarmion

We can choose to not impose that, but then again the reason we impose it is not arbitrary.. it is because of what we call evidence. If you can show me an example of a law of nature being broken in favor of free-will then i will be convinced right here right now that there may be something to this free-will business. It's as if you were trying to convince me of the veracity of UFOs but with no actual evidence. There may be 1 million hoaxes but if just one case is true then the phenomena is true. As someone that believes in the scientific method it is my most important criteria, and it is my responsibility to demand it before i can accept it.

We don't have to agree, the only reason i get into these discussions about free-will is not to convince anybody that there is no such thing, it's so that someone can tell me what everybody that believes in free-will seems to already know but keeps secret.. an actual example of free-will. I need a logical description or an actual example; I can't do anything without that, or i might as well believe in anything i like regardless of reasons... and i don't do that, i can't do that.

You are right in that a free-will does not make sense in a strictly physical framework (classical determinist), but it also doesn't make sense in a strictly non-physical framework either (quantum indeterminate). Combining the two also does not allow it. — punos

Ok, I don't follow you here at all - how is quantum physics not part of the physical universe?

All i need to be convinced of free-will at a minimum is just one actual or hypothetical mechanism (doesn't have to be real or actual, just logical) by which any law of nature can be overridden in favor of another arbitrary pattern. — punos

But what if nature already includes free will, it's just that our laws are about finding the patterns in nature, and so that information is not transfered to the model?

We don't have to agree, the only reason i get into these discussions about free-will is not to convince anybody that there is no such thing, it's so that someone can tell me what everybody that believes in free-will seems to already know but keeps secret.. an actual example of free-will. I need a logical description or an actual example; I can't do anything without that, or i might as well believe in anything i like regardless of reasons... and i don't do that, i can't do that. — punos

So, here is what could be happening: The actual underlying reality is atemporal. Time is merely a function of your mind ordering events by a certain principle - e.g. the principle that you always travel from lower entropy to higher entropy.

So in that scenario, events are a web that expands in all directions, rather than a sequence of causes and effects. At some places, your mind slightly affected these connections - nudged them this way or that. The effects of these changes travel in all directions, but the web remains self-consistent. So as you look at the world from a temporal perspective, it seems to be a perfect sequence of causes and effects.

Ok, I don't follow you here at all - how is quantum physics not part of the physical universe? — Echarmion

By non-physical i mean what lies at the very bottom of physical reality at and below the quantum foam. Non-physical for me means time, space, energy, information, logic, and mathematics (number or value). These are all aspects of the universe that are not physical. Things behave with more disorder than with order at these extremely small scales (quantum indeterminism). Below the "foam" time has no arrow, or it may be that the arrow points in all possible directions. The emergent layer above this indeterminate layer is where the first fermions appear. Fermions (matter) obey the Pauli exclusion principle and from this the single direction of time due to the progression of cause and effect begins. This is the beginning of determinism and our physical universe.

But what if nature already includes free will, it's just that our laws are about finding the patterns in nature, and so that information is not transfered to the model? — Echarmion

It is either you have a reason for doing something or you don't. If you have a reason then it's determinism; if you don't have a reason then it's random and indeterministic. Is there a third option i am not aware of? If it is not a pattern it is chaos and is as good as not existing, everything that exists exists as a patterns of energy; we are evolved patterns of energy.

So, here is what could be happening: The actual underlying reality is atemporal. Time is merely a function of your mind ordering events by a certain principle - e.g. the principle that you always travel from lower entropy to higher entropy. — Echarmion

Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the whole of all there is. Without time existence will cease with no hope of returning. Space by itself can do nothing, energy would not move, information and matter will not form because what makes the whole universe even possible is time. Time is change and movement, it is the "metabolism" of the universe itself.

How will the mind do any ordering of any kind if not in time. It is totally possible to imagine or simulate time in ones mind, this why we have the sense of subjective time. An hour for you does not feel like an hour for me, and an hour for me now will not feel the same as an hour next year. This and other relativity effects are like looking at yourself in a distorted mirror.

So in that scenario, events are a web that expands in all directions, rather than a sequence of causes and effects. At some places, your mind slightly affected these connections - nudged them this way or that. The effects of these changes travel in all directions, but the web remains self-consistent. So as you look at the world from a temporal perspective, it seems to be a perfect sequence of causes and effects. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what you are trying to saying here.

Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the whole of all there is. Without time existence will cease with no hope of returning. Space by itself can do nothing, energy would not move, information and matter will not form because what makes the whole universe even possible is time. Time is change and movement, it is the "metabolism" of the universe itself. — punos

I like that, but can't fail to notice a contradiction with determinism: if the future is entirely predeterminated, then time does not matter, all its seconds, centuries, and million of years are wasted and wholy redundant. Nothing new ever happens.

If time, on the other hand, is to be a useful, meaningful metabolism for the world, then it must underwrite real change, and support the emergence of radical novelty. Hence undetermined.

Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. There is no free will at any particular point. What do people think? — Edmund

How does he know the causal "buck" does not stop at a buck-making First Cause? Perhaps he is just assuming that causation is open-ended infinity, or maybe circular, in order to avoid the implications of Intention (Will) in the universe. But the only causal evidence we have (evolution) seems to be continual and progressive, hence teleological*1. And that directional pattern suggests a willful First Cause.

Regarding "interruptions" in the chain of causation, perhaps some of the links are Cultural (man-made) instead of Natural, a conscious Choice instead of a natural Selection. In that case the "chain" is un-broken*2. Therefore, the "determinist chain" may have Intentional Links, and a purposeful First Cause. If so, the signs of Free Will may be immersed in the continual flow of natural & cultural causation*3. :smile:


*1. Teleological Evolution :
Evolution began with a Bang, an outburst of causal Energy, since then raw energy has developed into many varieties of Matter, and thence into stars, galaxies, & planets. On at least one planet, matter has evolved into living creatures, and some of those creatures have developed purposeful Minds, and eventually into the most complex & dynamic organization in the universe : human Culture. From simplicity (seed), to cosmic complexity (astronomical organization), to living organisms (plants & animals), to life-preserving brains (intentions), to the purpose-serving constructions of the human Mind --- the universe seems to be growing and maturing in an upward direction, but toward what end?

*2. If you come to a fork in the road, take it :
The Freewill Agent doesn’t create the yoke in the road, but he does choose one or the other branch . . . some-times in view of a desired destination, but often by a flip of a coin. Even the coin is free to land heads or tails, and a sequence of flips is randomly distributed instead of rigidly regular.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page14.html

*3. Unscripted Free Will :
Obviously, most humans, slaves excepted, have always acted as-if they are masters of their own destinies, even when their best-laid plans went awry. So, he looked into the possibility that Self-awareness itself might indicate that humans are an exception to the rule of external causes.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page29.html

Determinism could be problematic concept. I would say in three areas, explanatory power, falsification, and rationality.

1. Does determinism explain? Prima facie, it seems so, however, let's look at it a particular way. Many who hold deterministic views propose a "block universe" where past, present, and future exist simultaneously, eternal and unchanging. But if this is so, how does an edge of a block, explain the edge of the other side? What if we introduce an equation, say volume of the block, does that not explain the edges? Or, are we just describing? It seems that the explanation has transformed into a description. If free will is an illusion, is not explanatory causal chains an illusion as well, simply replaced by ordered sequences that are described?

2. Can determinism be falsified? How are we to disprove determinism. What will count against such an idea? If event A is the cause of event B, and I find one instance where event A did not cause event B, would this count? But in practice, would we not appeal to a lack of information with regards to A, something that was missed, somehow we did not define A accurately. It seems we can just ad hoc our way in excusing instances that may falsify determinism. What if event A is the cause of event B one time, and event C another time, and this pattern repeats, ad infinitum. Is this not indeterminism? But who said that could not count as deterministic?

3. Is determinism about what is rational? I would say no, determinism is about what is non-rational. And this is a problem with our notion of being rational. As rational beings we count on our reason and logic to evaluate arguments, positions, views, etc; however, determinism robs us of this intellectual position and reduces us to determined states of affairs following one after another. So, not only is "free will" illusionary but our rationality too.

In conclusion, determinism does not explain, cannot be proved or disproved, and undermines our rationality. So what should we do? Ignore determinism, and continue to utilize the concept of "free will" that has served humanity well for centuries.

Thanks for these interesting observations. An area I find particularly fascinating in this general context is the clash between Calvinists and Anti Calvinists in early 17th century England. Here you have two branches of Christianity holding completely different views on free will; anti calvinists like Roman Catholics holding belief in the free will to "work out" with the aid of the church, ones salvation and calvinists holding to predestination or perhaps double predestination. In the latter case ones " free will " consists of looking for signs that one is already a member of the elect. So two responses to the idea of free will framed in the context of the same God?

if the future is entirely predeterminated, then time does not matter, all its seconds, centuries, and million of years are wasted and wholy redundant. Nothing new ever happens. — Olivier5

Read this again and notice where i mention "change":

Time is the most fundamental "thing" in the whole of all there is. Without time existence will cease with no hope of returning. Space by itself can do nothing, energy would not move, information and matter will not form because what makes the whole universe even possible is time. Time is change and movement, it is the "metabolism" of the universe itself. — punos

If time, on the other hand, is to be a useful, meaningful metabolism for the world, then it must underwrite real change, and support the emergence of radical novelty. Hence undetermined. — Olivier5

How can things change without time? How can emergence happen without time? True novelty happens at the indeterminate level, after that novelty changes or is processed by time to evolve into higher forms of that novelty. The higher forms are entirely determined by the pattern of the original novelty.

. Many who hold deterministic views propose a "block universe" where past, present, and future exist simultaneously, eternal and unchanging. But if this is so, how does an edge of a block, explain the edge of the other side? — Richard B

Here we can see a fallacy in popularized science. To make a concept more or less understandable to the general public such images are employed. "Curved space" is another misleading notion - we all are familiar with the Earth sitting in a basketball net. Curved spacetime is legitimate, however. The injudicious use of the word "block" conjures up peculiar questions.

It's a conundrum: how to convey sophisticated scientific concepts so the public will have a "feel" for them?

Not only do we see this idea in popularized science, but has been firmly imbedded in philosophical circles. Whether D.C. Williams theory of the manifold(“The world manifold of occurrences, each eternally determinate at its own place and date….”), McTaggart’s eternal/nontemporal ordering of events ( C-series), or Quine’s eternally ordered series.

The higher forms are entirely determined by the pattern of the original novelty. — punos

Not clear. What original novelty are you talking about? In a deterministic view, there is no novelty, ever.

Free will.

Worth a read, the Wikipedia entry. Sam Harris subscribes to a particular subtype of (incompatibilistic) determinism viz. causal determinism.

Not clear. What original novelty are you talking about? In a deterministic view, there is no novelty, ever. — Olivier5

True novelty happens at the indeterminate level, after that novelty changes or is processed by time to evolve into higher forms of that novelty. — punos

The emergent layer above this indeterminate layer is where the first fermions appear. Fermions (matter) obey the Pauli exclusion principle and from this the single direction of time due to the progression of cause and effect begins. This is the beginning of determinism and our physical universe. — punos

The emergent layer above this indeterminate layer is where the first fermions appear. Fermions (matter) obey the Pauli exclusion principle and from this the single direction of time due to the progression of cause and effect begins. This is the beginning of determinism and our physical universe. — punos

Seems absurd to me. There is only one universe, and it includes everything there is. Layers are in the eye of the observer.

Seems absurd to me. There is only one universe, and it includes everything there is. Layers are in the eye of the observer. — Olivier5

I never said there was more than one universe, but you are correct that the universe does include everything there is along with including determinism and indeterminism, and except of course for any logical paradoxes. The universe doesn't do paradoxes, free-will being one of them.

So you don't believe in emergent layers of complexity? You don't believe in atoms, molecules, cells, organism, societies, solar systems, galaxies... non of that?

I'm curious, what would convince you that free-will is a false notion? What kind of idea or evidence would you need to at least begin to consider it a viable possibility that free-will is not real?

our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. — Edmund

The wording of this implies that "we" are something outside this causal chain trying desperately to violate conservation of energy and interfere with the causal chain, but alas are unable to. Like we're some ghost that inhabits our own bodies.

That view (dualism) is the source of a lot of troubles, this being one of them.

The stuff of thoughts are the patterns of electro-chemical activity in the brain — punos

Unrelated to OP but :up: :up: . Though I'm not sure it's patterns of activity in JUST the brain, that is the stuff of thoughts.

I have never in my life even heard of anyone that has ever given a logical, and reasonable account of how free-will actually works. — punos

Perhaps then your conception of free will is in itself impossible, like a square circle.

One simple way to give an account for free will for instance is to define it as "uncoerced will". Then yes, we have free will most of the time, as we are uncoerced.

What definition of free will are you working with?

Perhaps then your conception of free will is in itself impossible, like a square circle. — khaled

That is a good way of putting it.

One simple way to give an account for free will for instance is to define it as "uncoerced will". Then yes, we have free will most of the time, as we are uncoerced. — khaled

You see this is always the case; i ask for an example and i get everything else except an example. This is why i think it's a square circle as you put it, because there are no examples of such a thing. Provide me with an example so i know exactly what we are talking about, not just a definition.

What definition of free will are you working with? — khaled

I seem to have the same definition for free-will that you do. I believe in 'will' not 'free-will', and will is constrained by the laws of physics like anything else; if not, then when and where does it break free from those constraints, and how does it do it? Does it use another force from somewhere else outside our universe to counter the laws of physics in this universe?

Also don't forget to provide an example that i or we can examine together.
Thank you ahead of time for the example.

Provide me with an example so i know exactly what we are talking about, not just a definition. — punos

Ok? With the definition of "uncoerced will" me typing this reply is an example of me exercising my free will, since no one is coercing me into typing it.

I believe in 'will' not 'free-will', and will is constrained by the laws of physics like anything else — punos

This "will" is that of a person right? What is a person, in your view. Because from this:

Does it use another force from somewhere else outside our universe — punos

It seems that you take a dualist stance. I think the issue stems from dualism, not free will. For instance, do you think the "person" ever causes any physical change? Is you typing a reply a result of blind physical processes, or is it because the "person" that is you wills it? Or are those compatible.

I seem to have the same definition for free-will that you do. — punos

Seemingly not, since I think free will exists.

So you don't believe in emergent layers of complexity? — punos

I do. I just consider emergence as non-determined.

what would convince you that free-will is a false notion? What kind of idea or evidence would you need to at least begin to consider it a viable possibility that free-will is not real? — punos

First, I would need a clear definition of what free will is.

Second, I would not consider as evidence any metaphysical, unprovable consideration, such as determinism. Determinism is not an empirical fact, it's a metaphysical idea, un\provable, so it does not count as evidence of anything.

Thirdly, the proof offered would need to be logically consistent. If it contradicts itself, then it cannot be true. And in my experience, all arguments against free will are self-contradictory in that they postulate that the argument itself is not arrived at through the free exercise of observation and judgment, but determined by sodding atoms and therefore not really an argument.

With the definition of "uncoerced will" me typing this reply is an example of me exercising my free will, since no one is coercing me into typing it. — khaled

When you typed your sentence were you using your brain and nervous system to process your actions? Did you have a reason for typing the sentence, or was it a random sentence? I don't believe you had a free choice in what you wrote, your choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in your nerve cells as your sensory signals propagate through the system. At every step of the chain reaction the laws of physics determine the outcome. A choice is simply a causal chain reaction in your nervous system that weighs many factors that you are unconscious of. All of this is "coerced", even though you don't feel coerced; the whole process is perfectly natural. The reason you don't feel coerced is because there is nothing outside the laws of physics that can make it feel coerced; it's perfectly natural in that sense.

The problem with using yourself or another human to determine the truth about will and free-will is that it is too high level, with too many variables and moving parts. I am trying to identify not the result of free-will but how it works. The ideal example is something simple where all or most of the components and variables are known, like in a controlled scientific experiment. Do you have a simpler lower level example of free-will?

Try doing this: Stop breathing for 30 minutes, and tell me if you feel coerced to breath at some threshold limit? When you can't anymore you will take a breath, and you will say "I chose to breath, because i wanted air.", and you would have missed the point.

It seems that you take a dualist stance. I think the issue stems from dualism, not free will. For instance, do you think the "person" ever causes any physical change? Is you typing a reply a result of blind physical processes, or is it because the "person" that is you wills it? Or are those compatible. — khaled

No i'm not a dualist. I was asking you where free-will comes from since all i know are physical laws, and nothing else. Under this assumption there shouldn't be any free-will unless in fact there is something other than the laws of physics.

A "person" is a physical system made of atoms and molecules like everything else, and cells, tissues, and organs like every other organism. All of these layers and levels or organization are ruled by the laws of physics. At which point does free-will enter the picture? Do particles or atoms have free-will? Do cells have free will?

A definition of free-will doesn't automatically make it real, it simply allows us to recognize it. Children define Santa Claus all the time, but it doesn't mean he's real. Defining Santa Claus as a fat guy that lives in the North Pole doesn't make it a reality.

Chat bots write sentences all the time in response to questions. I have written chat bots myself, and have never seen a chat bot have free-will. Like a person a chat bot is a collection of parts designed to respond in certain ways, and the more complex it is the more it "appears" to have free-will. People are extremely complex chat bots in the context of this comparison. Do you think AI has free-will, or if not yet will it ever?

I just consider emergence as non-determined. — Olivier5

If emergence is not deterministic then where do these consistent structures come from and maintain themselves? What is your explanation from an indeterminate perspective of how this happens?

First, I would need a clear definition of what free will is. — Olivier5

definitions:
free will = the power of acting without the constraint of physical law.

will = the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.
faculty = an inherent mental or physical power.
decide = cause to come to a resolution.
initiate = cause (a process or action) to begin.
resolution = the quality of being determined or resolute.
determine = cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.

free = not under the control or in the power of another
control = determine the behavior or supervise the running of.
determine = cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.
power = the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.


* will = a mental or physical power by which a person causes a process to be determined
* free = not determined
* free will = undetermined determinism

Try to notice how these two terms (free and will) together are contradictory and oxymoronic. How can one physically act without the use of physical laws. By which law are you able to act if not by physical law?

Second, I would not consider as evidence any metaphysical, unprovable consideration, such as determinism. Determinism is not an empirical fact, it's a metaphysical idea, un\provable, so it does not count as evidence of anything. — Olivier5

Show me how determinism is not true. Show me a case in which determinism does not hold true.
Show me how indeterminism allows for consistent structures to exist through out time. If it is so undetermined then why does it look so determined. Do things ever fall up? Are you saying that gravity, electro-magnetism, etc.. don't determine anything? How do you explain that from an indeterministic framework?

Thirdly, the proof offered would need to be logically consistent. If it contradicts itself, then it cannot be true. And in my experience, all arguments against free will are self-contradictory in that they postulate that the argument itself is not arrived at through the free exercise of observation and judgment, but determined by sodding atoms and therefore not really an argument. — Olivier5

All proofs must be logical by definition. The problem with your view of free-will is that you want to be able to determine your actions apart from the laws of physics and logic which are almost one and the same. All physics is logical, and thus all actions are too. By what kind of sorcery can you overcome the logic of the universe and it's laws?

Free will is as illogical as saying that wet towels are dry, that darkness is bright, and that up is down. You are postulating the conditions for chaos, and disorder. Nothing can develop in any useful way in those conditions, which is evidently not the case.

You will be hard-pressed to find a successful scientist that doesn't understand or believe in determinism in some capacity. It is part and parcel to the scientific method.

If emergence is not deterministic then where do these consistent structures come from and maintain themselves? — punos

Things don't maintain themselves very well, for the most part. Perfect stability is extremely rare in nature. Things tend to transform after a while. Living organisms tend to die, molecules break up, atoms decay, even stars evolve.

Show me how determinism is not true. Show me a case in which determinism does not hold true. — punos

Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory that's premised on indeterminism. It does permit structures to exist, to my knowledge.

The problem with your view of free-will is that you want to be able to determine your actions apart from the laws of physics and logic which are almost one and the same. — punos

Not at all. The laws of physics may exist in and by themselves (outside of our conception of them, I mean), and if they do, they certainly apply to human beings. But we don't actually know for sure what these laws are. We can only hypothesize them from our observations, reason, and intuition (creativity). That's all. So we cannot say: "the laws of nature preclude free will". We don't know that for a fact.

The exercise of human faculties traditionally tied to free will (observation, reason, creativity) is thus necessary for us to understand the world, or try to. These faculties are fundamental to science. So science cannot logically conclude that human reason is an illusion, for instance, because that would imply that science itself is an illusion.

free will = the power of acting without the constraint of physical law. — punos

That's defining "free will" as magic. So of course, defined as such it cannot exist.

I personally prefer the term "free choice" (a choice not imposed on you by others, or by circumstances). Or "agency" (the capacity for free choice). I am not comfortable with the notion of "will".

Things don't maintain themselves very well, for the most part. Perfect stability is extremely rare in nature. Things tend to transform after a while. Living organisms tend to die, molecules break up, atoms decay, even stars evolve. — Olivier5

I didn't say there was perfect stability. Perfect stability (determinism) would be a static condition where nothing would move or evolve; on the other hand perfect instability (indeterminism) would not allow anything to develop. Indeterminism allows for imbalance, and determinism allows for rebalance. One creates new forms and the other develops them; one produces new things the other processes old created things. The interplay between these two aspects of the universe keeps things moving in an orderly fashion. Determinism depends and is contingent on indeterminism; it is more fundamental than determinism because it is the engine that keeps the universe moving changing and existing.

Both indeterminism and determinism are needed for our universe to work the way we see it work.

The reason things decay is because determinism is actually trying to bring things back down to the indeterminate state.. the primordial state of the universe. It is always seeking the lowest energy level which gives it its arrow of time and deterministic quality.

So we cannot say: "the laws of nature preclude free will". We don't know that for a fact. — Olivier5

By that same token then we would also have to not say: "the laws of nature preclude will". We may not know for sure which is the case, but we can make some observations as you said. We can observe that things behave consistently in most physical systems, like gravity, electricity, etc.. We can say that something is determining these results every time. In chaotic systems where consistency seems to oscillate and we have no idea as to why yet, nothing can really be said. There may or may not be free-will, but if there is then where does it come from? There is evidence for determinism and there is evidence for indeterminism but i don't see any evidence for free-will.

Please notice that free-will is logically inconsistent in any case whether deterministic or indeterministic. You are not grasping the actual problem. It does not matter if you are arguing for determinism or indeterminism, the logic doesn't add up. In one case determinism: things are predetermined from the beginning and you don't have the freedom to deviate. In the other case indeterminism: things are undetermined and there is no determination meaning that free-will can not determine anything in that system. If not through a deterministic mechanism how does free will determine anything?