I can't be. Not under those conditions you just specified.
Now do you want to discuss the actual conditions which prevail in the real world? Or continue to make up whatever shit comes into your head and then say "hey, if this bullshit I've just 'reckoned' is true than some other bullshit I also reckon must be true too" and pretend that's serious thought?
Al those things you listed are the activities of the human organism. The organism regulates its activities, but it is not a "single entity" if by that you mean there is some overarching central program. You make if sound as if there is a super-organism over and above the organism, a super-organism that controls the organism
I just said it regulates itself. I’m not sure how that implies two organisms. How do I make it sound as if there is? — NOS4A2
Some choose to believe in "free will".
Some choose to believe that "free will" is an illusion.
Some choose to believe that "free will" is compatible with being determined.
And some choose to think that 'whether or not we have "free will"' is a distinction that does not make a significant practical difference in our everyday lives.
Some are determined to choose to be determined to believe in "free will".
Some are determined to choose to be determined to believe that "free will" is an illusion.
Some are determined to choose to be determined to believe that "free will" is compatible with being determined.
And some are determined to choose to be determined to think that 'whether or not we have "free will"' is a distinction that does not make a significant practical difference in our everyday lives.
Every action... is controlled and regulated and caused by a single entity: the human organism. — NOS4A2
Every action... is controlled and regulated and caused by a single entity: the human organism. — NOS4A2
where do those externally generated signals get stopped? — Isaac
Corrected.Some are determined to choose to believe in "free will".
Some are determined to choose to believe that "free will" is an illusion.
Some are determined to choose to believe that "free will" is compatible with being determined.
And some are determined to choose to think that 'whether or not we have "free will"' is a distinction that does not make a significant practical difference in our everyday lives. — 180 Proof
Do you think externally generated signals must be stopped at some point in order for free-will to exist? — ToothyMaw
What if there is some function by which beliefs, for example, are stored and represented at least partially by some sort of stochastic factor and then this sort of moderately understandable randomness results in enough deviation to allow one to say, with moderate certainty, that their beliefs are not formed only from external signals and personal valuation, but rather also a number of hidden factors that may or may not be physiological? What if we couldn't even observe the means by which beliefs are formed and acted upon, at least not on the right level? — ToothyMaw
Your causal chain begins rather arbitrarily, at the point where the hammer strikes the tendon, and not in the doctors brain for instance. — NOS4A2
that the environment can affect the body is a given. I’m speaking about the body, — NOS4A2
Which would still be external to the system under analysis.
So your argument is "if we limit ourselves to speaking about the body... then we find that all events are caused by something in the body". well, no shit.
Which would still be external to the system under analysis.
And just as arbitrary. — NOS4A2
Does talk about the will have to do with anything else? — NOS4A2
For some reason you’ve limited the discussion to “cause” only, but the body also controls, regulates, orders, directs such activity, and it does it under no other influence. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.