This is what you're not getting.. when you're faced with a situation, there isn't only one option. If everything were cut and dry like that, then yes.. free will wouldn't make sense.. but its not cut and dry. For example, when you are being threatened, you can fight, flee, or freeze. Granted one action will be more dominant than the rest and you'll be more inclined to follow that action, but at any moment you're able to change what you do and how you do it. If you flee, there's countless different ways you can flee. If you fight, there are countless different ways to fight. If you freeze, its because your brain shuts down for any number of reasons.. effecting your ability to make choices, your free will. Again, you are operating under the assumption that it is either free will or determinism.. not a mixture of both. You're also operating under the assumption that there is something metaphysical to the mind. I don't assume anything, I just don't believe in anything metaphysical and therefore am left with a physical explanation. All your free will is is the brain's ability to make choices between determined reactions, it is a mechanism built into the brain through the trial and errors of evolution. It was needed due to the fact that there are different options to choose from when faced with anything. Instead of looking at it like a black and white chain, look at it like a tree of causation.. where when you're faced with something, you can branch off into a variety of choices. Each choice leading into another. Think of your brain/mind like a pilot and autopilot. The pilot takes off, but quickly switches it to autopilot and let's it fly itself. The pilot relaxes, enjoys the scenery, and ponders on whatever. For the most part, the plane stays in autopilot (determinism) and the pilot (free will) makes course corrections as needed or simply takes over whenever they want out of boredom or for whatever reason. That is us, running on autopilot the majority of the time while making corrections and changes to the path that was determined, sometimes putting us on a whole new path that we then cruise along on autopilot.
This is what you're not getting.. when you're faced with a situation, there isn't only one option. If everything were cut and dry like that, then yes.. free will wouldn't make sense.. but its not cut and dry. For example, when you are being threatened, you can fight, flee, or freeze. Granted one action will be more dominant than the rest and you'll be more inclined to follow that action, but at any moment you're able to change what you do and how you do it. If you flee, there's countless different ways you can flee. If you fight, there are countless different ways to fight. If you freeze, its because your brain shuts down for any number of reasons.. effecting your ability to make choices, your free will. Again, you are operating under the assumption that it is either free will or determinism.. not a mixture of both. You're also operating under the assumption that there is something metaphysical to the mind. I don't assume anything, I just don't believe in anything metaphysical and therefore am left with a physical explanation. All your free will is is the brain's ability to make choices between determined reactions, it is a mechanism built into the brain through the trial and errors of evolution. It was needed due to the fact that there are different options to choose from when faced with anything. You don't even realise that you're making a distinction between ''you'' and ''your'' brain chemistry, when ''you'' apparently consider ''yourself'' only to be brain chemistry - which is why it's funny for me to read you say that I'm assuming ''that there is something metaphysical to the mind'', because that's closer to what you're doing - it's like you're not even reading my posts, or merely shrugging them off immediately after reading them. So, if ''you'' are ''your'' brain chemistry alone, then how is it that ''your'' brain chemistry doesn't follow the usual natural laws of causation? Answer that, and then you might have a coherent argument.
Thinks my arguments aren't coherent, yet keeps replying to them.. lol, ok. You know, you might find some coherency if you didn't pick out bits and pieces to respond to.. just saying. Good to see some things never change though. Any distinction you find, is one you made up as to confirm your bias. Like I said, you'll never understand what I am saying when you operate under the assumption that there is something metaphysical about it. That's why it doesn't make sense to you. If it did make sense, you would know that I am saying the majority of the time we are going off of subconscious brain activity, determinism. So the majority of your actions with follow these natural laws of causation.. but again, seeing as there are a plethora of different routes to follow, the brain either reacts subconsciously to the most prominent choice or consciously weighs the options and makes a decision. That conscious decision making is your free will.. Edit: All this time you have yet to provide your reasoning as to where your free will comes from. Humor me.
If it did make sense, you would know that I am saying the majority of the time we are going off of subconscious brain activity, determinism. So the majority of your actions with follow these natural laws of causation.. but again, seeing as there are a plethora of different routes to follow, the brain either reacts subconsciously to the most prominent choice or consciously weighs the options and makes a decision. That conscious decision making is your free will.. There aren't any ''choices'' to begin with, brain chemistry should have no way of ''choosing'' how it operates any more than a river should have a ''choice'' as to which way it flows - if something external affects the brain chemistry (which is happening at every moment) then the ''I'' that you think is ''choosing'', is not ''choosing'' at all, because the ''I'' that you identify as being the ''choice-maker'' is a piece of that same brain chemistry that is being affected, and chemistry, being physical, reacts according to other physical stimuli that affects it in a determined way, it doesn't ''choose'' what to do with that physical input, any more than a river ''chooses'' how to respond when some external stimuli affects it.. Edit: All this time you have yet to provide your reasoning as to where your free will comes from. Humor me. I'm not arguing for Free Will, all I'm saying is that Materialism and Free Will are either incompatible, or that there is some undiscovered part/function of the brain that doesn't adhere to natural law..
Since we are only picking out bits and pieces to reply to.. I don't care if you're arguing for free will or not. I am asking you where you think it comes from.. You are telling me that the physical brain is incapable of having free will, so I am asking you to say where you think it comes from. So humor me and say where you think free will comes from.. This is why I kept bringing up the complexity of the brain that you blissfully ignored.. You have about 100 billion neurons in your brain, each one capable of forming connections with up to 10,000 other neurons.. but let's say they only average 5,000 connections. That means that if you wanted to inspect each individual connection formed, you would have to inspect 317,098 connections per second for the next 50 years in order to inspect them all. Each connection having it's own responsibility related to the responsibility of the neurons they're connected to. Please provide a coherent argument explaining why I should believe that within that immense amount of complexity, free will is not capable of existing. Your only chance of successfully convincing me otherwise would be to provide a detailed explanation of where you believe your free will comes from..
Why put a head upon a head? What's brain chemistry besides what is made up by the mind? We are the objects of our mind. Why are you trying to make a picture of an outside reality, when your experience itself is it's own reality?
I think that you should start identifying yourself as a Dualist, because that's what you are.. (EDIT); Unless that is, that you're trying to say that brain chemistry is metaphysical as well as your mind..
Consciousness. Free will, a feeling. It's a feeling we as organisms have towards reality. What is this feeling? I feel like I made reality how it is. I made something happen, I made a choice, I made a conscious choice. It wasn't led by anything else but me, I wasn't forced by anyone or anything, I wasn't influenced by anyone or anything, but I did it. Anyone or anything. We dont constantly think this. We don't go through our lives and our choices thinking This is a choice. Surely, there are moments when this thought comes up, but I don't think it all the time. But I do feel it, most of the time? There are situations when people feel like they are no longer in control. They are driven by an animal instinct, or they were forced. In all cases, it is an emotion that was too strong for them to contradict. We can judge anything that is conscious. When someone is not or no longer conscious, they cannot be condemned for any of their actions. An animal, an insane person, insects, natural disasters, nature. (In many passion crimes, the murderer also feels driven by a force, yet we still judge them as capable of choosing, conscious, and thus responsible for their actions.) Responsible for your actions. When you are not conscious, you are not responsible for your actions. Then, whatever happens is simply natural. Simply natural. It is nature. Nature cannot be judged, it cannot change, it does not choose, it is. We judge nature as not having a mind, the insane as losing his mind. And us as having a mind. Consciousness. Free will. It's not a feeling. We don't feel it all the time. We don't go shopping, or talk to friends or do our daily chores with an underlying feeling of I am determining reality. It is rather a realization. A realization of the compelling nature of reality and that I can change it, alter it, choose something myself. It's not just a realization either. It's both, a feeling that has brought forth a realization. A feeling that we are in the universe, or rather we don't feel like we are the universe. As a result, we must be in it. What about a person who does not feel this way? Person X, who has never even thought about this because he is too busy with other things? Is he still conscious? Of course he is. You don't have to realize it to be it. We all feel like we are in the universe. Like we are doing something ourselves. Person X also feels this. He feels regret, he feel guilt, he feel happy with certain choices, bad about others. We feel responsible for our thoughts and actions, like property. These are my actions and my thoughts. They are mine. But the funny thing is, we are them. We, our thoughts, feel like they have ownership over themselves and thus we feel like we are in control over ourselves. We have drawn a dichotomy between I and I, the chariot and the horses, between the mind and the body, nature and me. Consciousness is not a gift that carries a responsibility, it is the feeling of responsibility itself. As the mind grows more complex, it is often better off doing something that goes against the primary drive, especially in social situations. It is often better off inhibiting some impulses and take time to think. Choose. A choice is taking time to think - processing more information - before acting and thus requires inhibition of the primary thought. We feel responsible because we acknowledge our existence and the effects it can have on the world. This is because we realize that there is something as the other. Simultaneously, we realize that there is something different than the other called the self. We acknowledge the effects that the self can have on the other. Being conscious. We acknowledge our own existence by acknowledging the other. [SIZE=11pt]The freedom of choice as we believe it to be is an illusion. The illusion of the ego, I, me, here in the universe. [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]We dissect the universe into all these parts. The sun, a planet, a country, a chair, a rock, a glass of water, the heart, the digestive system, the central nervous system, the hippocampus, a neuron. Electricity, diffusion, osmosis, protein synthesis. DNA. All these different systems. And then, I. The center point of, not the universe, but of me. But you are controlling yourself! That is exactly the point. You are the person in control of yourself, but you is nothing but a section in a compartmentalization of reality! You are nature, and nature is not controlled nor controls. It is a logic, a harmony. A storm does not choose when to start, planets do not choose their paths, an insect does not choose where to go and neither do we. Nature does not control. You're not controlling anything else, you feel like you're controlling yourself. If A controls B, B is subjected to A. If we control ourselves, we are subjected to ourselves. This is a paradoxical statement! This control, consciousness, free will is nothing but an illusion; an illusionary responsibility but the feeling is very real. [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]We are nature, and nature is logic. Everything makes complete sense. Science slowly uncovers this fact. [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]The feeling of free will [/SIZE]and how human societies have thrived on this feeling are[SIZE=11pt] part of the logical flow of events. [/SIZE]
No. Mind isn't a substance. It's more adequate to identify it as a quality. It itself cannot be differentiated from matter. The difference between subjective and objective is that of an invisible barrier. Physical and metaphysical only exists within the context of OUR experience. Meaning all ideas exist within the context of the subjective. To transcend any association with the experience yet still have the experience, is to experience mind purely.