> I understand, you want to emphasize that the actions that result from free
> will have nothing to do with the information received from the senses,
> the nature of the environment, chemicals in the brain, the structure of the
> brain, the laws of Physics, or anything else. Free action are not caused by
> anything.
>
> If that's free then I want to be a slave, randomness sucks.
Actually I never said that free-will had to be entirely divorced from our
sense perceptions, the nature of the environment, our brain state, or any
of these other things we associate with it. All I'm saying is that these
things must not consistently constrain our choice to that of a single
possible action, or if they do, then it is not free-will by MY definition.
> >I agree that the self-referencing will ultimately be important, but
> >I am not using it at this time because I feel that no ontological
> >basis has yet been defined for the concept of self-referencing.
>
> But you just did use self reference, you said "I" 3 times in the brief
> sentence above, even " the concept of self-referencing" is self-referencing.
> In spit of this, or rather because of it, I had no trouble extracting
> meaning from your words. If "I" has no ontological basis then we might as
> well give up on "free will".
Someone else pointed this out too, but you might notice that the "I" always
refers to the one who is making the argument, but not the argument itself.
There is a difference.
> >requires us to penetrate into an area of the ontologically unknown
> >that we currently perceive as acausal behind which we may find both
> >a truer form of acausality
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to invoke new science it we don't need to,
> and I don't think we need to.
A further and deeper understanding of the nature of reality always takes new
science. What you are proposing is nothing but the human race's Nth claim
to have absolute knowledge within current science.
>we would then be confusing mathematical semanitics with physical
> >causal principles; a problem that would be analogous to dragging the
> >subject of orbital chaos into a discussion of the principles of
> >gravitation.
>
> What would be wrong with that? It sure doesn't take very long for orbital
> chaos to show up, it only takes 3 bodies.
So are you claiming that a discussion of orbital chaos is relevant to a
a discussion of: F = Gm1m2 / r^2 ???
-- In the Ecstatic Service of Life -- Omega