JSA

The article was right about one thing: Peikoff did not "prove" free will. He validated it. You can't prove free will any more than you can prove that you exist. All you can really do for both free will and existence is "point" to it. I think the word he used was ostensive. To arrive at the concept of existence, you first point to existents - this chair, that table, etc... and then arrive at the concept of existence - the sum of all existents. To arrive at the concept of free will, you introspect. Just watch yourself making decisions. You "point" to existents with your senses. You "point" to free will through introspection. ------------ I used to argue with myself about the existence of free will; my arguments would go around in circles, until I made the distinction between validating free will (as Peikoff does) and finding a scientific explanation for it. My internal debate would go something like this: Okay, I can observe myself making decisions. But how do I know this is free will? Maybe this is just a product of *insert scientific explanation here* A simple answer to this is: Science does not wipe out the phenomenon that it is trying to explain. When we discovered the mechanism behind vision, it did not "disprove" the fact of vision. If we ever discover the mechanism behind free will, it won't disprove the fact of free will. ------------ If you're interested in the science behind free will, you might want to see this video of John Searle speaking at Google: Searle explains two models of the relationship between free will and the brain, and which model he supports. But even Searle's conclusion is tentative; based not on an abundance of evidence to support his model, but rather on contradictions inherent in the other model. Like saying:"There's not too much evidence for this, and for sure there are gaps in our existing knowledge, but there's a lot of evidence that the alternatives are wrong". I have to say though, I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics - it seems to imply that randomness is inherent in reality itself at least on a micro level. I just don't see how this can be possible.