Hubris

The notion that someone can perceive an intangible concept without their own mind is ridiculous. The difference between intuition and perception is the definition of the five senses. Stretching this to include intangibles within the mind is a serious mistake. Its just as flawed as those who justified the existence of god by analyzing their own belief. Or should I say, perceiving their own belief. Where is the line drawn? Also, I think the technology exists to allow a synthetic brain within a computer to both perceive and interact with the world. Cameras, text output via screen. Heck we probably even have the technology to create a 3d wireframe allow it to display a face and emotions. Our interaction technology is way ahead of calculatory technology. If we reached the point where we could create a brain within a computer, imagine where robotic ambulation and sensory technology will be.

I think Grames makes an excellent point, but for me there is a gap in the reasoning. I totally agree and understand with the points you made, however, I don't understand why a lack of free will implies said scientists cease to exist. I could see how removing free will might change the definition you are applying to scientists. If you designate that free will is a prerequisites for being human, and therefore for being a scientist and having the necessary faculties for making such discoveries. However, I don't see how free will is needed to study or observe subatomic particles, in fact plenty of machines involved in recording and evaluating these particles have no free will whatsoever. I would be willing to accept that a "human" requires free will to exist, after all that is one potential definition of "human." However, that seems to fall apart by the fact that determinism would prove that these entities who "discovered" it were not "human." What you want to call the scientists after such a point is irrelevant. But, at least to me, it seems that even under another name they still have the same properties, a la rose by any other name smells as sweet. In this case its not a rose, its scientists (humans) by any other name discover as adequately. Excellent post, I just feel theres something missing.

In this case I don't necessarily think thats true. From the perspective of the actor, who acts because it is what they desire, they are acting upon free will. Their desires and composition may be beyond that control, but they either do not know or do not care, their desires are their desires and they act upon them. However, to a third, perfectly understanding party there is no free will, as they have been created and influenced perfectly into acting upon these "desires." Free will is more complicated then the letter A. It is after all, an abstract concept, not an object to be perceived. To use an example. Imagine if you were forced to wear goggles that inversed color, temporarily to make blue appear orange and orange appear blue. They are sedated and the goggles are placed on them, without their knowledge. They are asked to choose an orange, and eat it. One orange is orange and looks delicious the other is blue and looks repulsive. The user is unaware that their perception has been influenced, and chooses the orange that appears orange to them. To this individual they have acted upon free will. To a third party observer, this individual had been influenced, and lacks free will in this choice. I would argue that this situation exists for all individuals, at all times and the existence of free will depends upon perspective.

Thats the point. Human beings, at least from a certain perspective have been created by the universe. Their composition and actions are influence by previous conditions. In other words, human beings achieve consciousness because the universe has effected them in a way that has caused them to do so. If humans were created and perfectly influenced by this universe, their actions, desires, and goals are determined as such. Therefore, "free will" both does and does not exist. Humans act as they see fit, and as they desire, but these desires were not determined by themselves. Thus they have free will but this will is predetermined by outside influences. Compatibilism is irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether or not humans could have chosen something else, as what they have and will chose is what they desired. The origin and cause of those desires clearly being beyond their control, has no effect on whether or not this choice is "free." Though, as I said, the answer doesn't matter. Whether or not humans actually could have chosen something else is irrelevant, as they will act as they desire, regardless of whether or not other actions were possible.

Sure there is a point in arguing ethics if you believe in pure determinism. His collection of molecules arrived at this point, to reach this debate, argue this point. This will occur and will have an impact on him, you and everyone who comes into contact with it. Of course theres a point in asking the question, and arguing its merits. Perhaps the better question is, does the answer mean anything? In other words, even if we were merely a collection of molecules, automatons as you may put it, free will is not necessarily meaningful to that end. In other words, a robot that performs a task mindlessly has no free will, as far as more complex being as ourselves are concerned. However, can it be too outlandish that humans are merely automatons designed to carry out far more complex actions, and far more complex calculations? I mean after all, if there were a robot whose only purpose was to sit and contemplate free will, at least from the perspective of that robot and those like it, they have achieved free will in performing their function, and achieving goals they or their situation has chosen.