StrictlyLogical

This is very insightful. I agree. It might be that after eons of observation and study of brains (ours, animals, and possibly artificial ones), once unimaginable technological innovations which allow us to see the brain at work in real time in all its complexity have been achieved, we might be able to see or confirm the riddle of free free will from a third person perspective, only by determining and distilling (controlling and isolating) those aspect of some pattern in ourselves when we are actually engaged in the use of our "free will"... by hook or crook will require the teachings of

On a related subject, what are your thoughts on this question:

What do you think of this question which I posted previously in another thread, (to which I received no responses):

No one said "free will" pops into existence by virtue of itself, i.e. that "free will" requires "free will" to will it into being. That clearly would be a logical fallacy. Once upon a time, there was no you, only a potential in your parents' DNA. Then a sperm cell and an egg cell approached each other, neither each cell individually nor taken together as "a group of two cells", was YOU.... and neither each cell individually or taken together as "a group of two cells", properly exhibited "free will", so at this point in time there was no "your free will", it did not exist.

You've been pranked son. Someone, somewhere is laughing his @$$ off. As for external evidence (not necessarily proof) of something, you need to define for yourself what the evidence must tend to show, i.e. you must formulate a specific definition of the "what" that something is, prior to being capable of assessing whether the data tends to show it. Only once deciding what you mean by "free will" is it possible to judge whether external evidence tends to show it. What do you mean by "free will"? As to "Purposeful action" that is indicative of some kind of r

I'm not sure about what he thinks, but a first cause is not wholly determined by all the antecedent factors (including the identity of the actor), that does not mean choice is completely DEVOID of any antecedent factors, that would be untethered and arbitrary, i.e. random. Choice should be free, but also dependent upon antecedent factors like context, and the identity of the chooser. YOU chose to order Italian, not "a random universe" chose Italian food for you Monday night... and the universe had to have Italian food, and for you to know it, for that to ultimately be your choice. T

Coming to conceptually realize that you have the capacity of volition was not a condition of your being able to exhibit volition. Many higher animals exhibit it without knowing anything about it conceptually speaking.

Indeed, if we could design such an experiment we would no longer require philosophical argument to rebut the determinist philosophers!! Causes, however are EVERYWHERE! Interactions are not one way, as exemplified by Newton. The mere fact that something is a cause does not exempt it from claims of determinism. "First cause" is something which invokes the very idea of "choosiness" or non-determinism, for nothing which is determined could be called a "first cause", only a link in a causal chain. With respect to "volitional" being purposeful, you are correct that it is one req

Volition is associated with free will, rather than mere "purposefulness". Free will is a crucial concept not because it deals with "will", but because it posits that that will is "free". What does "free" mean? Free from what? Certainly not entirely "free" from "reality". That is impossible. Certainly not entirely "free" from the "identity" of the entity exhibiting it. Impossible. Certainly not entirely "free" from the context surrounding the entity exhibiting it. A non interacting thing unaware of its surroundings is "oblivious", not "free" in the in

There may be disagreement as to what constitutes free will ... if “will” is construed as requiring higher order consciousness.... and accordingly whether volition use defined also as requiring it. But as to the question of absolute determinism, I think it a poor understanding of biology to equate animals with purely deterministic automatons which “could not have done otherwise”.

Volition does not allocate it to living as it does, that would be giving volition too much responsibility or granting it more power than it actually has. It likely is manifest as a self directed alternative to focus or not but only in the analogous sense which fits within the range of a chimpanzee’s mental capacity.

I think it would be mistake to claim only humans have volition. Too many animals exhibit high levels of conscious functioning to dismiss them all as automatons. Arrogance and ignorance combined are often disastrous to dispassionate objective discovery. I have no qualms whatever with a claim that a chimpanzee is no more subject to absolute determinism than I am.

Once the context were such that there was a market for passage and colony building, and free people chose to pay passage to live there (as settlers who crossed the sea to NA did), then I suppose it would at least seem "good" for those who were taking the risk and making the choice to start a new life on Mars. Unless and until free peoples do so, any "colonization" would probably be premature, involving coercion and/or taxation.

Would it be obtuse for me to ask what particular perceptual or empirical data serves as the motivation for investigations into these ideas, and how those data govern, guide, and reign in the selection among the alternatives proposed as corresponding to reality, to those most promising?

There are some people in the world you will never reach, others, you might but with so much effort it is clearly not worth it, and then there are those who are open and intellectually honest and intellectually independent... those last are worth discussing issues, if you enjoy the process as well.