Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

I am a devout follower of Kellhus posted 16 December 2009 in The Judging EyeI am a devout follower of Kellhus by Thorsten, Candidate

And in terms of free will the question I raise is 'Free of what?'. If your causally linked to things you care about - do you want to be free of things you care about? I address this more on my blog: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20">http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/20</a><!-- m --> ... rther.html


Well, this goes to the heart of the free will issue - what does it actually mean to exercise free will? Can you (or anyone) think of an experiment (even a thought experiment) that could in principle prove the existence of free will in contrast to determinism? I've been trying to come up with something for years, and I think it's just not possible.

Free will is not just the opposite of causality (that's randomness in a sense, completely random events appear uncaused by external factors and hence are unpredictable) - it's something different, something rather complicatedly different. Language knows that - we call a strong-willed person also a determined person. We would not call a person who throws dice for decisionmaking free-willed.

The keyword would be something like self-determination - but what does that mean? Obviously, you are determined by what you want because if it were different, you wouldn't want it. Of course, the neuroscientists go on claiming that self is an illusion (which does not prevent them from feeling pissed when their papers are rejected - that seems real enough for them). But as I wrote elsewhere, there is a blatant contradiction that if there is no self, the whole scientific method which is validated by the experience of the self, the conscious observer, is as illusionary as the self, and so it can't be used to disprove any self. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown