Hello everybody; I have been reading most this forum for a while, and I've seen most of the discussions finish talking about the "free will" concept.
UCE and others seems to imply that determinism forbids free will, which is an observable human quality, and they offer the soul concept as the solution.
IMO the problem is that most people try to use "freedom" as an absolute concept, while it should be always used as relative.
To show that absolute freedom in free will is a paradox I propose this mental experiment. Take note that this is not my own model; IMO the human brain is deterministic in quality, like a computer.
Let's guess that the study of the brain shows that the somewhat unpredictable nature of the sub-atomic world is meaningful at the behaviour level, and let guess we learn that this phenomena can't be assumed as random. We learn that an unkown (in our physical models) set of forces is acting in the brain. Let's say this set of forces is evidence of a system we call "soul".
Now, let's make some hypothesis:
1.- Soul is a truly deterministic system. The nature of soul is rigid and has his own set of rigid relations. Therefore, absolute freedom has no meaning. Every action has one/several causes.
2.- Soul is a random system, and some other system acta as filter in the relation with our known physical system. This soul could be said to be free, as it doesn't have any restriction in its decision framework. The problem is that a random system CAN'T show any degree of coherence, as human mind does; hence, this hypothesis can be discarded.
3.- Soul is a partially random system. Some relations of this system are unpredictable, but of finite nature. Hence, free, unrestricted behaviour can happen BUT in a restricted enviromnet. Like a ship, which can move freely over water surface, but has a whole dimension (height) forbidden.
As I said, the purpose of the experiment is to show that "free will" as an absolute is not a conceivable or useful concept.
Why? Because, as shown by the experiment, at the end, only "absolute freedom = pure randomness" makes sense taking the terms to the absolute.
Is randomness a desirable concept to explain the human mind? If it is, do we need a external system (soul) to find this randomness?
My opinion is that soul concept just push the problem a level up, which is useless. Like the god theory, we create a unknown entity (the soul) and we attribute it with every quality we can't explain at the moment. In the past, memory, thought, and feelings were attributes of the soul, not of the brain. Now, most people say the soul is just the conscience, which owns the will.
Is the will random or deterministic?
No matter which is the solution, the soul concept does NOT help to solve it, nor it's needed!
I hope this focus provides som new though on the question of free will. As everybody seem to focus on "no evidence of soul", I think this side of the problem has been overlooked...
UCE and others seems to imply that determinism forbids free will, which is an observable human quality, and they offer the soul concept as the solution.
IMO the problem is that most people try to use "freedom" as an absolute concept, while it should be always used as relative.
To show that absolute freedom in free will is a paradox I propose this mental experiment. Take note that this is not my own model; IMO the human brain is deterministic in quality, like a computer.
Let's guess that the study of the brain shows that the somewhat unpredictable nature of the sub-atomic world is meaningful at the behaviour level, and let guess we learn that this phenomena can't be assumed as random. We learn that an unkown (in our physical models) set of forces is acting in the brain. Let's say this set of forces is evidence of a system we call "soul".
Now, let's make some hypothesis:
1.- Soul is a truly deterministic system. The nature of soul is rigid and has his own set of rigid relations. Therefore, absolute freedom has no meaning. Every action has one/several causes.
2.- Soul is a random system, and some other system acta as filter in the relation with our known physical system. This soul could be said to be free, as it doesn't have any restriction in its decision framework. The problem is that a random system CAN'T show any degree of coherence, as human mind does; hence, this hypothesis can be discarded.
3.- Soul is a partially random system. Some relations of this system are unpredictable, but of finite nature. Hence, free, unrestricted behaviour can happen BUT in a restricted enviromnet. Like a ship, which can move freely over water surface, but has a whole dimension (height) forbidden.
As I said, the purpose of the experiment is to show that "free will" as an absolute is not a conceivable or useful concept.
Why? Because, as shown by the experiment, at the end, only "absolute freedom = pure randomness" makes sense taking the terms to the absolute.
Is randomness a desirable concept to explain the human mind? If it is, do we need a external system (soul) to find this randomness?
My opinion is that soul concept just push the problem a level up, which is useless. Like the god theory, we create a unknown entity (the soul) and we attribute it with every quality we can't explain at the moment. In the past, memory, thought, and feelings were attributes of the soul, not of the brain. Now, most people say the soul is just the conscience, which owns the will.
Is the will random or deterministic?
No matter which is the solution, the soul concept does NOT help to solve it, nor it's needed!
I hope this focus provides som new though on the question of free will. As everybody seem to focus on "no evidence of soul", I think this side of the problem has been overlooked...
