How to disprove free will using basic logic

[Plaupius]

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Plaupius said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Well, I wouldn't separate random things that occur within and outside of our consciousness as they both ultimately does nothing but affect our decisions (and thus, our "free" will). In other words: For the will to be free, it cannot be materialistic, which is why I don't think that there's a free will to begin with. I think I explained that as a paradox earlier by saying something like "The only possible way for us to actually have an independant will (that is unaffected by randomness) is if the world is entirely determined, which makes the will dependent of something else."

For the sake of argumentation, lets assume that our consciousness and free will are inseparable and that both exist. (Just so I don't have to write a disclaimer every time I mention free will :)

If the free will is not a point source but rather a volume in space, then there is a very big difference between inside and outside since it is the totality of what goes on inside that gives rise to our consciousness/free will. Since you didn't correct me, I'm assuming that your definition of free will is that it is autonomous and independent. By that definition, free will is possible if it, as a unit, is autonomous and independent with regards to the outside. What happens in the inside is totally irrelevant. The question then becomes: is our consciousness capable of making decisions sans any input from the outside? Based on what I've read of brain research and cognitive psychology, the answer is a definite maybe. Sensory deprivation quickly leads to hallucinations, i.e. the brain making up input, which then leads to some kind of reactions and decision making processes.

Hmm... A "definite maybe" doesn't sound very convincing

Anyway, as I see it the brain is fully capable of making decisions even without any input from the "outside", as a decision really isn't anything else than millions of synapses colliding (both consciously and uncounsciously). But it really only leads us to the original problem. The only way for you to have a fully independent free will is if it does not consist of atoms (like a soul, or any similar supernatural matter). As I see it, at least, the brain consisting of atoms is what limits everything and makes every decision explainable (no matter how extremely complex it would be to actually explain them).

However, I must admit that I'm not an expert in English, so I might have just missed your point entirely xD. If so bear with me.

It's a definite maybe because I don't know enough of brain research and cognitive psychology to give a definite answer either way :)

But, my point is that if you want to go to the (sub)atomic level, you need to change your definition of free will. And because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the quantum effects, you can never go to the (sub)atomic level and then construct the system back from there.

In other words, precisely because free will is not (or can't be proven to be) different from matter, it needs to be looked at as a system, not as a singularity. So the question is: does the system, as a whole, have free will as per your definition? And remember, a system is, by definition, a collection of dependent elements so it does not matter how the system functions in the inside.

I don't know if I can explain what I mean well enough. I'm just working with your definition of free will, and that definition combined with what we know of the brain and our consciousness leads me to the conclusion that our consciousness can be autonomous and independent. That the internal processes are both deterministic and random does not matter based on that definition.