Consciousness and free will.

[Necromancer]

If we turn this on its head: Because the brain is "infinitely" complex therefore we have free will. With no need to oppose causation. No, causation is well carried by fx. "food then thoughts, food, therefore thoughts" (Modus Ponens).

The pro-determinists do absolutely not "own" terms like science and causation, even though in their simplified world it looks appealing (to feelings?).

That is, both subconsciousness and consciousness can very well carry free will "as I choose between a myriad of causing factors as I crown one as the winning cause by my free will to effect something" (perhaps by one hand on the food, I decide). Also, by this, I can show that I am unlike any inanimate thing, like a car. Determinists fail to do this. In their world, there's no difference between these "dead" things and the living. Us, the pro-free will people have no problem here, also in rating living organisms in being less complex and in being more complex. When do the determinists predict anything at all? When are they successsful? Isn't this their kind of religion where anything goes as long as it looks deterministic?

[Hobbes' Choice]

If we turn this on its head: Because the brain is "infinitely" complex therefore we have free will. With no need to oppose causation. No, causation is well carried by fx. "food then thoughts, food, therefore thougths" (Modus Ponens).

Hey! Your brain is finite, as is made obvious by your post. Live with it!

[henry quirk]

"you wanna accept infinite regress instead of something infinitely old, that's fine."

As both are nonsensical and counter-intuitive, I accept neither.

As I say: there's missing information about how the world works (and, about how I-ness works).

We're stymied by ignorance, all of us.

You, however, seem unwilling to even consider that your premise is possibly lacking, making the whole of your argument suspect to me. Admissions you made in another thread coupled with certain of your comments in this thread have me thinkin' this isn't about you dismantling 'freewill' at all. I think this is all about you reasoning out a dismantling of 'responsibility'.

Simply: it's much easier to commit an irrevocable act when you aren't responsible for it or the consequences extending out from that act.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Free will is framed by both the physics of the universe and ignorance!

Which means that we 'can' do things that we don't actually intend, that they were determined, and that it's also possible, within the framework I mentioned above, to choose to be as responsible for what we 'can' do as much as the framework allows.

But it is in fact common for some to find fault with free will so as to not take responsibility for those things they intend to do. You see it's all about sequence. And some have the desire to stack that deck. Sequence is everything as to cause and effect. Knowledge is indeed power, the only power us limited animals can possess, though often it's used to do harm, while philosophically it should only ever be used to help, otherwise we null and void our own existence; philosophically, like I've said!

The relativity of our environmental exposures, the causals of the differences between us.

Happy Holidays to all those that wish to celebrate, anything they wish to celebrate, in the purest unadulterated sense.

[bahman]

It seems to me that consciousness is required for free will to exist. In other words I have to consciously decide something for it to be a free will act.

That is correct.

1. Cause always precedes effect.

That is correct too.

2. One cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

We become conscious of our thoughts when we create them consciously. There is nothing like unconscious thought.

3. Therefore, one cannot consciously cause one's thoughts!
Since we cannot consciously determine our thoughts (our decisions) free will is impossible in all situations!

That doesn't follow. Can you create any concept or thought without any conscious effort?

[bahman]

1. the principle of sufficient reason says that everything must be caused, and nothing can be uncaused; ever.

That is not always true. Consider the case of the beginning.

2. if a thing exists that's uncaused, that would either invalidate the principle of sufficient reason, or break the law of no contradiction (because the same thing is both caused and uncaused).

The stuff existed at the beginning. It was uncaused.