FREEWILL EXISTS, AT LEAST, COMPATIBLY

 plus.google.com/106774038347107328330/posts/YbZaetpCuQx

+Alex Spevak +z08840 & +K railroads

*FREEWILL EXISTS, AT LEAST, COMPATIBLY*

*SALUTATIONS*

I have to admit guys, I have really enjoyed reading through your discussion. It took me a warping 3 days to go through it. You guys are well vast and respectable in your fields/ research and the common mutual respect here is astounding. I credit you guys for such a fun and polite discussion.

*PERSONAL BACKGROUND*

Now off the bat, I must lay to you my a priori bias so that you know where my background and where I am coming from. *I AM A CHRISTIAN* and a compatibilist. Personally, I believe that *"Choices are free"* but *"Consequences are determined"* For example, you can freely-choose to put your hands in fire, but you cannot choose the determinism that your hand will be burnt and you'd feel pain.... but that piece of relevant information does not necessarily equate to stereotyping me to whatever true or false conceptions you have about other Christians. I would appreciate it if you treated me objectively as a unique individual.

*AIM*
I want to make some comments regarding your discussion. I respect the fact that you guys have concluded your discussion and closed that era of conversation (I expect this may be red-herrings or non-sequiturs so I'll appreciate your mercy in not remembering some of your previous verbiages) but I think a new voice laying new concepts down would be creative, fun and would lead to even more enjoyable discussions for future readers/ participants. I do not necessarily agree with +z08840 definition of freewill. I personally believe in my own opinion that +K railroads is right regarding freewill. This is because there is *no scientific definition* of freewill. This is because scientific definitions are supported by scientific data - to which, if taking Michio Kaku correctly, the matrerialistic/ physical/ physics realm is determined - devoid of freewill. (This only applies if the physical realm is all that TRULY exists - but not so according to String Theory). Freewill is a philosophical term. But even in philosophical terminologies, Freewill has many "non-contradicting" definitions. I will argue for *THREE* philosophical definitions then give some Scientific support.*PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS*
1.) The Origination Argument

2.) The Logical Fatalism Argument

3.) The Causal Fatalism Argument

*1. The Originator Argument* (2)

1. An agent acts with free will only if she is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.

2. If determinism is true, then everything any agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside her control.

3. If everything an agent does is ultimately caused by events and circumstances beyond her control, then the agent is not the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.

4. Therefore, if determinism is true, then no agent is the originator (or ultimate source) of her actions.

5. Therefore, if determinism is true, no agent has free will.

This defines freewill from a Thomas Aquinas vantage point that a person is their own *FINAL CAUSE* (freewill or Ultimate Source of Action) independent of *MATERIAL CAUSES* (determinism) (1). Thomas Aquinas argued against a reductio ad absurdum that *nothing can be an efficient cause of itself unless it was a FIRST CAUSE*. An example of final cause is a buttress from the Problem faced by many philosophers regarding intentionality (such as Haldan'e Argument) (3) and the Intentionality Argument (4) as a case for Dualism - _which by the way, has a lot of Scientific Supports (5)._  (I'm sure yo knew this already). But that's just one definition.

The next two syllogisms define freewill as the capability to do *ALTERNATIVELY* in freely choosing different world lines as analogously described by the 6th dimension of String Theory (3) & (6).

*2. The Logical Fatalism Argument*

Let S = the proposition that there will be a sea battle tomorrow.

(1L) Yesterday it was true that S. [assumption]

(2L) If some proposition was true in the past, it is now-necessary that it was true then. [Form of the Necessity of the Past]

(3L) That yesterday it was true that S is now-necessary. [1, 2]

(4L) Necessarily, if yesterday it was true that S, then now it is true that S. [omnitemporality of truth]

(5L) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (if p then q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]

(6L) Therefore, that it is true that S is now-necessary. [3L, 4L, 5L]

(7L) If its being true that S is now-necessary, no alternative to the truth of S is now-possible. [definition of “necessary”]

(8L) So no alternative to the truth of S is now-possible [6L, 7L]

(9L) If no alternative to the truth of a proposition about the future is now-possible, then what the proposition is about will not be brought about by free human choice. [Version of Principle of Alternate Possibilities]

(10L) Hence, the sea battle tomorrow will not be brought about by free human choice. [8L, 9L]

*3. The Causal Fatalism Argument*

Let

H = a complete description of the world at some time in the distant past.

A = some future human act.

L = a statement of the causal laws

(1c) H and L

(2c) It is now necessary that H and L [the necessity of the past and the necessity of causal laws]

(3c) It is now necessary that [(H & L) → A] [thesis of causal determinism]

(4c) If it is now necessary that p and it is now necessary that (p → q), it is now necessary that q. [transfer of necessity principle]

(5c) It is now necessary that A. [2,3,4]

(6c) If it is now necessary that A, then A will be not be done freely.

*MY "FREEWILL" DEFINITION"*

Hence, merging these two concepts together, I would like to define freewill in the way +K railroads imposed about our existential experiences:
*_Freewill is ultimately endowed from an Efficient First Cause to agents with the power/ ability to collapse the wave function of superimposed alternative potential 6th (String Theory) dimensional worldline possible potentialities from a possible future to the present._*

*SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT*

*Quantum Biology*

+InspiringPhilosophy created a video on Quantum Biology (7) (13) to analogously buttress that we superimpose 6th dimensional possible worldlines in our brains of "Stabbing Yourself" and "Not-Stabbing Yourself" at the same time in our brain. And the Quantum Observer Effect occurs in the brain (exclusive of a material conscious observer - which is a phenomenon) to 100% of the time you choosing to collapse the wave function of "Not-Stabbing Yourself". This bias choice is a good argument of freewill independent of materialistic causations.

*Eminent Experiments*

There have been experimental papers come up to show that the brain is determined 7 seconds before the decision is made (8). But this is not a good case for materialistic determinism. Wilder Penfield debunked it a long time ago and shows that it is POSSIBLE to escape causation/determination even in the process of causation/determination (9), (10), (11) in which the Patients could catch or stop their hands even while it was in the process of materialistic causation/ determination from electricity in the brain.Penfield has an affirmative case that consciousness and self-awareness are NOT materialistically caused/ determined. Wilder Penfield electrically stimulated the brains of epilepsy patients and found he could cause/determine them to move their arms and legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk, or swallow. Invariably the patient would respond by saying, "I didn't do that. You did". According to Penfield, "The patients think of themselves as having an existence separate from the material causation/ determination from the body."
No matter how much Penfield probed the cerebral cortex, he said, "There is no place... where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide" ... This makes it logical to post --- using the data-at-hand that self-awareness does not originate from a materialistically caused/ determined region.
Others have confirmed too like Roger Sperry (12) who's research made him confirm that materialism was false. He said:

_"By our current mind-brain theory, monism has to include subjective mental properties as causal realities. This is not the case with physicalism or materialism which are the understood antitheses of mentalism, and have traditionally excluded mental phenomena as causal constructs. In calling myself a ‘mentalist’, I hold subjective mental phenomena to be primary, causally potent realities as they are experienced subjectively, different from, more than, and not reducible to their physicochemical elements. At the same time, I define this position and the mind-brain theory on which it is based as monistic and see it as a major deterrent to dualism."_

Another Study showed a delay between the time an electric shock was applied to the skin, its reaching the cerebral cortex, and the self-conscious perception of it by the person. This suggests that "self" is more than just a machine that reacts to material causation/ determination stimuli as it receives them. The evidence is so abundant that even Laurence C. Wood said, "many Brian scientists have been compelled to postulate the existence of an immaterial mind, even though they may not embrace a belief in an after-life" .

This led Wilder Penfield to connote this quote:
_Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not. To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence._

Lastly, even evolution which is random by nature, would not have given rise to life without anthropomorphising nature to resemble something that could "choose" called *Natural Selection* - as if evolution is not true until a bias towards a choice "say survival of the fittest" is chosen (that is, who chooses this bias from other alternative potentials?) - For example consider how the Cambrian Explosion debunks Darwins Evolution Theory by Natural Selection (14). I am not saying that "Nature" has freewill lol but I am saying that the Personal Agents in Nature (such as humans and animals) with their mental/ intentional states arguably display characteristics exclusive of physical nature's causation/ determination.

*IN CONCLUSION*

Personally, by definition of my own Freewill (and I'm not saying anything is wrong with +z08840 definition) ... I believe freewill exists with credible logically warranted assumptions. That is, assuming:
(1) Philosophical Experiential Definitions are true

(2) Materialism is not all that exists

(3) Mental States are Different from Material States with regards to Quantum Physics/ Biology (_the observer effect_) - particularly, applying Leibniz law of indiscernibility of identicals.

(4) Materialism is not the sole efficient cause of Self-Awareness.

God bless you

*REFERENCES*

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

(2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/

(3) http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Steinmetz-Problem_of_Intentionality.pdf

(4) http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/mindbody.html

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351351

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdnhKE95AqM

(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_xEraQWvgM

(8) http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

(9) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_SwX4yBwiCIC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68&dq=wilder+penfield+i+didn%27t+do+you,+you+did&source=bl&ots=o21HjDVZ6m&sig=qyHd8jj2fX8rCOb3DOnTJ_MyWeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI_IHh-8CyxwIVA7gUCh33Ow8D#v=onepage&q=wilder%20penfield%20i%20didn%27t%20do%20you%2C%20you%20did&f=false

(10) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=92GqFgX3v9IC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=wilder+penfield+i+didn%27t+do+you,+you+did&source=bl&ots=cHJXbaixoh&sig=qq366NXjmc49bl2wovceFkIoIHA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBWoVChMI_IHh-8CyxwIVA7gUCh33Ow8D#v=onepage&q=wilder%20penfield%20i%20didn%27t%20do%20you%2C%20you%20did&f=false

(11) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tnpdzx1lbFAC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=wilder+penfield+i+didn%27t+do+you,+you+did&source=bl&ots=T7M7OyYgpe&sig=q5Xh3lJCc4asCM0YHIUsSEFrJ-0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCGoVChMI_IHh-8CyxwIVA7gUCh33Ow8D#v=onepage&q=wilder%20penfield%20i%20didn%27t%20do%20you%2C%20you%20did&f=false

(12) http://people.uncw.edu/puente/sperry/sperrypapers/80s-90s/214-1980.pdf

(13) http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html

(14) http://izquotes.com/quote/222682