Is free will an illusion?

nameless wrote:

We can easily reject the notion of an 'external' 'reality' through simple lack of evidence.

I certainly don't claim to understand what 'evidence' means, but I'd like to see if I understand some of what you've said in this thread.

Let's see... I might say to myself that because I perceive 'things' to behave in ways that I can't anticipate, this constitutes at least circumstantial evidence that there is an external reality

- containing these 'things' - with which my perception directly correlates. I.e., that I can be surprised is evidence of an external reality.

I could say that 'surprise' isn't evidence of an external reality.

I could choose to distinguish between the two types of experiences above by, say, the avenues through which I receive the data,

or perhaps by whether I'm aware of constructing the rules and setting the initial conditions.

Based upon the contexts I construct through these perspectives, I might or might not consider some data as evidence of an external reality -depending upon my chosen perspective.

But these chosen perspectives are themselves belief frameworks or interpretive frameworks that I use to explain the data.

It's the framework that tells me whether the data does or does not constitute evidence - an internal construct. Thus I might say I 'believe' in an external world, but no more.

Seems to me that - from this pov - I would reject the argument that I have at least contextual evidence for an external world because all such contexts are internally constructed.

Does the above relate at least somewhat to your point/pov here?

Greg, for me to understand the why of creation, I have had to study the cause of the effect. We live in two worlds simultaneously - the material world of effect - and unseen world of cause.

To know cause is to have all knowledge, balance is the key to understanding cause and effect, for they can never be out of balance, everything that happens will always have an equal and opposite effect.

Man has free will to choose any action, but has no say over what the reaction will be.
for example if I hold evil thoughts in my thinking, a balancing will take place in my consciousness, where toxins will build up in my body, blocking the flow of life, allowing cancers to form. Richard

Obviously I don't have free will because I can't seem to answer why I bother responding to most threads. I know that no one is really going to come out any different after reading what I write, so what's really the point? Is it to appeal to some psychological need?

Good point ! I'd be willing to bet that it's in the class of 'addictive states.' It has been shown to be a fair understanding that the brain is set up for addiction, and that pretty much happens without us knowing it, but it is us doing it--lack of freewill? From the macro view, probably, but from the micro view, maybe not really.

But I, for one, am very happy that you have (what might be) such an addiction of posting here!! Post on !!

Actually, Libet's experiment demonstrates that there is a short interval of time after which the unconscious has made a choice wherein the conscious mind MAY veto that choice. Libet referred to this possibility as "Free Won't." However it is equally possible that the unconscious, and not the conscious, would still be the agent vetoing the unconscious' initial choice.

Yes, innocent, that is about the set up. It is also (and more properly, in my concerned opinion) called 'stop/go' acts--an inhibition to a circuit will usually make the stop. However, it is very much a problem to use the word unconsious, because it is still conscious, actually. While these conscious processes are not accessible to, or not fully integrated into the 'mega' of, consciousness (the state of conscioussness) they are, nevertheless, conscious processes--as better defined.

Yes, innocent, that is about the set up. It is also (and more properly, in my concerned opinion) called 'stop/go' acts--an inhibition to a circuit will usually make the stop. However, it is very much a problem to use the word unconsious, because it is still conscious, actually. While these conscious processes are not accessible to, or not fully integrated into the 'mega' of, consciousness (the state of conscioussness) they are, nevertheless, conscious processes--as better defined.

Obviously I don't have free will because I can't seem to answer why I bother responding to most threads. I know that no one is really going to come out any different after reading what I write, so what's really the point? Is it to appeal to some psychological need?