|
So even though it can't be determined (despite following natural laws), it can still be deterministic? According to you, yes. Fair enough. Though it still seems like arguing semantics to me.
You'll never be able to prove whether you have free will or not. Deciding one way or the other can only become a matter of faith. What do you believe? I don't see how logic is going to help here. Especially if the logic in question starts off by positing only two choices when there can be other unconsidered options(like the flourishing of 'free will' within the practical indeterminancy of a traditionally 'deterministic' universe)
What exactly is free-will, or 'choice' anyway? Is there a way to tell a choice from a non-choice? Is a choice something entirely random? Something unpredictable? Does predictability help weed out choices from non choices? I don't know if we can even answer this question to any great satisfaction.
If a hungry man chooses to eat, is that his choice, or something he's driven towards? If he decides not to eat, but gives his food to another, does that make it *more* of a choice? What if it was his daughter, or someone he loved? Or if he'd just been thinking about free-will and wanted to try and prove to himself that he had a will of his own? Down that road lies paradox - suggesting the question as framed has some flaw in it.
So to come back to your initial question, I don't know whether we really do have free will. In the meantime, I'll assume we do, and comfort myself with the notion that nature has, to all intents and purposes, hidden the nastier logical implications of living within a deterministic universe beneath a curtain of practical impossibility.
I don't understand your point on drugs or how they affect the conciousness - where does that fit in?
|