soulofdarwin

Jobar,
My answer to your question "Where does freewill lurk?" seems to have been lost in another discussion, so I'll post it here:

Where does "freewill" lurk? I assume that the question is rhetorical, as, clearly, free will lurks only in the dimly lit recesses of the so-called minds of mystics.

"FREE WILL" is a quality of being that, other than in our own egocentric imaginings, simply does not exist. In reality, we are automatons, heuristic systems that exist in varied states, the sum of our instantaneous system requirements, our instantaneous system capability, and the external forces that bear upon us at every instant in time. Hence, what we do, think, and feel at every instant in time we could not do, think, or feel otherwise. Of course, because we are heuristic systems, our motivations can change over time, but only with new data and new evaluation of that data. The chemical and electrical processes that give rise to our concious being occur at speeds that make our awareness of those processes impossible. We are left with a fuzzy awareness of "self" and "will" of which we suppose ourselves master. The realities of our physiology, which we are only now beginning to understand, will show otherwise, and, once more, mysticism will retreat before the sword of truth. In brief, we, just as everything else in this universe, are a random walk through space and time.

I believe that, with regard to the universe and its laws, nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman said it best with this understatement of the century: " . . . the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

There are, after all, no boundaries to the ideas that we might formulate. The only matter of significance is whether or not those ideas have some connection to, or bearing on, reality. The only arguments having reality comport, by definition, with universal law. Therein lies the danger of "ideas" in the hands of non-scientists. My message for mystics, of which I know you are not one, is simply that, while we all long for the cherubic bliss of the bible-thumping mind, this existence in which we presently find ourselves is not that simple (easily confirmed by a reading of the likes of Weinberg, Penrose, Hawking, Thorne, et al). Get used to it!

For a discussion of the logical extension of this idea, I invite all interested parties to critique my thread "General Theorem of Existence" posted 9/29/00 (Existence of God - 4Q - 2000).]

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: soulofdarwin ]</p>