NOTE-WAIT FOR A WILE FOR THE REST TO SHOW UP OK

a choice is a free action made by a person that causes the world to be one way rather than another.


We have examples of mechanistic "choosers" -- computer programs, for example, that execute decision trees. Those programs, although they "choose" in a sense, do not possess free will, because their choices are not "free". (Their "choices" are only analogous to ours.)

How can a choice be free? At least three things must be true:


A) The chooser must be the cause of an event,


B) The chooser must have been able to do something else, and


C) The chooser must have known that the result would likely occur.
A) is self-evident, I hope -- if you wanted to fly but couldn't, you didn't choose to fly -- but it has interesting and somewhat unpopular consequences, believe it or not. More below.


is important because it differentiates us from rocks. Rocks can be the causes of events (along with the laws of physics, etc.), but they can't choose to do anything other than follow the laws of ballistics.


is self-evident, too. If someone thinks that a clothes iron is cool, puts his hand on it, and burns himself, then he did not choose to burn himself even if he _did_ choose to put his hand on the iron.


Recall that I say that the soul is the seat of free will, and let's discuss these ideas with respect to their implications about the soul.
A) is unpopular, even though it's obvious, because people don't think about the consequences of not-A. Most people are essentially "dualists", which means they believe that souls are "pure spirits" and have nothing to do with "the physical world". But this is a complete irrationality; if the soul matters at all, then it must affect our actions, which means that it must be a _physical_ reality, whatever else it may be. If I am right, the soul exists "in the world" just as much as magnetism and railroad tracks, and dualism (as most people talk about it) is an obviously and inherently foolish belief.
Although 's purpose is only to differentiate us from rocks, it also eliminates the possibility of free will in a physically deterministic universe. In a physically deterministic universe, any choice I have was predetermined by the laws of physics and the configuration of matter at the Big Bang. What I do tomorrow is already determined, and I have no more choice about it than a drop of water has about going over a waterfall.
B) is more popular, but still has people who argue against it. Most are atheists and materialists. Daniel Dennett, for example, argues that the only way we could possibly have free will is through determinism. Anything that is not determined is a matter of chance, after all -- chaos, not freedom. And he's right, as far as he goes. The problem is that he then suggests that *physical* determinism is freedom, thereby providing no viable way that I can see of differentiating us from rocks, cancer cells, or stardust. I must admit that we may be exactly as free as those things, but I don't believe that we are (and I'll show below that it's foolish to believe that we are, regardless of the evidence).
I don't really know about the popularity of , but I assume it would be reasonably popular. I don't see any way to argue against it.


It's important to note that the above combination essentially eliminates chance. I can't be the cause of something, know that I'm the cause of something, and have the ability to do something else, and still say that my actions are random.
thats it not tottaly but yeah thats it.^_^

__________________
Yahoo! Answers 4ever