Robin: The topic of free will is far more complicated than you apparently realize.

Ah. The patronizing strategy. Very impressive.

Even supposing that the mind is nonphysical, as you claim, the question remains: is the will free?

You did not really think we could compress the topic into a comment did you? Not when many long articles and books have been written on the topic. Wanna link? Here's one of many.

Setting that aside for the moment: In your dualist view, how does the nonphysical mind exert an effect on the physical brain?

The two seem to have very disparate properties. Descriptions of thoughts and of brain cells are very different. Will future data yield insights? Some I suspect but nothing like the precision of the energy/matter convertability equation. Like so much else we must draw conclusions without definitive empirical explanations.

The topic of free will is far more complicated than you apparently realize. Even supposing that the mind is nonphysical, as you claim, the question remains: is the will free?

Setting that aside for the moment: In your dualist view, how does the nonphysical mind exert an effect on the physical brain?

No, this is simply premature. Once you have explained what free will IS, then we can discuss whether its philosophically tenable. Trying to do without any coherent sense of what we're talking about has led again and again to nonsensical rhetorical disaster.

Free will is the capacity of a mind to choose between options. Although there may be physical factors, like brain cells and nerve impulses involved in the act of choosing, it is the mind which initiates a series of causal events culminating in choice and not the associated physical factors.

The existence of free will is philosophically tenable but it has its philosophical counterpart which denies it.

No, this is simply premature. Once you have explained what free will IS, then we can discuss whether its philosophically tenable. Trying to do without any coherent sense of what we're talking about has led again and again to nonsensical rhetorical disaster.

kornbelt888: I offer my assessments and opinions when I think appropriate. I you want a case made, talk to someone who is interested in making a case to your satisfaction.

I'll try to keep in mind that you admit to making assertions that you are unwilling to support.

kornbelt888: There are natural processes that are known to produce very limited effects, in my opinion, and do not account for the vast array of processes and machinery within cells.

Zachriel: So you are making a scientific claim. And one that is at odds with the vast majority of scholarship in the field.

Perhaps. But there are some who think the story is incomplete.

kornbelt888: And they do not account for why the machinery and processes within cells are so analogous to human machinery and processes.

Zachriel: Sure they do. The laws of physics are the same for biological machines as they are for artificial machines.

That biological machines and human brains (that design machines) share the same laws of physics is not an "account."

There's even a field called biomechanics.

Yep. T'is true. That humans can recognize and utilize cellular mechanical processes, and that these processes and mechanics share much analogy to human engineering prior to our detailed understanding of them, adds fuel to my suspicions that cellular mechanics and processes had a telic origin.

kornbelt888: I'm not interested in making a case, or persuading anyone to agree with my assessment on that foundational issue.

Zachriel: It's foundational, but you say you're not interested in making the case, even though you make empirical claims that rest on that foundation.

I offer my assessments and opinions when I think appropriate. I you want a case made, talk to someone who is interested in making a case to your satisfaction.

kornbelt888: There are natural processes that are known to produce very limited effects, in my opinion, and do not account for the vast array of processes and machinery within cells.

So you are making a scientific claim. And one that is at odds with the vast majority of scholarship in the field.

kornbelt888: And they do not account for why the machinery and processes within cells are so analogous to human machinery and processes.

Sure they do. The laws of physics are the same for biological machines as they are for artificial machines. There's even a field called biomechanics.

kornbelt888: I'm not interested in making a case, or persuading anyone to agree with my assessment on that foundational issue.

It's foundational, but you say you're not interested in making the case, even though you make empirical claims that rest on that foundation.

kornbelt888: Similarly for myself, who looks at the cellular machinery, sees an analogy to effects produced by human designers, knowing that "blind" nature is not known to produce such effects.

Zachriel: But there are natural processes that are known to produce such effects,

There are natural processes that are known to produce very limited effects, in my opinion, and do not account for the vast array of processes and machinery within cells. And they do not account for why the machinery and processes within cells are so analogous to human machinery and processes.

Zachriel: yet you claim to *know* otherwise. It's easy to see why someone might think you are making a claim about what is reasonably considered established knowledge.

"Not known" is an assessment by me (and obviously I think I'm right.) If you think I'm wrong, feel free to make a case and/or voice your own opinion, and/or steer people to evidence you think contradicts my views. I'm not interested in making a case, or persuading anyone to agree with my assessment on that foundational issue.

kornbelt888: I disagree that that the explanatory models are sufficient to remove my suspicion of a telic origin of intra-cellular processes. Now what?

As holding a suspicion is an attitude not an argument, why should anyone do something?

Zachriel: Can you propose a testable hypothesis?

kornbelt888: No.

Fair enough, but you had made this statement.

kornbelt888: Similarly for myself, who looks at the cellular machinery, sees an analogy to effects produced by human designers, knowing that "blind" nature is not known to produce such effects.

But there are natural processes that are known to produce such effects, yet you claim to *know* otherwise. It's easy to see why someone might think you are making a claim about what is reasonably considered established knowledge, rather than what you are willing to admit accept to be true.

Hand waving. We have robust explanatory models of how complex structures can evolve, and evidence of a history of evolutionary change. Hand waving doesn't change this.

I disagree that that the explanatory models are sufficient to remove my suspicion of a telic origin of intra-cellular processes. Now what?

Well, you can be suspicious … of anything.

Thanks. That's what this blog is about. Thanks for your blessing.

Can you propose a testable hypothesis?

No. Never said I could. At present it's an investigation based on a suspicion.