Sorry, here’s the link explaining backwards referral.
Sentient Meat,
I have seen a website which displays the ‘emotional’ and ‘neutral’ pictures which are supposed to provoke ‘time-shifted’ responses…
they are somewhat stomach turning…
I think that I would be in a state of anticipation myself if ever involved in an experiment which displayed such images
(no, you aren’t getting a link)
just remember this was the university of amsterdam
posted by SentientMeat
Of course not. I can no more bend my arm through thoughts alone then I can bend a spoon. Thoughts/thinking are outside the casual realm.
(that’s not to say that some do not possess that ability)
Now there’s a comtradiction.
I’m going to get a bit off-topic and address the OP without any sniping; also I’m going to ignore this debate about religion for half a second.
People all appear to be acting of their own free will. I myself appear to be an entity which acts of my own free will; in fact, I cannot personally detect any interference into the aforementioned free will. This pretty much doesn’t depend on wether I’m thinking about morals or the construction of ham sandwhiches; I can think about, and act upon, anything, without detectable external influence.
Based on that, I have free will. I will now proceed to refute that stance:
I have this think that I like to call a “brain”. Magazines and books and other unreliable sources inform me that reputable people think I have brain cells in there, with electrical signals zipping about between them. Nothing I recall has mentioned any deviation from the laws of electicity, chemistry, physics, etc in there. So, it follows, that if someone were to exactly copy my brain and the positons/properites of all associated subatomic particles, then so long as that copy got the same stimulus as my brain, it would produce the same reactions and act exactly like me. This is similar to the concept of copying a computer program to an exact copy of the original computer: given the same garpage input they’d produce the same garbage output.
Does this refute Free Will? You decide. But wait, my half-second is up; God’s coming back into the picture.
Assuming an all-powerful god, He knew exactly what he was creating, and made it exactly as planned. (Deviation from the original plan would be indicitave of a flaw in His design.) Therefore, based on nothing but the intial state, He could extrapolate everything right down to my brain chemistry at birth, (based on the circumanstances that would precede my birth), and all the ciurcumstances after, and in fact He knows the random arrangement of my brain chemistry as it develops, through right now, to the instant I die (and after, too). He wouldn’t even have to be omniscient to do this; it would come with the perfection of his design. All that being omniscient does is saves him the trouble of doing all the calcualtions to date and beyond.
So, the assumed God made me, knows what I will do, and I’m doing exactly what he designed me to do (right down to doubting his existence), all according to his original design. All this, without refuting the notion of a self-contained brain chemistry. Does this refute Free Will? Almost certainly. Of course, if God made a random or partially random system, then we’re back to being slaves to our own brains; I don’t presume to say which is better.
Have a nice day! 
But God **does **play Dice with the Universe!
—But a question: if some event sequence exhibits a 1:1 correlation and is such that if either antecedent or putative consequent is omitted, the other fails to occur, is it not reasonable to presume a causal relationship, regardless of whether a “tight” system of cause-and-effect can be established?—
Isn’t the possibilty that a third event predictably causes BOTH just as reasonable? In fact, EXACTLY as reasonable?
Responding to eburacum45,
If I follow that up too far I’ll be hijacking the thread, but the way I figure it you are correct: if we assume a randomly-interfering god, (who clearly isn’t omnipotent, since we’re assuming that the interferences have effects that even God cannot anticipate), then we are back to the case where we are animations of our brain chemistry. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, unless you’re a strict theologian with aspirations of becoming an equal to God. This view of course does not rule out much of anything theologically but the traditional view of the soul. Almost the only practical conclusion is that a person perhaps shouldn’t be too forceful in denying the possibility of fully sentient and free-willed computers, in the theoretical future.
----Of course, if God made a random or partially random system, then we’re back to being slaves to our own brains; I don’t presume to say which is better.----
In my opinion, it doesn’t make sense to say that “I” am a “slave” to my brain when my brain is, or is at least part, of “me.” I am myself. Whatever mechanism you posit behind conscious experience and wills, whether it be chemical, made of PSI-ether in another dimension, or simply leave it at an unexplained “soul,” you’re still left with the problem that you ARE the mechanism: and it doesn’t make any sense to debate whether or not you are free from it. “It” is YOU! Both “I am its slave” and “I am free from it” make no sense, in that context.
i agree with this part. if we presume that we are “slave” to the brain, in the materialist sense, then there really is no “i” that is a slave. likewise for freedom from it.
i think the statement could be given meaning by simply saying “there is no i which is…”
the whole mind/body or soul/body dichotomy goes away when you do not assume that there is such an “i” thinking. though i must admit, there certainly seems to be.
** Apos**
I’m not sure what you are referring to with the word “it” in this sentence: >> Oh, it’s worse than that: for all we know, it could be conscious too<<
Two “consciousnesses” cannot interact without rendering/reducing each other to “content”, or becoming one. Meaning they cannot interact as separate entities.
Hence I think there is only one consciousness.
Ramanujan
Yes, there is no thinker in thought, there just thinking.
If there is not an ‘i’ thinking, then there certainly isn’t any Free Will, because first you have to have a will. Though it isn’t unreasonable to assume that we’re little more than characters in Gods ongoing novel, the outlook tends to get a bit distressing with examination, and regardless, there’s no free will in that case. (For a little fun, the next time you’re playing D&D have your character try and start a discussion about wether they have free will. The characters, not the players.)
I confess to being a bit melodramatic with the ‘slaves to our own brains’ thing; I use the phrase to distinguish the ‘we are the product of the non-magic physics of our brains’ position, as opposed to an ‘i am a free-willed soul, unconstrained by the predictable physics of my body’ stance. Though the distinciton is not directly germaine to the OP, as free will can be in doubt even in God, it was necessary for the second half of my argument.
It seems perfectly reasonable to refer to yourself as ‘I’, wether that’s some metaphysical spirit or ‘just’ your body and brain taken together. I’m not sure that we can comclude that there’s only one intelligence in your head; merely that the one that you percieve as ‘you’ is entirely -or usually- unaware of the other. (Consider the theortical case of the Holy Spirit.)
I slightly new spin on this occured to me as I was reading over the ‘Attitudes toward Suicide’ thead. Could we pose a thought experiment with free will and suicide?? With regards to backwards reasoning, how the hell would that work? Is man’s ability to kill himself the greatest evidence we have of free will??
No, I wasn’t trying to put it into a theological context. It was for lack of a better term.
And the above comment was made by a bleeding heart.
One more thing.
The following statement does not solve anything, give claims to any side, etc.; it merely poses more questions.
If you were to exist in two seperate but equal dimensions, given the same choice, both of you would make the same decision; thus, neither one of you is in control of his own decision.
Accurate?
Are identical outcomes equivalent to determinism?
If we stagger these dimensions in time, and one choice is made before its twin, does the fact that the outcome is predetermined rob the other of free will?
—I’m not sure what you are referring to with the word “it” in this sentence:—
“it” was the potential alternate system of decision making: whatever seems to be making decisions prior to our experiencing making them. I’m saying that it’s possible that this same underlying processes of decision making could then just as easily give rise to MORE than one discrete experience (as discrete as your experience is from mine) in a single body, neither aware of the other (since they are experiences of acting, not actors who’se different actions could distinguish them).
Posted by ** Miguelon**
Unfortunately it’s no evidence at all… We don’t know where the thoughts come from or who makes the decision, so killing yourself is just another act, although a final one for the body.
Nor do thoughts have a causal relation to the world or to each other.
[snort] Libertarian is the best evidence yet for his claim that emotional reactions don’t require the brain. 
Gosh. I would certainly agree with that, although the possibility that the development of fully sentient computers without free will
is preordained should perhaps not be ruled out.
In this scenario however neither humans nor computers have anything other than the illusion of free will either…
I should point out that an illusion can be inistiguishable from the real thing.
More to the point, there’s no such thing as the “real thing”. The illusion is all there is.