Proof I have Free Will



Mike over at the A-Unicornist tackles Free Will, and the recent debates regarding whether or not we have it. If you want to learn about the types of free will and whether free will is an illusion or not, I recommend you check how his article.

I have a loftier goal however. I am going to prove, here and now, that I HAVE free will and that, no, it is not an illusion.

How do I know that I have free-will?

Consider this.

If I so chose to shed my clothes, cram my toothbrush up my bum, use a can of Miracle Whip to make a whip-cream bra, and then ran down mainstreet screaming at the top of my lungs, "I am Keyser Söze!" then that would be an act of free will.

How do I know this?

Because there is nothing in the model of reality which predetermines such a choice, unless of course I had no control over my mind, in which case I would be certifiably insane.

The very fact that I chose not to do this act, confirms, that I have free will.

So you see, free will exists. At least for me. I wouldn't know about you. But if I see you running down the street with strange things crammed up your anus shouting lines to obscure cult films, I would surmise you either lacked free will or were in the middle of a mental breakdown.

Wait a minute...

Having free will being indistinguishable from insanity, we run into a hurdle, since there is no way to tell the difference between a wild act made by one's own volition or an insane act which was the arbitrary consequence of uncontrollable choices. Which means we must all assume people who appear to be enacting free will are actually not.


In which case, there is no such thing as free will. 


Oops.

Unless, of course, there is. But how would we know?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more