Jason wrote:

---

 

Andy001 wrote:

---

it would seem that our best explanation is that certain kinds of matter simply are conscious and capable of volition, whatever the reason is for this.

---

I think "just because" is a poor explanation for human agency. There must be a reason humans have this faculty and rocks do not. We can find that reason.

 

---

 We can, however it isn't everyone's job to find out how.  It IS everyone's job to come to a firm decision on matters such as these...Am I a being that bares no responsibility for his actions, and who can be blamed for nothing or am I culpable for the actions I take?  Who can rightfully say something is " his "?

Jason wrote:

---

 

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

 

Stop being anti-life

 

---

Explain yourself.

 

---

 It was a joke.  You told me to stop speaking like Rand.  However, I do not like the implication that I am stealing my opinions from Rand.  Anythnig I'm saying on a definite level I have thought about and considered for long enough.

Jason wrote:

---

 

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

Am I a being that bares no responsibility for his actions, and who can be blamed for nothing or am I culpable for the actions I take?

 

---

I have never denied that humans are responsible for their actions.

 

---

 By denying free will, you would.  You haven't done such a thing, but that is what hard determnism boils down to.

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

And it is what scientists should do whenever coming in contact with something that doesn't quite make sense.

---

A deterministic mind can "make sense".  What doesn't make sense is your ghost-in-the-shell idea of free will within a physical system of mind.

If you don't believe in a physical mind, then we can go in another direction.  I do believe in one, and that is why I cannot reconcile free will with what I know about the human animal.

Andy001 wrote:

---

People can be held responsible for events that follow casually from their actions. That in itself need not imply that they were capable of acting otherwise from the way they did.
Having said that, I do feel that the evidence of our first-person perspective suggests clearly that we do not simply act; rather, we weigh up alternatives, consider possible outcomes and come to a final decision. As you said, we reason about things.
However, I believe reasoning itself is a rule-governed process if any is; we talk about a choice following from a process of reasoning being the 'right' choice, for factors which are independent of it simply being what we arbitrarily opted for. As Jason also pointed out, our best scientific understanding is that reasoning is closely related, if not identical, to processes of the brain, which must be governed by the same casual laws that govern all other matter.
My basic position is that the further we move 'outside' the perspective of each individual human to look at humans scientifically as a whole, the more we see that there are some ultimate limits to human freedom; however, taking the first-person stance for granted, our everyday talk of free will does make at least some sense.

---

 Of course there are limits to a man's freedom.  We do not have a choice in many things about ourselves.  Most people don't " choose " their sexuality. 
People don't have a choice to all of their emotions or automatic reactions to things, but they can also be governed by reason.  Reason is NOT instinctive. It can't be explained away by determinist arguments.