Free will - how free?

If you've come across the biomechanical arguement in terms of free will, this is something to consider. Even if will is simply an execution of physics, the word 'simply' is not enough. If you trace the smoking gun of physics, it didn't start yesterday, nor the day before - it traces all the way back to what we currently understand as the larger origins of everything, the big bang.

Even if free will is simply physics, the final expression of physics that is free will is an expression that originates in a big and still pretty damn mysterious explosion! You could literally consider your own will as a small ongoing part of that explosion. Indeed if scienctific evidence forces you to think of youself as biomechanical, then your just as much forced to consider yourself as a small part of that explosion, ongoing.

Will we grasp the origins of that explosion more thoroughly in future? Probably, but its a much more grandiose thing. The frightening element of simply seeing oneself as a biomechanical machine is that it seems so pointless and meaningless. But that's basically because it's such a short term way of looking at things (if humans are very flawed, to look at it this way is to engage in another flaw). Beyond our ability to grasp from moment to moment, we trace all the way to one huge explosion that pretty much made everything (or atleast allowed it to exist/birthed it). That's pretty significant!

If you haven't run into the biomechanical arguement - in a way you both need to know, yet I'm lothe to say since I wont be there to run it past you in person. I'm not sure it should be passed on alone. Anyway, here's a long essay that might help on it - it's long, so maybe you wont get through it anyway, or find the length to be some company.

Also see: Philosophy: An arguement against "Humans are fundamentally bio-mechanical"

Philosophy: An arguement against "Humans are fundamentally bio-mechanical"

Posted this here originally, then thought it'd be good content for this blog! It's kind of an arguement against an arguement you might not even have heard yet. So perhaps a solution for a problem you don't as yet have, but hey!

"Humans are fundamentally bio-mechanical"


Think of it this way - if you trying to look at yourself as a machine, your using an anthropomorphism. You are not complex enough to really grasp how complex you are. So you use a lousy, weak ass idea of 'machine' to fill in for your incapacity to be complex enough to percieve your own complexity.

This extends to the idea that at some point there was a big bang, and your still part of that ongoing bang - and that bang is still a big ass mystery. So you, as an extension of it, are still mysterious. Quit looking strictly at the short term and just whats happened in the minute lifetime you've been in, to try and identify what you are.

Don't confuse the weak ass model your mind conjures up, for what your mind actually is. Sure, you can debunk ideas of free will (free from what, is my question), but so can you debunk 'OMG, I'm a machine'. Neither is some real, genuine grasp of the situation. They are both weak ass approximations, like a fuzzy JPG of the Mona Lisa. They don't show the true picture.