Does free will exist?

Do you not think when asking for evidence-based comments you should evidence your own?Personally, I think the whole free-will vs. determinism thing is a massive red herring. All that you need to have free-will is that your actions are determined by 'you', whatever 'you' may be.Regardless of your metaphysical models for human consciousness this is clearly, and always, the case. In the case of materialism, the brain is the causal agent in your actions, and no doubt it makes its descisions based on the inputs of your surroundings and is exactly as deterministic as any other complex physical system. However to say that your brain causes you to do something so you don't have free will is incoherant. You are your brain, it cannot cause you do anything, the whole notion doesn't make sense.So, yes, we have free will.

On the question of determined vs. random. It seems to me that this is far too simple a dichotomy to be accurately describe the universe: if QM is true (and it certainly astonishingly accurate) then the universe is both. The precise timing and nature of an action is random (or probabilitic if you prefer), but the range of possible outcomes and the relative likelyhood of those outcomes is highly deterministic.It should also be noted that under any dualistic conception of the universe there is a third possibility: Willed.Atrejusan, You know, I'd have thought the whole 'Mr.' thing would be a clue...Anyway. If I'm reading your post correctly, you are arguing that there are no (collective?) entities outside of human perception. Is that correct?

Well, yes, I'd agree. However, if you do take a dualistic postition - then you're implicitly accepting (or creating?) a third category. I personally think dualism is utterly intellectually and philosophically bankrupt, but that is another story.

No. Our representations of the world are not arbitary.Let's take a simple example: I have two small marble balls on my desk. Why is that designation not arbitary? Because they behave as a whole - I can pick them up, if they are struck by another ball they will move off as a whole. If I drop they fall as a whole, and bounce as a whole.I expect you will already have spotted a problem. Namely that some particles from the marble balls will be left behind or chipped off, and other particles from my hands, or from the table, will have merged with the balls. Does this make the designation of the balls arbitary? No. It makes them fuzzy.Taking it further: why do we consider the Sun as a whole when it is constantly flining energy and particles into space? Because to understand it's properties and influences we have to. If you didn't consider the sun as a whole you could never understand the effects it had, or the reasons behind the conditions at its surface and centre. Sure you can note that at X degree and Y pressure the hydrogen was fusing - but you could never explain the tempreture or the pressure without the holistic approach.This is even more true when you start looking at organisms.In summary, then, our categories are fuzzy, but not arbitary.(Note: if you use the little red 'reply' button under the post you are replying to rather than the big 'post reply' button at the bottom your post will be linked to the one you are responding to and your conversations will be easier to follow).

Hmm. Yes, you're right - dualism need not deny these causes. However, classical dualism - such as proposed by Decartes - is specific in its denial of causal effects within mind.I did not wish to claim the categories I presented as exhaustive and I agree with your proposed fourth category.