[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Proto

You are describing the concept of qualia there, which indeed is a baffling concept once we realize the full implications of something that is seemingly so simple, however as much as I share your enthusiasm I do not see why do you automatically assume that such a thing is not measurable or synthesized down into its basic parts.

I do not deny that any phenomenon can be reduced to its basic parts. But I posit that it is folly to believe that you deduce the whole from those same basic parts. The possible quantum pathways that any of those parts can take are already enough to present formidable challenges on the way forward to the whole. All you have to do is go down one branch path, and you could possibly end up with an entirely different outcome, even though your original phenomenon and the different outcome both started from the same initial state.

Meaning to say, what's the point of reducing an emergent phenomenon, even if you could? All you can tell me are the parts that made it possible. Those parts, on their own, cannot possibly tell me why the phenomenon occurred. It simply did. All the fluff that made it possible simply happened to go down one particular quantum pathway out of an infinite variety of possibilities and, voila, the phenomenon exists.

Now, emergence presents yet another layer of complexity on top of uncertain quantum states. There is the problem that the basic parts that interact to make the emergent phenomena possible change each other even as the process unfolds. And these changes occur at a chaotic (not random) rate and in a chaotic fashion. That being the case, how can you possibly know for sure which state of change in those basic parts was the one that finally made the phenomenon possible?

You can't. All you can reduce are some of the parts that made the phenomenon. And the original state of some of these basic parts has become a matter of speculation.

Originally Posted by Proto

Well yeah, human understanding itself is a model of reality, and as human beings we are limited by our own perceptions and thoughts. I had already agreed that free will is real for all practical purposes given that its impossible for a human to completely understand another human (even himself), and as such its impossible to predict another person with a 100% accuracy.

Human understanding is a model of reality, yes, but free will exists. Free will has nothing to do with understanding. It is simply a phenomenon that emerged out of conscious thought. What we choose to do consciously is up to us. We can choose to pursue understanding, or we can choose to remain ignorant. Either way, the choice is up to individuals to make.

And, from what I can tell, this is supposed to be a thread about the validity of free will, no?

Originally Posted by Proto

As such I thought we were discussing things on a more philosophical plane, no need to play with words and nuances. i'm just stating that there are no mistical qualities to human thought or the human mind problem that would hamper its possible study and break down. :/

I'm a bit miffed that you think I'm playing with words. It means that I've not been successful in boiling down the concept into simple, self-evident terms.

Neither am I for a moment suggesting that there is a "mystical" quality to human thought. All I state is that free will is real. It exists. It requires no "why". We can seek to understand it by trying to study some, if not all, of its basic parts.

Most of all, free will is not an illusion, in the deterministic sense. If it were, it would then suggest strongly to me the existence of some greater mystical force capable of controlling every basic part, to force us to behave in predetermined ways.