F

ree will is the result of indeterminacy applied to consciousness. The actions of an individual are specifically unpredictable in principle. Random external inputs and random internal 'accidentals' (physical failures of information insulation: dying cells. cosmic rays, etc.) provide unpredictability of form.

Unpredictability of interaction is logically guaranteed because knowledge of the future in principle constitutes input upon which future action is based. It is self-referential.

Because one cannot predict one's own future action (in a deterministic fashion), the activities of consciousness are defined as 'free will'.

Added 2-22-00 We cannot, in principle, predict the future because were we able to do so ... that information would constitute a "new" state thus altering the conditions upon which the prediction was made. Thus, if we were to "know" that we are to be run over by a truck at a certain intersection at a certain time ... we would simply not go near that intersection thus voiding the prediction. One can go through all sorts of mental gyrations to defeat this logic, however, it cannot be changed. There is no way to predict the future unless that prediction does not affect the outcome. And every prediction requires some physical action which in turn affects everything else in the universe (at least in some vanishingly small way) thereby ruining absolute prediction.

Free will is congruent with consciousness.
It follows then that the individual alone is the responsible generator of his own willed actions within the context of known alternatives.

It may also be understood that all discussions concerning free will are 'academic' (without consequence). No form of input or definition alters the nature of man.

By the principle of indeterminacy as applied to consciousness, it is impossible to constrain human behavior within strictly defined limits. Hence, a bifurcated graph of psychological male / female forms two normal overlapping distributions where physical characteristics determine the placement of each individual on one or the other graph. (The overlap of the physical graph is far less than the psychological graph.)
Any constraint of behavior or definition of man becomes additional self-referential input which alters the behavior and definition. Hence. man has a specific nature which may be defined. But that definition once known alters (to a degree) the beings so defined. By example:
Nature places constraints on man which cause a desire to learn about those constraints. But the act of learning constrains the definition of man (as a learning entity). This causes a desire for random information acquisition (fun) rather than structured information acquisition (school). These are 'complimentary' principles. An excess of one induces the other. It is then impossible for living entities to remain stationary in either the physical or psychological sense.

In principle all men cannot be constrained to be alike To be like all others is to lose one's identity as the unique center of existence which originated in infancy. To have all one's thoughts and actions known to others is also to lose one's identity by 'dispersal'. Hence, all individuals seek privacy and do not divulge everything known to them without sensing a need to acquire new information to rebuild a separate and distinct self.

	Web ebtx.com