Alright Fizzy, the discussion took a turn a was not expecting, and my statement at the end of the post you are referencing became more confusing and convoluted than helpful. I edited the post and took it out for the sake of continuity. You will see the argument "fleshed" out, it really is only meant to punch holes in determinism instead of support free will.
As far as free will goes, I will better clarify what I was speaking about. Humans are conflicted beings. Our thoughts are complex and do not all stem from one source. For example, humans display many tendencies similar to animals. They are influenced by instincts that encourage them to engage physically necessary activities such as eating and propagating themselves (excuse the euphemism). At the same time, humans do not always follow their instincts. They are also influenced by abstract concepts such as morality, the afterlife, and God(s). In addition, humans seem very prone to focus their thoughts onto art and philosophy, subjects that have little practical value.
Basically, what I am getting at, is that free will comes from the non-practical influence in our decision making that allows us to resist a course of action that would be instinctual. There is no reason for the humand brain to become complex enough, through evolution, for people to delve into the most abstract of thoughts, and indeed, I do not believe the physical human brain is that complex. At some point, something non-physical is required to complete what we perceive to be our thoughts and decisions. This non-physical element is the soul.
To summarize, I suppose that I believe that free will is really nothing more than a byproduct of having a soul, and that the phenomenon of the interaction of the soul and the human body is demostrated by human thought and decision making.
So now that I have clarified that (or made it more convoluted), I look forward to your always devastating response, Fizzy. Don't forget about my question about a unified theory.
10-Sep-2006