Free Will (!)

Given the existence of the laws of physics, of course there can be no such thing as free will.

It might be considered pointless to make this argument in court.

---

Let me explain.

The notion of dialogue and argument seems to require the concept of free will: you are trying to get your dialogue-partner to change their mind.

Hence the 'no such thing as free will' argument seems self-defeating: if you believe it, why are you bothering to argue with me?

It can be rescued by a kind of instrumentalism. If I say the words of the argument, they could cause your brain-state to alter so that you'll behave differently .. in a way that could be described as 'no longer believing in free will'.

Perhaps then I'll 'get off'. Or the same argument may be used to justify convicting me.

This highlights the autonomy of self-consciousness over mechanism (neurobiology). Free will is part of the architecture of the intentional level, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves and others, but it's not present at the neurological level, where it all happens.

Scott Bakker would approve - ordinary mortals not so much.