Reply to comment

I don't think I really have my head wrapped around this issue of free will just yet, but I do have one comment I want to make on the presence of free will being support for an immaterial self.  I was thinking this last week during discussion, but conversation got redirected and it never came up again.

As I try to review the observations and decide what is least wrong, I find myself faced with two stories.  The first story attempts to explain all of our human intricacies, tendencies and abilities in terms of the intimidating complexity of the nervous system.  The other story attempts to explain all our human intricacies, tendencies and abilities in terms of the intimidating complexity of the nervous system PLUS add on an immaterial self to the top of that which no one can really observe or say anything about.  All other things being equal, why would I choose to believe that I have this immaterial self that is also interacting with my already bogglingly complex nervous system.  If the nervous system can explain everything well enough, why not go with the least complex of the two?  If I remember correctly from my two philosophy classes in undergrad, this logical principle is called Ockham's Razor.