I don’t understand what you are getting at. You are either saying that you can predict where a fly is going to go when you set it free or you are saying that a fly has internal agency.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You are either saying that you can predict where a fly is going to go when you set it free or you are saying that a fly has internal agency.

If the fly lacks agency, you would be able to predict its movement given a sufficiently accurate set of information.

If it has agency, you could not.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's difficult to predict the path of a leaf floating in the wind, but I don't think anybody would say a leaf has agency.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s difficult to predict the path of a leaf floating in the wind

Orders of magnitude less difficult, as the leaf can't glean your intent and respond accordingly.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can you prove that?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That the movement of a leaf in the wind is less complex than the electro-chemical processes of a human brain?

With enough time and math, certainly.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The point is, you were using the point that a fly's movements were complex to argue that a fly has internal agency. But, a leaf floating on the wind also has complex movements. To me, that makes it seem like complex movements aren't a solid indicator of agency.

If you're now talking about dissection, that's a whole different argument.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

a fly’s movements were complex to argue that a fly has internal agency

A fly has the ability to observe its surroundings and adjust its position in response to outside stimulus. A leaf does not. That, alone, adds a dimension of activity that the first possesses and the second doesn't.

You can argue that the fly is still a deterministic agent, but the ability to observe and respond adds a dimension of activity that's more complex than a leaf, which can only move based on the surrounding wind currents.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You missed the point while drawing your circular argument.

Take what you said and replace fly with human. Wait here I’ll do it for you:

If a human lacks agency, you would be able to predict its movement given a sufficiently accurate set of information.

If it has agency, you could not.

Now tell me how you will acquire a sufficiently accurate set of information about a human and its environment to test your hypothesis.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Now tell me how you will acquire a sufficiently accurate set of information about a human and its environment to test your hypothesis.

You can't. That's a significant problem of identifying the existence or absence of "Free Will".