owever, that then, assumes that we are free. In other words, even arguing for determinism assumes that we are not determined to believe in free will or determined but that it is a matter of our making certain choices about arguments, evidence, and thinking itself. In many contexts of our lives personal knowledge is taken very seriously. When you go to the doctor and he asks you if you are in pain and you say yes, why doesnt the doctor say how can you know this, this is not proven evidence? In all reality this is very good evidence. It is the same as a witness in a trial giving evidence, personal evidence. Personal evidence is considered reasonably reliable. Those examples I previously mentioned were only included to prove the point I am soon to make. There is a lot of evidence around us that free will exists. Think of all the times that you have made a bad decision and realized it later. We all are faced with choices and we all make the wrong ones sometimes. Finnally, there is also the evidence of the fact that we do seem to have the capacity for self-monitioring. The human brain has a kind of structure that allows us to, speak, and to govern ourselves. We can inspect our lives, we can detect where we are going, and we can, therefore, change its course. The human brain itself makes it possible. The brain, because of its structure, can monitor itself and as a result we can decide whether to continue in a certain pattern or change that pattern and go in a different direction. That is the sort of free will that is demonstrable. At least some scientists maintain that theres free will in this sense. This view depends on a number of points I have already mentioned. It assumes that there can be different causes in nature, so that the functioning of the brain would not be a kind of self- causation. The brain as a system would have to be able to cause some things about the organisms behavior and the depends, of course, on the ...
