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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Orders of magnitude less difficult, as the leaf can’t glean your intent and respond accordingly.
Can you prove that?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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”.