The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[marx_2012]

We could sit around for ages opining about human nature, but why would I give you such an easy out? You don't get a pass because you use the word "clearly" in every claim.

Again you are trying to ignore my question because you do not have any answer to explain your ethos. What is the 'nature' of subjective human experience and how can you define it in your objective scientific materialist perspective? I can keep asking this until you give me an answer because all of your criticisms of my criticism of materialism so far are based on this point! You say "We could sit around for ages opining about human nature" yet I have been sitting around for ages waiting for you to answer this and until you do (because this is your only retort to the experience of free will and subjective conciousness) we cannot have any meaningful discussion on the basis of this thread. You cant play tennis if one person wont let go of the ball and just god damn serve!

If these things were all so clear, you'd have an easier time demonstrating them to be the case, wouldn't you? You made a claim, you cannot demonstrate the veracity of the claim. End of.

I'm having an easy time demonstrating the experience of free will. As you know we have the experience of it every time we choose our next post. The question is why is it so hard to explain the alternative? Why is it so hard for you to demonstrate how subjective experience can occur in an objective world view? Isn't this the purpose of the thread? To demonstrate if we can view the world in a structured scientific materialist view without free will, conciousness and by extension the rationality that stems from them.

Again, you wish for it to be so, do your own work. Skeptical bullshit? Really? I take it you've been burned by skepticism before?

Again I wish for you to answer a question that has been asked and not detract from it. On the contrary I'm all for sceptical thinking but only when you can demonstrate, or at least have an argument for, an alternative of that which you are trying to disprove. Again I ask you to answer my question.

No, I was "politely" remarking that you've gone down the same road you did in the op in your comments. It's obviously in your nature.

Please stop using the term nature if you are unwilling to define it.

Quantum is the "goddidit" for newagers.

That may be but that is not what I believe and I'm not a new ager also there is nothing in this thread relating to new age ideology. Personally I just see quantum as giving evidence that conciousness effects matter.

No, I believe the question had something to do with free will. But don't let me stop you from arguing about anything except free will. I'm sure this all means you have solid evidence for your initial claims.

The question was and is free will, conciousness and by extension rationality in the current scientific perspective of materialism. Science is and has always has been revisionist, what is true in the current Zeitgeist of a modern methodology, is as susceptible to adaptation, as the changes that a 200 year old scientific methodology has been through to reach today's modern Zeitgeist. Therefore how reliable is the current materialist ideology in asserting truth about free will or conciousness? All theories are only seen to be objectively relevant between the moment of their creation and the moment of their revision.