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

[Whateverist]

Really??

Are talking specifically or generally? Because generally I would say that the majority of hominids are nothing more than organic robots.

Yes, I really am serious. In either a predestined or deterministic universe, consciousness has no reason to exist. But consciousness at least has a purpose in a universe that allows freewill. And since the idea of freewill also matches our subjective experience, I'm saying the best default position is freewill.

Agreed. Otherwise why would the play out of cause and effect lead to this discussion? What the point? Perhaps it is all just noise in the machine? Epiphenomenal froth on the waves? I prefer the common sense when it comes to free will, leastwise I'm not wasting my free will arguing against it. Why would the universe stir anyone to argue for determinism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Really??

Are talking specifically or generally? Because generally I would say that the majority of hominids are nothing more than organic robots.

Yes, I really am serious. In either a predestined or deterministic universe, consciousness has no reason to exist. But consciousness at least has a purpose in a universe that allows freewill. And since the idea of freewill also matches our subjective experience, I'm saying the best default position is freewill.

---

Rhythm, what kind of magic universe allows an electro-chemical processes to have subjective experience? What possible law governing the universe makes electromagnetic vibrations produce a visual experience and vibrations in air an audible one? Show me one law of physics that includes or describes what life feels like.

The best position to make a truth claim from is one that matches what you have yourself described as a subjective experience? I disagree. I see that you also do not care to even make the attempt to demonstrate any such thing as free will, nor that free will has anything to do with consciousness. You too, assume what you wish to prove.

No magic required, here we are. All laws of physics describe what life "feels like", without those laws you would not have "feelings" or anything to experience "feelings" about. Unless you'd like to claim that energy and chemical interaction are not subject to the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics do not underpin the objects of said interactions and energy that you interpret as "feelings". If you'd like to inject a little mystery, pick something mysterious.

[Whateverist]

The best position to make a truth claim from is one that matches what you have yourself described as a subjective experience? I disagree. I see that you also do not care to even make the attempt to demonstrate any such thing as free will, nor that free will has anything to do with consciousness. You too, assume what you wish to prove.

No magic required, here we are. All laws of physics describe what life "feels like", without those laws you would not have "feelings" or anything to experience "feelings" about. Unless you'd like to claim that energy and chemical interaction are not subject to the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics do not underpin the objects of said interactions and energy that you interpret as "feelings". If you'd like to inject a little mystery, pick something mysterious.

I may be coming in late but does somebody here think the free will vs determinism debate has an obvious solution? If so I wish you'd call John Searle and let that poor bastard know. The guy has got to be on everybody's short list of most significant living philosophers. When I heard him in his late seventies talk earlier this year about consciousness he mentioned free will as an intractable problem that has not been adequately settled. If he doesn't think it has an obvious solution, it really doesn't.

I can appreciate both sides of the debate to some degree but I don't lose any sleep over it. If I don't have free will what am I to do about it? If you think you don't have free will, how can you argue against it? Wouldn't any argument you make just be stuff you are constrained to say? Your arguments would be nothing more than the effect of some cause which need not have any connection to anything you really think. Why would I listen to that? If you have no free will, please, don't waste my time. I may as well hold up a seashell and listen to the 'ocean'.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps it's in your nature to listen to the arguments made by others, something about communication being a survival advantage (even if what we are attempting to communicate is complete gibberish). I don't argue free will with anyone who isn't determined to use it as some sort of proof for a god, or against disbelief or causal determinism. Again, choice is not equal to free will. Let's say we allowed such a definition though. You and I both believe we are making choices, it may all be an illusion, but as you have said, it matters very little to us in our day to day lives. In this sense it is a completely sterile argument. One way or the other, it simply does not matter, the effect is the same. This is not the sense or spirit of the argument you see presented before you by the faithful. If my "free will" is what I am to be judged by (and if these judgements are to be "just"), it had damn sure better exist, objectively, and demonstrably. Otherwise what we have is someone arguing capriciousness as an ultimate authority, malevolence as virtue.

[Cyberman]

If my "free will" is what I am to be judged by (and if these judgements are to be "just"), it had damn sure better exist, objectively, and demonstrably.

Oh wow, you just earned yourself a shitload of kudos points for this. In the meantime, can I nick it for future use?

[Whateverist]

Perhaps it's in your nature to listen to the arguments made by others, something about communication being a survival advantage (even if what we are attempting to communicate is complete gibberish). I don't argue free will with anyone who isn't determined to use it as some sort of proof for a god, or against disbelief or causal determinism. Again, choice is not equal to free will. Let's say we allowed such a definition though. You and I both believe we are making choices, it may all be an illusion, but as you have said, it matters very little to us in our day to day lives. In this sense it is a completely sterile argument. One way or the other, it simply does not matter, the effect is the same. This is not the sense or spirit of the argument you see presented before you by the faithful. If my "free will" is what I am to be judged by (and if these judgements are to be "just"), it had damn sure better exist, objectively, and demonstrably. Otherwise what we have is someone arguing capriciousness as an ultimate authority, malevolence as virtue.

You know theists will claim both sides of this debate. They insist we have the free will necessary to allow God to judge us in a meaningful way. At the same time they want to "turn it all over to God". Christians -at least the garden variety we most often see- are looking for abdication of self. They really want to surrender to the infinite. This is very deterministic. However they also want to say that anyone who doesn't surrender to God of their own free will is culpable for that decision. It doesn't make any sense. But not much about free will vs determinism -or- Christianity does.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whateverist, you are correct that monotheism must wrestle with this paradox and not be content to explain it away as a mystery of faith. This is why Process theology and Panentheism are such hot topic in modern theology (discussions I participate in elsewhere.) I assume this are generally beyond the scope of this forum and not of particular interest to any of the members here anyway.

[marx_2012]

Perhaps it's in your nature to listen to the arguments made by others.

Define your nature and your subjective experience in an objective scientific term if we are to take you seriously! You keep stating that it must be 'your' nature without defining the term in any rational sense. Define your nature!!

Again, choice is not equal to free will.

Define the difference between choice and free will otherwise that statement is entirely irational.

Let's say we allowed such a definition though. You and I both believe we are making choices, it may all be an illusion, but as you have said, it matters very little to us in our day to day lives.

If you allow this definition then you must subscribe to his statement that your argument is an illusion as well. Otherwise define the separation between your statement and the 'illusion'. You are assuming your position without stating an argument for it.

In this sense it is a completely sterile argument. One way or the other, it simply does not matter, the effect is the same.

This is entirely your opinion without any rational backing.

This is not the sense or spirit of the argument you see presented before you by the faithful.

Also this is exactly the sense and spirit of the argument because it is relating to free will in an athiest ideology. Also there is no mention or argument relating to faith in this discussion.

If my "free will" is what I am to be judged by (and if these judgements are to be "just"), it had damn sure better exist, objectively, and demonstrably. Otherwise what we have is someone arguing capriciousness as an ultimate authority, malevolence as virtue.

There is no mention of judgement in this discussion entirely. You have presupposed your own notions of Christianity and entered them into this argument without any just reason.

[Angrboda]

@Whateverist
For what it's worth, John Searle is on my short list of the world's most annoying windbags. 'Nuff said.

@Marx
Here's the thing. We have plenty of evidence establishing the regularity of the laws of nature. We have, at best, speculative notions which postulate the existence of something called free will. Science has met its burden of proof regarding the regularity of the laws of nature. It's time that free will theorists, like you, met yours. In this very thread you've racked up a laundry list of things that you feel free will is a pre-condition for, including rationality and subjectivity; so far your support of these claims has been little more than ipse dixit. It's time for you to step up to the plate and start swinging. So far you've hit nothing but air.

(And yes, I realize it's fashionable in some circles to attempt to reverse the burden of proof in an attempt to evade your own responsibilities, but really, you're not fooling anyone.)

---

ETA: My computer chooses which sectors on the hard disk to put which parts of my document on; it does not have free will. All that "choice" requires is degrees of freedom and an algorithm for eliminating those degrees of freedom.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh i don't know Apo, it looks like he may be fooling at least one person. Marx, if you arent willing to question your own assumptions, then why should I do it for you? You have the answer you feel comfortable with, why argue it out? Perhaps that's just in your nature, as it is in your nature to manufacture a clever con...even one where you are yourself the victim (but don't feel bad, it;s in all of our natures...or is it?) Can you stop believing in free will?



(I try to avoid arguing ancillary points, and there's a reason for it. I asked you a simple question, whether or not you could demonstrate the existence of a thing called free will. You cannot. People such as yourself can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage, and honestly, I'm sick of it. So, time to put up or shut up.)

---

-And this is why....

Define your nature and your subjective experience in an objective scientific term if we are to take you seriously! You keep stating that it must be 'your' nature without defining the term in any rational sense. Define your nature!!

Just your everyday average human nature, as best as we can describe it. I'm limited by the same things that you are limited by, we're both working with the same toolkit, our responses to many things can be easily predicted by those who make it their business to do so. My nature need not be stated in a rational sense, and why would you assume that it could be, we are not rational creatures..we are rationalizing creatures.

Define the difference between choice and free will otherwise that statement is entirely irational.

You're the one that wishes for this to be so, it's your job to make it so, not mine to show you why it is not.

If you allow this definition then you must subscribe to his statement that your argument is an illusion as well. Otherwise define the separation between your statement and the 'illusion'. You are assuming your position without stating an argument for it.

I allowed a definition for a word, nothing more. You seem to have run farther than the rope allowed amigo.

This is entirely your opinion without any rational backing.

I'm sorry, I didn't see any evidence, so I just assumed we were talking about each others opinions. It is your opinion that my remarks lack reason, perhaps reason is subjective? I think it's more likely that or one or both of us are wrong. Guess where my money is. My opinion (my predictable opinion, btw) is that without evidence, we're just talking about whatever happens to pop into your head at any given time.

Also this is exactly the sense and spirit of the argument because it is relating to free will in an athiest ideology. Also there is no mention or argument relating to faith in this discussion.

Oh heavens no, nothing to do with religion, free will isn't something I get to hear bandied about day in and day out, why oh why would I make such a comment? Lord only knows. I say "free will" itself is a religion, and judging by your response to my skepticism..I'd say I'm at least close to correct.

There is no mention of judgement in this discussion entirely. You have presupposed your own notions of Christianity and entered them into this argument without any just reason.

Welcome to atheist forums, where we discuss this subject ad naseum. Demanding that atheists account for something which has nothing to do with any god was strange at the very start (believe I mentioned that pages ago). I'm sorry you're joining the discussion so late..but I had no choice in that. Personally, I call massive bullshit btw. The OP makes this an issue for atheists, and why exactly? Does someone else have an explanation that we should consider? Have they demonstrated that free will exists? If so, why are you wasting all of my time with this? Just show me the evidence that convinced you. Show me the explanation they gave, and explain to me how it became the responsibility of atheists at large.

Course, none of this stopped you from blathering on about free will, or the irrationality of others, or whatever goes through your head in these one way exchanges. You've demanded that I explain something and I have explained to you that I don't think there's anything to explain along the terms you demanded. You demand that someone disprove an argument you have not given enough thought or effort into. You damend many things, I only made one demand of you, which you have not, and apparently cannot meet.

Demonstrate that free will exists. Then, and only then, will we require an explanation for it. Until that time it can be written off entirely as "something Marx believes in".