So, still nothing on the free will front? Thought not.

"But as things stand, I think that we have good reason to suppose that consciousness has a fundamental place in nature." David J. Chalmers.
Great quote. Chalmers is one of my heros.

Discussing the denial of free will is the equivalent to discussing the denial of the colour red. While we all experience the colour red on a day to day basis and while we all can have communication of those experiences between each other, we have no evidence of it. There is absolutely no evidence for the experience of the colour red. You say that you can see the colour, but how can I know that you see it? The same can be extended to all human experience. You say you can feel pain, you are showing all the external signs of pain but how can I know that you are experiencing it? You say that you have the perception of this computer screen, you are showing all the signs of seeing it by your posts, but there is absolutely no evidence that you are experiencing that perception.

This discussion includes the nature of free will in the current ideologies, yet it also includes conciousness. While we are focusing on free will there is also the question of subjective experience, concious perception. Where is the evidence for subjective experience? How can it exist in a purely objective nature of the universe? Without this explanation there can be no meaning to any statements such as 'your', 'I'm', 'you', even 'us', 'our' and 'we'. 'We' cannot post 'our' opinions of 'your' selves without a definition of subjective experience. Have you ever lived a day without having subjective experience? Free will doesnt exist because 'we' have no evidence, it is just 'our' nature and 'your' perspective of free will is mearly 'your' opinion. 'You' cannot explain free will and 'I'm' mearly a construct of the nature of laws that govern 'me'.

Do you see irrationality of 'your' reason?

Deny your own subjective experiance and explain the alternative.

This is why I state that it is a burden of proof!

---

Rythm before you post your 'non sequitur' post I urge to read what Iv said first and try this time to explain your own position.

You should pick something other than light before you start waxing on about what "we have no evidence for the experience" of. There is a reason that we experience certain wavelengths of light as the color red. Red isn't arbitrary. Red isn't fuzzy or mysterious, sight isn't an unexplained phenomena. Subjective experience is similarly easy to demonstrate. Ask two critics about the same movie. My subjective experiences have often been completely off the wall (just like the rest of us, it's in our nature).

Free will, focus.

(You're not seriously having trouble figuring out why we each have a subjective experience of life....are you? Hint, your brain is locked inside a dark box, relying on a small selection of faulty and easily fooled equipment for information.)

(March 7, 2012 at 10:56 pm)marx_2012 Wrote: Discussing the denial of free will is the equivalent to ...

... assuming the other party has some choice in whether or not they believe in free will? If the many influences which go into forming us account for all our actions, wouldn't they also dispose us either to believe we do have free will or that we don't? If so, why discuss it? It isn't as though the other party has any ability to change their belief. At the same time, shouldn't you acknowledge that your own beliefs are unreasoned and simply a given stemming from who the environment has made you to be? Maybe we simply have no choice but to go on discussing it regardless of the futility .. unless of course we do have some wiggle room in our willing.

Reply to Marx;
The reality of subjective experience allows freewill but it does not require it. The mental and the physical somehow set limits on each other. The will can only act through the limitations of a body. The body constrains what can be felt and experienced. The balance of power between these defines the extent of our free will.
BTW, only eliminative materialists are zombies.

First, let us get one matter out of the way up front. Do you or do you not believe that all aspects of mind are a result of material processes, quantum or not? If not, then you have embraced dualism, and you inherit all the known problems inherent in duallism. If that is the case, I don't think we have anything to discuss as you embrace a doctrine whose defense is generally considered inadequate and insufficient.

If not, I would like to introduce you to the meaning of my 'rank' at AtheistForums of "phantasia kataleptike". The notion of phantasia kataleptike, or kataleptikai, plural, comes from the epistemology of the Greek Stoics. In their terms, an apprehension of the mind, or a perception, was termed a phantasia (think "phantom" as in something that appears). To the Stoics, there were certain apprehensions, certain phantasia, which in and of themselves had to be true because if these apprehensions were false or illusory, they would not be able to appear to the mind the way that they appear. Think in terms of illusions — smoke and mirrors aren't convincing because if we examine them, the similarity to a real thing degrades and the illusion fails. Phantasia kataleptikai are mental apprehensions that must be real and true because if they were not, there would be some way to get under the illusion and show its falseness.

Now, given this minimal understanding of phantasia kataleptikai (you can google the term for more information), I would like to ask a few simple questions.

First, I would like you to list the aspects of mental experience which, in the sense that you understand them (for instance, free will being free and undetermined), are phantasia kataleptikai, as you understand the term. Things which must be real and true because they can't not be true and have all the features, properties and appearances that they do.

Second, provide some justification beyond that of Stoic epistemology, that there even are such things as phantasia kataleptikai, or, in other words, demonstrate that the things on your list above cannot possibly be illusions or mistakes in as much as certain properties of them are apparently real and true (again, freedom of will is a good example).

And finally, admittedly, there are many things we don't know about how aspects of mind arise, and unfortunately, in many ways that leaves us in the position of trying to explain an incredibly complex machine only knowing some rudimentary facts about it (gears are involved, it uses energy, every action entails an equal and opposite reaction, and so on). We're left, fortunately or unfortunately, upon trying to investigate the mind, largely using the mind itself as our tool of discovery. You can't take your brain to a brain mechanic and have him "tear it down" to the brute facts of consciousness and come out to the waiting room and show you how the nib on your flotsinnacitor is broken off. Which, among other reasons, is why I headed this post with the famous rotating snakes illusion. It's a non answer to say that the snakes rotate because of a flaw in our eyes — psychologists categorize different optical illusions depending on whether they think the "illusion" part of it is occurring in the eye itself or in the brain, but for many such illusions, it's not clear which or whether or both. My challenge to you is, given the same access we have to most aspects of consciousness (imagine seeing a wall of rotating snakes in a dream), provide an argument based only on what you know from subjectivity, which leads inescapably to the conclusion that the snakes are or are not moving. You cannot refer to beliefs about reality here; you can only argue on the basis of your brute perception. (ETA: It just occurred to me that this is an ideal medium to present this question in. Without downloading the image itself, prove that the rotation of the snakes above is a result of an optical illusion, as opposed to perhaps, my having posted a clever animated gif in which the snakes appear to be moving because they in fact are moving! Prove definitively one way or the other that the snakes are or are not moving without examining the actual image file.)

Easy enough, take a still image and check for blur. Again, faulty equipment.

“Do you or do you not believe that all aspects of mind are a result of material processes, quantum or not?” - Apo

The reverse to your question is, “Do you believe that all material aspects result from mental processes?” Your question comes from the perspective of Materialism. The reverse question comes out of Idealism. Both positions want to claim that one aspect of reality as the whole of reality. “No matter, never mind.” My answer to both questions is no. Mind does not arise out of matter. Nor does matter arise out of mind. Although they can be distinguished in thought, they can not be distinguished in fact. Both mind and matter are aspects of an essential unity. That unity is greater than either mind or matter considered alone.

“…. then you have embraced dualism, and you inherit all the known problems inherent in dualism. If that is the case, I don't think we have anything to discuss…” – Apo

If you embrace materialism you inherit all the problems with materialism. If you embrace idealism you inherit all the problems of that position too. All positions entail difficulties. By conversing, you and I can reflect more deeply into the problems that concern us.

“…list the aspects of mental experience which… must be real and true because they can't not be true and have all the features, properties and appearances that they do.” – Apo

To fulfill your request, I’ll first turn it into a simpler question: What aspect of mental experience must be real because if it wasn’t real it would still appear real?

Or better yet…

What mental attribute must be real because if it was an illusion it would still appear real?

Answer: pain.

“Second…demonstrate that the things on your list…cannot possibly be illusions or mistakes in as much as certain properties of them are apparently real and true.” – Apo

The illusion of pain is still painful.

“Prove definitively one way or the other that the snakes are or are not moving without examining the actual image file.” - Apo

Right after you prove definitively that matter exists apart from your perception of it.

Your answer seems to be at odds with every piece of demonstrable evidence we have regarding the subject Chad. What could possibly make you prefer the opposite of an answer so well evidenced? Ah, that's right, never mind.