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

[marx_2012]

That all you got left? Quite pathetic really!

If it's that pathetic, answer the question. And quit being so goddamn smug about it.

Hey Faith I wasn't calling you pathetic I was replying to the post above yours.

A world in which free will didn't exist wouldn't look like anything because perception without the free will to interpret it would place all conscious perceptions in the same realm as that of a video camcorder.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have no choice in how I perceive things, it is a function of my biology, again, I cannot see the infrared, I cannot hear beyond the range of frequencies my machinery allows..etc etc etc. Don't assume what you're trying to prove.

[marx_2012]

I have no choice in how I perceive things, it is a function of my biology, again, I cannot see the infrared, I cannot hear beyond the range of frequencies my machinery allows..etc etc etc. Don't assume what you're trying to prove.

Perception can occur without free will ie the camcorder but free will is needed to consciously interpret those perceptions. Without the free will to interpret those perceptions all you would see is endless streams of random light, not a chair, a table etc. If you hold your head steady and choose to fix your eyes at a certain point you can still choose to focus your attention on different objects without changing the physical inputs you are perceiving. This is the difference between a camcorder and a conscious mind, we need a conscious mind of free will to interpret perception and if not then we cannot make a rational structure to anything we perceive. This or any argument is a perception that you are choosing to structure with your conscious free will.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or perhaps it's just in my nature. Do not assume what you are attempting to prove.

free will is required for interpretation of what we perceive
we interpret what we perceive
ergo free will exists

No dice.

[marx_2012]

Or perhaps it's just in my nature. Do not assume what you are attempting to prove.

free will is required for interpretation of what we perceive
we interpret what we perceive
ergo free will exists

No dice.

If free will does not exist.
If the nature of the laws of the universe governs all the matter internal and external of your body.
And your interpretations of the world are reliant on the matter in your brain/body.
Then the interpretations of your brain are by extension governed by the laws of the universe. Not by 'you'.
'You' cannot separate yourself from the matter external of your body.
Therefore 'you' as an object cannot be found.

"Or perhaps it's just in my nature."

You cannot have a nature for you cannot find yourself. Literally!

[Neo-Scholastic]

In a strictly deterministic universe consciousness would be irrelevant. People could be just walking/talking electro-chemical reactions, zombies without any internal subjective experience (which might apply to some of my co-workers). We would be like biological thermostats that adjust their physical states to external conditions. But the fact is that unless we are in a coma or similar state, each of us has privileged access to internal experiences of sensation, emotion, thought and intention. Since we know that humans have subjective experiences then I would say we are obliged to grant thermostats some rudimentary type of subjective experience. I find that very counter-intuitive, but not impossible. On the other hand, in a cosmos that allows for freewill consciousness appears to serve a function. Consciousness could be a non-contingent causal agent. So I find that possibility more plausible.

[KichigaiNeko]

Really??

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

[The Magic Pudding]

This argument leads to a nihilistic interpretation of the universe in which we can not justify or relate to any nature of the universe including reflections or communications about the universe.

Ye but we get over it.

[The Grand Nudger]

If free will does not exist.
If the nature of the laws of the universe governs all the matter internal and external of your body.
And your interpretations of the world are reliant on the matter in your brain/body.
Then the interpretations of your brain are by extension governed by the laws of the universe. Not by 'you'.
'You' cannot separate yourself from the matter external of your body.
Therefore 'you' as an object cannot be found.

"Or perhaps it's just in my nature."

You cannot have a nature for you cannot find yourself. Literally!

Last two lines are a complete non-sequitur. No dice (and not even close to relevant to what you're trying to argue in the first place)

"If" the laws of the universe govern all of the matter internal and external? "If"? What fantasyland are you living in that some matter internal or external to your body can circumvent or ignore the laws governing the universe? Care to demonstrate such feats of magic? See, you don't need a well thought out argument to prove such a notion, it could simply be demonstrated.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.