RE: If free will was not real
August 1, 2016 at 11:34 am
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2016 at 11:35 am by bennyboy.)
1) That's not what cognitive dissonance means. Why do people on these forums use that term, when they don't know what it means? Google it, and get it right. 
2) I'm not try to argue anything into existence. I live my life, and I experience what it's like to be human. Part of that is the freedom to express my intent in the world. That's free will. Is it really really, REALLY free, in the sense that it's free from itself, from the Universe, from causation, and from anything else that anything might possibly be said to be free from? Maybe not-- but I wouldn't abuse the word to that degree anyway.
As for the stuff about brain function-- this is an essential issue in talking about the nature of consciousness. Beauty, love, etc. all have physical correlates, specifically in brain structure and function. But you can't find "redness" anywhere in the universe, nor "love," unless you redefine them in physical terms. But many of our words are meant to talk about the experience of what things are like-- i.e. qualia-- and not about the physical correlates that may/may not underlie them. Even "Mom" exists only as an idea-- the real physical object-- fat, bone tissue, various fluids, etc. is supervenient on QM. But nobody goes around trying to prove that everyone's Mom is just a bunch of wave functions vibrating in a virtual space.
For better or worse, we are IN the Matrix, and it is the only perspective from which we can draw a world view, and it is the only context, ultimately that matters to us.
2) I'm not try to argue anything into existence. I live my life, and I experience what it's like to be human. Part of that is the freedom to express my intent in the world. That's free will. Is it really really, REALLY free, in the sense that it's free from itself, from the Universe, from causation, and from anything else that anything might possibly be said to be free from? Maybe not-- but I wouldn't abuse the word to that degree anyway.
As for the stuff about brain function-- this is an essential issue in talking about the nature of consciousness. Beauty, love, etc. all have physical correlates, specifically in brain structure and function. But you can't find "redness" anywhere in the universe, nor "love," unless you redefine them in physical terms. But many of our words are meant to talk about the experience of what things are like-- i.e. qualia-- and not about the physical correlates that may/may not underlie them. Even "Mom" exists only as an idea-- the real physical object-- fat, bone tissue, various fluids, etc. is supervenient on QM. But nobody goes around trying to prove that everyone's Mom is just a bunch of wave functions vibrating in a virtual space.
For better or worse, we are IN the Matrix, and it is the only perspective from which we can draw a world view, and it is the only context, ultimately that matters to us.
