Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

Yes. What evidence is there to believe it's anything other than mechanical?

Is information mechanical?
Maybe the transfer of information or the storing proces of information but the information itself, its semantics, its meaning, its connotation?

Semantics, meaning, connotation..? What - like language? Grammar? Well they exist in the human mind and on paper, etc...right? They exist in the universe...as ideas...? In the brain (internally) and on the outside word like on paper and in computers (externally). They are made of matter and energy (like everything else that we know of that actually exists...this is a materialistic universe..do you agree?)...and as far as I know, all matter and energy, and everything that exists...is purely mechanical? And it all, resonates...mechanically?

First let me say that I have no definite opinion on these issues. The questions I ask are to challenge the stances you seem to take with ease. I am simply wrestling with these issues. For me the answers on these questions are not clear at all, but when pressed to state my view I would lean towards non-reductive physicalism. This is a monism, e.g. it holds that everything is a product of the physical but not that mental states are reducible to physical properties. This means that mental states are not identical to physical states (as I explained in former post). A central argument for this is the argument of multiple realizability, the idea that the same mental state can be implemented in many different physical configurations, analogous to the fact that you can store information in many different ways, on a hard disk, on paper, in your mind. Two people can think of 'five' but still the configuration of neurons, atoms and electrons in their brain may be completely different. The concept or information is the same, the physical configuration may vary considerably. You however simply equate identity of the physical with the mental. Multiple realizibility shows that this is not an accurate description to say the least.

Where's the evidence that our intelligence and awareness, our complexity, the fact we're 'alive', or whatever anyone suggests is any indication whatsoever that we are not mechanical too? As far as I'm concerned we're just highly complex biological robots, whether it's in a deterministic universe or an indeterministic universe.

There is no evidence for equating the physical identical to the mental, the conceptual. By asserting this, you are the one to provide the evidence. Contrary to your claim is the mutiple realizability. If a mental state Y can be implemented by different physical states let's say X1, X2, X3 there is no identity relation between Xi and Y.

It seems to me that many people seem to think that consciousness equates to 'free will' in the sense that it means a conscious being - such as us humans - can somehow override this. But where's the evidence for that? How does consciousness do that? No evidence that it does at all...in any way...is there? It's an assumption based on our own self-importance if anything (it's our conscious selves speaking and wanting to be 'free' methinks (in the sense of having 'free will')), or something to that effect I reckon.

The idea of free will is quite another subject than consciousness, I agree. I do not assert that consciousness necessarily means free will.

I don't see how being more random - being indeterministic - makes it any less mechanical though. Possibility is open maybe (well, if only because in that case: it's not determined!) - but I still know of no evidence that this universe isn't mechanical. And I have no idea why it would be at all likely...considering everything that there's evidence of seems to be entirely mechanical...methinks this is way the universe works! Mechanically! And I shall believe that until otherwise demonstrated.

Again quite another subject. Randomness does not lead to control from the mental over the physical. But equating the mental identical to the physical is nonsense.

For the record, I don't say you control it.

Cool. Are we in agreement there, then?

Not quite, I reckon.

Whether there is real control from thought to the physical or not, either way you'd perceive the 'I' and either way you would be incapable of checking if there is a real connection from thought to atom, if you somehow push the electrons around in your brain with pure willpower. Still the 'I' is what you perceive, it is undeniable. To deny 'I' you would be 'not-I' and that seems a rather unhealthy kind of situation that does not leave much room for debate with yourself. The 'I' exist but not necessarily with control over matter. I take it we agree on the fact that the 'I' exists and that there is no reason to make this existence a priori dependent on having control over matter?

The 'I' exists as an illusion to it. As a belief in my (its) brain. It's a belief in my brain, so it's physical (like everything else?...Even ideas are stored in the brain). It's my self image. So whether real or fake, illusion or reality (I say it's illusion and reality...the reality of the illusion in my brain! The illusion of this 'me', when really that's just how I perceive myself (just how it (my 'self') perceives it IOW ), and not actually 'me' (my self isn't actually how it perceives it to be IOW.). There's no evidence that I can direct this 'I'.... I am it...right? Where's the evidence that the 'me' this 'I' this 'self' in my head...can direct itself? Or that I can direct my self (this 'I'). Same difference.

Here you deny the existence of 'I'. Also at every moment you perceive 'I', but your brain configuration alters rapidly from one moment to the next. The 'I' cannot be unambigously reduced to the physical.

And it sounds like accidental dualism to me! Hidden in our language! How can you control yourself when that means yourself controlling itself, as if it has a self too? (Ad Infinitum) .

Where's the evidence that it's not all just mechanics?

Multiple realizability.

As far as I'm concerned there is only evidence for the material, and the mechanically material. Where's the evidence for anything that isn't controlled by the mechanics of the universe? (Being controlled by another part of this - I presume - entirely mechanical universe...I know of no evidence for anything that isn't the universe either ).

Let's take one step at the time. First we should deal with the question whether the mental can be reduced to the physical.