RE: The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality
March 4, 2012 at 12:21 am
(March 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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'.
