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

[marx_2012]

Here's the thing. We have plenty of evidence establishing the regularity of the laws of nature.

The regularity of the laws of nature are anything but defined and the findings of the CERN hadron collided can show this.

"The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.

If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

I can understand the temptation for humans to believe that we have understood the basic laws of the universe but the evidence simply isn't there. Science is a revisionist ideology and the fact of the matter is that the 'laws' that you would like to cling to remain theories at this present time. No matter how deeply permeated they seem in the culture of modern times.

We have, at best, speculative notions which postulate the existence of something called free will.

We do but as I say any notion of the non existence of free will is still reliant on the theories or a revisionist ideology.

Science has met its burden of proof regarding the regularity of the laws of nature

This simply isn't the case as is mentioned above.

It's time that free will theorists, like you, met yours. In this very thread you've racked up a laundry list of things that you feel free will is a pre-condition for, including rationality and subjectivity; so far your support of these claims has been little more than ipse dixit. It's time for you to step up to the plate and start swinging. So far you've hit nothing but air.

The evidence of the current scientific experiments relating to quantum theory show that some quantum particles directly change states only when a conciousness is present.

"So given the clear arguments against materialism, it seems to me that we should at least tentatively embrace the conclusion that one of these views is correct. Of course all of the views discussed in this paper need to be developed in much more detail, and examined in light of all relevant scientific and philosophical developments, in order to be comprehensively
assessed. But as things stand, I think that we have good reason to suppose that consciousness has a fundamental place in nature." David J. Chalmers

http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf

(And yes, I realize it's fashionable in some circles to attempt to reverse the burden of proof in an attempt to evade your own responsibilities, but really, you're not fooling anyone.)

I'm not trying to fool anyone im just suggesting that we need an open mind on all matters relating to science, philosophy and spirituality.