RE: Is free will real?
January 5, 2015 at 9:39 am
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2015 at 9:43 am by Mudhammam.)
(January 5, 2015 at 9:06 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Thoughts? Feelings? Where did all the neural gears and pistons go!?!What's the difference besides one description being subjective, as in felt directly, and conveyed in practical terms, and the other, being non-evaluative, expressed in intricate detail at the level of molecular processes? If I say placing "ingredients X" into "body Y" causes "processes ABC" that results in "stimulant Z," which then sends "signal D" to a specific function of the brain, and the result is,in practical terms, "Chad feels joy and nostalgia, thinking 'THIS IS MY FAVORITE FLAVOR OF CAKE!'" the subjective experience is effectively quantified in objective terms. Reductionism isn't worse off because it can't capture THE FEELING of tasty baked goods anymore than physics suffers because, in accurately describing, say, zero gravity, you've never actually been in such an environment yourself. I don't see the problem. Yes, subjective means that you must be a subject that feels, and reductionism is an objective description that can't emulate the direct, first-person experience on exactly---identically--direct, first-person terms. So? Terms aren't the same as feeling either. Something is already lost in conception itself. Have I missed something?
A reductionist theory of consciousness must ignore half of reality, the part that includes subjective experience and significance.
Your hand-waving doesn't work. Thoughts can be true or false. The same cannot be said for brain states. Mental properties are not identical to physical properties, at least not in the way that Mark Twain is identical to Samuel Clemens.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
