Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm more-or-less in Ev's camp in that I don't accept the presumption of free will ... however I wouldn't go as far as saying everything is mechanical (I have no free will) I just assume I don't until otherwise demonstrated.

Kyu

Assuming I don't have 'free will' until otherwise demonstrated, and assuming everything is mechanical until otherwise demonstrated, so there's no 'free will' in that sense anyway; namely the sense that everything is assumed to be mechanical...same difference?

I mean, I don't think it's worthy to call anything 'free will' if it seems as though there's no evidence that everything isn't ultimately just, mechanics.

EvF

---

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?

So yes - it's mechanical. Ideas are in the brain or externally stored. Anything that exists, as far as we know, is mechanical yeah? Energy flows...and as far as I know this is all automatic, despite the emergent intelligence, that can...emerge from it...right?

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.

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.

We could just as easily be aware and not have 'free will', right? Well - easier considering no evidence is required for 'no free will' in the sense of everything being mechanical...because there's already evidence for mechanics!! But not that anything can override it - not for anything non-mechanical (as far as I know? If not; enlighten me ).

There's no actual evidence at all that consciousness makes us have 'free will', in the sense of overriding the mechanics of the universe, so being able to 'do otherwise'. I mean, apart from if it's a quantum accident due to indeterminisim. If it can 'be otherwise' and we can 'do otherwise' because of indeterminism, where's the evidence that we can choose that? Choose the path that the indeterminacy goes without ourselves just being entirely controlled by those very laws ?

IOW: If we 'do otherwise' due to indeterminism...where's the evidence that we can in any way direct that?

And if this universe is/was deterministic then obviously that question doesn't apply. The universe is mechanical in that sense that it can only be one way (if the universe is/was deterministic).

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.

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

Cool. Are we in agreement there, then?

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.

People talk about controlling themselves sometimes...but that means the person in question's self controlling itsself, if you think about it. Because 'they' are their self. So to control their self is for their self to control itsself. How can your self control itself? That would mean your 'self' had a 'self'. And what, does that self's self then have a self too?] I smell the infinite regress of the homunculus argument fallacy.

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?

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 ).

EvF