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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that the latest update from CERN? Nope, not even close, and the thing that pisses me off is that we actually have a thread that followed it,, had you cared to read that..in case you missed the news, and only if you actually gave a shit, which you apparently do not.

Notions of non-existence? I'm afraid that's not how it works.

Oh boy, what you mentioned above re-enforcing your next point. We warned you about assumptions didn't we?

Quantum, he said quantum! That settles it, free will is a quantum effect, and anything quantum can be said to exist even in the absence of evidence. By the by, it;s called observer effect, not consciousness effect. The observer can be damned near anything. The cosmos are still safe from those who would will them into being that which they are not. Why are you attempting to source your science from a philosopher anyway?

Open, yes, open to whatever you can dream up at a moments notice..no. You'll need more than what you've presented.

(ironic, that it was a faulty wire that lead you to post this)

[Whateverist]

@Whateverist
For what it's worth, John Searle is on my short list of the world's most annoying windbags. 'Nuff said.

No accounting for taste. (Mine's better. )

[marx_2012]

Oh i don't know Apo, it looks like he may be fooling at least one person. Marx, if you arent willing to question your own assumptions, then why should I do it for you? You have the answer you feel comfortable with, why argue it out? Perhaps that's just in your nature, as it is in your nature to manufacture a clever con...even one where you are yourself the victim (but don't feel bad, it;s in all of our natures...or is it?) Can you stop believing in free will?



(I try to avoid arguing ancillary points, and there's a reason for it. I asked you a simple question, whether or not you could demonstrate the existence of a thing called free will. You cannot. People such as yourself can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage, and honestly, I'm sick of it. So, time to put up or shut up.)

---

-And this is why....

[quote='marx_2012' pid='249185' dateline='1331007248']
Define your nature and your subjective experience in an objective scientific term if we are to take you seriously! You keep stating that it must be 'your' nature without defining the term in any rational sense. Define your nature!!

Just your everyday average human nature, as best as we can describe it. I'm limited by the same things that you are limited by, we're both working with the same toolkit, our responses to many things can be easily predicted by those who make it their business to do so. My nature need not be stated in a rational sense, and why would you assume that it could be, we are not rational creatures..we are rationalizing creatures.[quote]

The fact that you cant answer my question and define your terms of nature shows me that you too 'can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage'. You clearly are using terms relating to your free will Rythm by all your assertions and statements or they are clearly not your own, they do not come from your conciousness because in your ideology this discussion is just an exchange of matter between one element of the universe and the other. The fact is that you cannot define your 'nature' as you put it and have to rely on whatever ego statements you have left.


[quote]You're the one that wishes for this to be so, it's your job to make it so, not mine to show you why it is not.

This was your statement Rythm not mine and again you cant answer it but try and pass the ball back in my court. Its not my job to answer for you. Yet again you cant state clear definitions of what you mean just random sceptical BS.

I allowed a definition for a word, nothing more. You seem to have run farther than the rope allowed amigo.

Your arguing semantics now my friend and still you cant define what you really mean.

Oh heavens no, nothing to do with religion, free will isn't something I get to hear bandied about day in and day out, why oh why would I make such a comment? Lord only knows. I say "free will" itself is a religion, and judging by your response to my skepticism..I'd say I'm at least close to correct.

I follow no religion so your not even close. And again this IS your opinion without any reason or logic behind it. Looks like those Kudos and sycophantic comments may not be as well deserved as you would like to think my friend.

Demonstrate that free will exists. Then, and only then, will we require an explanation for it.

My evidence is that the quantum particles that you are observing right now depend on your conciousness to exist in the state that they do. Nuff said. Look it up!

---

No heres the latest from CERN, 'Professor Stephen Hawking, of Cambridge University, said: "It is premature to comment on this. Further experiments and clarifications are needed."'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...iment.html

The question is Rythm can you deny that modern scientific theories are revisionist?
You cant all you can do is choose to post you petty replies without any true substance.
You are by far the most annoying random accumulation of matter that does not think or choose, but does spout shit into universe.

And you have still absolutely ignored what you define as 'nature' like if you can ignore it for long enough you wont have to explain yourself.

Quantum, he said quantum! That settles it, free will is a quantum effect, and anything quantum can be said to exist even in the absence of evidence. By the by, it;s called observer effect, not consciousness effect. The observer can be damned near anything.

That doesn't change the fact that only a biological observer will change the outcome. And it doesn't change the fact that besides this forum the only interaction you have with the world is when your mom tells you to clean your spunk rags out the bathroom. Jerkoff. Thats not an insult its again what your mom told me to tell you to stop doing.

[Angrboda]

Ah yes, the universe was breathlessly waiting to pop into existence until the first consciousness existed, in a non-existent universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

The fact that you cant answer my question and define your terms of nature shows me that you too 'can however bury any meaningful conversation under a literal mountain of garbage'. You clearly are using terms relating to your free will Rythm by all your assertions and statements or they are clearly not your own, they do not come from your conciousness because in your ideology this discussion is just an exchange of matter between one element of the universe and the other. The fact is that you cannot define your 'nature' as you put it and have to rely on whatever ego statements you have left.

We could sit around for ages opining about human nature, but why would I give you such an easy out? You don't get a pass because you use the word "clearly" in every claim. If these things were all so clear, you'd have an easier time demonstrating them to be the case, wouldn't you? You made a claim, you cannot demonstrate the veracity of the claim. End of.

This was your statement Rythm not mine and again you cant answer it but try and pass the ball back in my court. Its not my job to answer for you. Yet again you cant state clear definitions of what you mean just random sceptical BS.

Again, you wish for it to be so, do your own work. Skeptical bullshit? Really? I take it you've been burned by skepticism before?

Your arguing semantics now my friend and still you cant define what you really mean.

No, I was "politely" remarking that you've gone down the same road you did in the op in your comments. It's obviously in your nature.

I follow no religion so your not even close. And again this IS your opinion without any reason or logic behind it. Looks like those Kudos and sycophantic comments may not be as well deserved as you would like to think my friend.

You might want to reread the thread, because now you're starting to look like an ass. We have among us, in this thread, a member of the faithful. Sometimes I get tired of talking to you (lord only knows why that might be), and speak to other posters instead.

My evidence is that the quantum particles that you are observing right now depend on your conciousness to exist in the state that they do. Nuff said. Look it up!

Quantum is the "goddidit" for newagers.

The question is Rythm can you deny that modern scientific theories are revisionist?
You cant all you can do is choose to post you petty replies without any true substance.
You are by far the most annoying random accumulation of matter that does not think or choose, but does spout shit into universe.

And you have still absolutely ignored what you define as 'nature' like if you can ignore it for long enough you wont have to explain yourself.

No, I believe the question had something to do with free will. But don't let me stop you from arguing about anything except free will. I'm sure this all means you have solid evidence for your initial claims.

That doesn't change the fact that only a biological observer will change the outcome. And it doesn't change the fact that besides this forum the only interaction you have with the world is when your mom tells you to clean your spunk rags out the bathroom. Jerkoff. Thats not an insult its again what your mom told me to tell you to stop doing.

And how would you go about determining this to be the case, pick either. While you're at it, provide some evidence for the existence of free will.

[marx_2012]

Ah yes, the universe was breathlessly waiting to pop into existence until the first consciousness existed, in a non-existent universe.

Unless the very nature of the universe is conciousness itself and we as sentient concious co-creators affect and co-create the existence around us. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that the universe depends on our concious co-creations to exist. I'm mealy suggesting that we can effect the universe around our perceptions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you do it at will, can you leverage your "free will" to do so? Free will, nothing else, free will. Don't argue about my nature, don't argue about the laws of nature, don't be upset that that I don't find your arguments convincing. Free will, focus.

[Anomalocaris]

.....negate the very nature of free choice and the nature of conciseness in general.

So?

If the universe has been predetermined by the laws of the universe ....... This argument leads to a nihilistic interpretation of the universe in which we can not justify or relate to any nature of the universe including reflections or communications about the universe. ..... Please discuss.

Not if you are predetermined not to apply a nilistic interpretation of the universe in which we can not justify or relate to any nature of the universe including reflections or communications about the universe.

[marx_2012]

We could sit around for ages opining about human nature, but why would I give you such an easy out? You don't get a pass because you use the word "clearly" in every claim.

Again you are trying to ignore my question because you do not have any answer to explain your ethos. What is the 'nature' of subjective human experience and how can you define it in your objective scientific materialist perspective? I can keep asking this until you give me an answer because all of your criticisms of my criticism of materialism so far are based on this point! You say "We could sit around for ages opining about human nature" yet I have been sitting around for ages waiting for you to answer this and until you do (because this is your only retort to the experience of free will and subjective conciousness) we cannot have any meaningful discussion on the basis of this thread. You cant play tennis if one person wont let go of the ball and just god damn serve!

If these things were all so clear, you'd have an easier time demonstrating them to be the case, wouldn't you? You made a claim, you cannot demonstrate the veracity of the claim. End of.

I'm having an easy time demonstrating the experience of free will. As you know we have the experience of it every time we choose our next post. The question is why is it so hard to explain the alternative? Why is it so hard for you to demonstrate how subjective experience can occur in an objective world view? Isn't this the purpose of the thread? To demonstrate if we can view the world in a structured scientific materialist view without free will, conciousness and by extension the rationality that stems from them.

Again, you wish for it to be so, do your own work. Skeptical bullshit? Really? I take it you've been burned by skepticism before?

Again I wish for you to answer a question that has been asked and not detract from it. On the contrary I'm all for sceptical thinking but only when you can demonstrate, or at least have an argument for, an alternative of that which you are trying to disprove. Again I ask you to answer my question.

No, I was "politely" remarking that you've gone down the same road you did in the op in your comments. It's obviously in your nature.

Please stop using the term nature if you are unwilling to define it.

Quantum is the "goddidit" for newagers.

That may be but that is not what I believe and I'm not a new ager also there is nothing in this thread relating to new age ideology. Personally I just see quantum as giving evidence that conciousness effects matter.

No, I believe the question had something to do with free will. But don't let me stop you from arguing about anything except free will. I'm sure this all means you have solid evidence for your initial claims.

The question was and is free will, conciousness and by extension rationality in the current scientific perspective of materialism. Science is and has always has been revisionist, what is true in the current Zeitgeist of a modern methodology, is as susceptible to adaptation, as the changes that a 200 year old scientific methodology has been through to reach today's modern Zeitgeist. Therefore how reliable is the current materialist ideology in asserting truth about free will or conciousness? All theories are only seen to be objectively relevant between the moment of their creation and the moment of their revision.