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

[Angrboda]

Women have been driven mad, "gaslighted," for centuries by the refutation of our experience and our instincts in a culture which validates only male experience. The truth of our bodies and our minds has been mystified to us. We therefore have a primary obligation to each other: not to undermine each others' sense of reality for the sake of expediency; not to gaslight each other.

Women have often felt insane when cleaving to the truth of our experience. Our future depends on the sanity of each of us, and we have a profound stake, beyond the personal, in the project of describing our reality as candidly and fully as we can to each other.



When a woman tells the truth she is creating the possibility for more truth around her.



The liar leads an existence of unutterable loneliness.

The liar is afraid.

But we are all afraid: without fear we become manic, hubristic, self-destructive. What is this particular fear that possesses the liar?

She is afraid that her own truths are not good enough.

---

Much of what is narrowly termed "politics" seems to rest on a longing for certainty even at the cost of honesty, for an analysis which, once given, need not be reexamined. Such is the deadendedness — for women — of Marxism in our time.

---

Women and Honor: Some Notes On Lying, Adrienne Rich, 1975.

[Faith No More]

As I said in my apparently long-winded, nonsensical wordplay...

I thought maybe this is what you would focus on, so let me reiterate. It seemed to me to be nonsensical, which is why I asked you a question to help clarify. If you don't want to explain further though that is your perogative.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You say that the all is both complete and has potential. How can something that is complete have potential?

Part of the confusion may stem from my choice of words. I try to avoid any kind of references to physics proper because 1) my knowledge of pphysics is pretty basic and 2) I'm not fond of New Age flakes playing fast and loose with quantum mechanics.

Here is how I ponder potential. The more potential there is for something to happen the more likely it is to occur. Once potential becomes unlimited actualization becomes an absolute certainty. A pile of tinder has the potential to catch fire. The same pile doused with gasoline has even more potential to ignite. Add proximity to a lighted match and the potential for blaze becomes so great that fire seems inevitable. Thus you can see that the One's potential and actualization are complete in each other. Anything that could potentially be actually is. The One is both infinite potential and perfect manifestation.

I haven't fully gone over your post, but it seems to appeal to an implicit sort of Platonic Realism at various points...

You are correct, my views reflect the neo-Platonic tradition. For now that form of inquiry suits my temperament and level of understanding.

I don't think your framework will hold without explicit definition and justification for that aspect; unless of course, it's simply magic, without explanation.

It may very well turn out that after more advanced study on my part, I will see errors in this approach. I will be certain to pursue the link you provided. You have given me more to ponder. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're confusing "potential" with "probability". I have a very high potential for stabbing someone. There is a very low probability that this will occur. Gasoline has a very high potential for combustion, but proximity to a lighted match actually does very little to increase the probability that this will occur. You have to vaporize it first, before probability becomes high, thats how we spent all of those years smoking cigs while pumping gas without killing our entire species. It's also how we control combustion to the point where it is a useful source of energy for work. See how it pays to be able (and willing) to elaborate?

[IATIA]

---

This thread is relating to the need for an atheist explanation of free choice, and conciousness from a scientifically materialist perspective. The nature of scientific materialism is that we are all bound by the laws of the universe. These laws aim to explain the quantum, atomic, molecular, physical, planetary, universal etc. methods that govern the universe as a whole.

While a full, complete explanation of these laws are yet to be fully understood by mankind in this present period of time, the well established theories and practices of a scientific method will one day lead to a complete understanding of these laws. Rationally when a full understanding of these laws has been obtained from the scientific method, we theoretically will be able to explain the nature of the universe from a materialist perspective.

But here is where I see the problem, that if there are absolute scientific laws that govern the universe, then necessarily the universe will be predetermined from its inception at the big bang. The universal scientific laws, that exist independently of human knowledge but will one day be understood by human kind, negate the very nature of free choice and the nature of conciseness in general.

If the universe has been predetermined by the laws of the universe since the big bang then human choices have been predetermined as well. Therefore the basis of rationality, that humans can choose to be rational or irrational becomes obsolete, as does any form of internal or external reflections of the universe since they are also based on the choices made consciously from a mind of free will. 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.

---

Therefore I place the burden of proof for atheists to resolve this matter. Please discuss.

I am a supporter of Laplace’s Demon.

On a macro scale, I know that if I fire a stream of electrons at a phosphor screen, I will see a glowing spot every time. However, though we know, and can predict, the outcome of the stream. It would seem that we cannot, with any certainty, predict the path of any single particle within that stream. QM equations include statistical formulas that predict where the particle will probably go, but the particle can go anywhere and any time.

Take radiation as an example. The half-life of any radioactive element is very accurate (so they say). Let us say we have a radioactive element with 32 atoms and the half-life is one second. We know that after the first second there will be only 16 radioactive atoms left and after one more second, there will now be eight etc.. What we do not know, and cannot predict, is which specific atom will decay at what specific moment, only how many.

It is this uncertainty principle that gets used and abused by everyone.

The question is whether or not there is a solid predictable rule, that we have yet to find, that would let us predict the absolute path of a particle. (which of course would then lend more credence to Laplace’s Demon)

The argument generally presented for free will, is that Laplace’s Demon, per QM, cannot exist and some how we have the ability to change an outcome. This would be acceptable under the present rules of QM by considering ourselves the observers and selective observation would generate selective outcomes.

The problem here is, if we can use our free will in this manner, then we should be able to generate any possible outcome at our whim. It would appear that is not so.

Random does not work because then all possibilities should be equal and without favor in which case, the macro world could not exist.

[Cyberman]

Holy necro, Batman!

[Whateverist]

Why don't we do it in a cadaver? Why don't we do it, do it in a cadaver? No one will be watching us .. why don't we do it in a cadaver?

- Sung to the old Beatle's tune

[robvalue]

The thing I find hardest when considering free will is what the default position is. I can see an argument from both sides. Of course, it all comes down to the definitions of free will. Even defining what is "me" is extremely difficult.

Intuitively, "I" am something a bit more than just chemicals doing stuff. But scientifically, I can find no basis for this, and it seems to me that consciousness is just a bi-product of natural processes.

But there we go again, what is conciousness? It's so hard to objectively assess something that you can only experience through itself.

The final filter is always "me", whatever that is. It seems to be a problem that isn't going away in a hurry.

If I had to put my money somewhere, I'd say "I" am just an observer to the processes of my mind, manifesting themselves in an illusion. The more my life has gone on, the more I feel that way and the less I feel like "I" have any control at all.