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

[marx_2012]

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.

[AStranger]

I think one problem is your assumption that since the laws of physics are constant then everything is predetermined.

We know from quantum physics that things are not at all predictable on that scale so that in itself essentially contradicts your premise.

[marx_2012]

Predictable from the current methodology of our understanding of quantum at this time, yet there are laws that we have understood about quantum which scientists aim to fulfil a complete picture in the future. This picture then needs to be coupled with atomic physics to create the epistemological materialist understanding. This understanding needs to be completed from a materialist scientific perspective or there can be no holistic understanding of the universe from a materialistic scientific understanding. By the nature of materialism in general.

---

And that the purpose of science is to find the constant within randomness.

---

Also from the conclusions that quantum physicists have had to come to in the Schrödinger's cat paradox also negates the idea of free choice. If the conclusion to this paradox has to be that different dimensions are created because the cat must be alive and dead at the same time, so different dimensions are then created in any and all circumstances. Therefore the dimension that we inhabit, and the choices that we make, are not our own because there is another dimension in which we did the opposite. Therefore all our choices are only due to the creation of another dimension in which the opposite occurred.

[Cyberman]

If the universe has been predetermined by the laws of the universe since the big bang then human choices have been predetermined as well.

Even if everything else you wrote is valid and sound, this is the part where you fall down. Apart from being a huge non-sequitur, the only person claiming that the Universe has been predetermined is you. On what basis are you making such a claim? Big Bang Theory merely demonstrates how the laws of the Universe came to exist; everything else, including how those laws are applied, flows from that basic starting point. If I gave you a loaded gun and you then went out and held up a jewellery store, am I responsible for your actions?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

The basis of rationality isn't a choice that someone makes. Reason is not quite so arbitrary. Have you ever tried to be completely unreasonable about something by the way? It's difficult to do, not an easy choice to make or maintain (if it's even possible).

If one were to base their conclusions on nothing more than a choice they made, that would not be "rational thought". If our thoughts were predetermined they would still be our thoughts. Perhaps that's exactly what we're dealing with here on this rock. The illusion of choice with no viable alternative. Strong arguments can be made. Why would atheists have a burden of proof for this sort of thing? Didn't see any gods in there.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

This thread is relating to the need for an atheist explanation of free choice, and conciousness from a scientifically materialist perspective

"As an atheist" I need explain exactly nothing; I make no claims. Pretty sure the existence of consciousness has been pretty well defined by science,at least for my needs. However, the precise nature of conciousness has not been explained as far as I'm concerned. A monist, I have yet to see any credible evidence that consciousness exits other as a function of part of the living.Again, I make no claims so need explain nothing.

As a sceptic,I have some concerns about the existence of free will;again, no proof .

But here is where I see the problem, that if there are absolute scientific laws that govern the universe, ----

I'm unaware of science having made any such claims.

,--- then necessarily the universe will be predetermined from its inception at the big bang

Not sure that's true,but so what if it is? It changes nothing.

PS: I'm dying to know what you mean by 'spiritually scientific' and can't wait to see your empirical evidence.

[marx_2012]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='244450' dateline='1330149286']



The basis of rationality isn't a choice that someone makes. Reason is not quite so arbitrary. Have you ever tried to be completely unreasonable about something by the way? It's difficult to do, not an easy choice to make or maintain (if it's even possible).

If one were to base their conclusions on nothing more than a choice they made, that would not be "rational thought". If our thoughts were predetermined they would still be our thoughts. Perhaps that's exactly what we're dealing with here on this rock. The illusion of choice with no viable alternative. Strong arguments can be made. Why would atheists have a burden of proof for this sort of thing? Didn't see any gods in there.


[/quote]

While rational thought isnt free choice in its entirity you cant deny that free choice is needed for rational thought to exist.

---

[quote='padraic' pid='244475' dateline='1330154449']

[quote]

"As an atheist" I need explain exactly nothing; I make no claims. Pretty sure the existence of consciousness has been pretty well defined by science,at least for my needs. However, the precise nature of conciousness has not been explained as far as I'm concerned. A monist, I have yet to see any credible evidence that consciousness exits other as a function of part of the living.Again, I make no claims so need explain nothing.

[/quote]

If you make no claims who is it that is choosing to write this post and how can he do that if there is no free choice?

Conciousness may be hard to explain philosophically but free choice is not.

[quote](Marx_2012) But here is where I see the problem, that if there are absolute scientific laws that govern the universe, ----[/quote]

[quote] I'm unaware of science having made any such claims. [/quote]

But this is the endgame for the ideology of science in general. To find the constant in the randomness.


[quote] PS: I'm dying to know what you mean by 'spiritually scientific' and can't wait to see your empirical evidence.
[/quote]

Check out the research of Dr Emoto on water crystals or the work being done using aura imaging on the electromagnetic fields aroung life and conciousness.

I wont go into the rest cos I wana stay on topic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course I can deny that Marx. You ruled free will out in your own hypothetical and I've never seen anyone establish exactly what free will is in the first place here in the real world, beyond your hypothetical.

You can choose to ignore reason and rational thinking, but no amount of personal choices will ever have an effect on what can be said to be rational, or reasonable. You're confusing two things, commenting on one and drawing a conclusion about another from an unsupported assertion wedged between the two (as if no one would notice). What about any of this should be impossible for me to deny? Talk about a toothless problem to leave for us atheists to resolve. You have a poor argument, resolved.

[Cyberman]

Here's a little something to chew over. What would a Universe in which free will doesn't exist look like compared with one in which it does? Could there even be a way to tell them apart?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Check out the research of Dr Emoto on water crystals or the work being done using aura imaging on the electromagnetic fields aroung life and conciousness.

"Aura imaging"? Oh please. What's next, Kirlian photography? There is NO credible evidence fort the existence of the human aura.Period.

If you make no claims who is it that is choosing to write this post

WHAT? Are you REALLY that ignorant or just stupid?


You head your thread with;"the burden of proof-"which suggests you understand the meaning of the term.However,you have made it very clear you have no idea.

and how can he do that if there is no free choice?

Non sequtior,action does not imply (suggest) or infer(prove) either free will or choice.

So far,all I see is another airheaded new age crackpot.


Bored now; it's like trying to communicate with a comatose orangutang. .