Quote:
|
Fred: Although “free will†may be difficult to clearly define, we seem to all have some intuitive sense of what it is—essentially choice, choice made by our higher cognitive conscious self, choice that is something more than merely a conscious cognitive illusion being driven by primitive algorithmic subconscious neural mechanisms, mechanisms concerned primarily with survival and reproduction; and free will seems to require, using LeDoux’s term, “downward causation.â€
|
That whole paragraph is ambiguous, full of pseudo-scientific terms (
primitive algorithmic subconscious neural mechanisms - conscious cognitive illusion?) and circular. It's as far from a useful scientific explanation as JB's explanation of
emergence - currently providing entertainment in a thread nearby.
"
We seem to have some intuitive sense . . ."? Well, many people seem to have
some intuitive sense that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on 9/11 too. The behavior-controlling emotions of ideology are much stronger than those of reason . . . as you repeatedly affirm for me in your posts.
Much of science has been a process of proving with falsifiable evidence and hypotheses that things we thought were intuitively true (god, humans can be possesed by the devil, the earth is flat, heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth, etc. - are wrong. How is your intuitive notion of
free-will different from those?
Quote:
|
Fred: The available evidence indicates that human consciousness—sentience, sapience, self-awareness—is indeed something real, something that does indeed exist; although it also seems to be beyond the precise explanation of any currently available science. More to the issue, the available evidence also indicates that we humans use our cognitive consciousness to discern objective mathematical truth, and that we then use that objective truth to understand, explain, and, to some extent manage, our physical world and ourselves.
|
The question is about free-will, not consciousness. Even if this paragraph were on-point and true (it is neither) it does not lead logically in any way to . .
Quote:
|
Fred: Accordingly, the available evidence overwhelming supports the view that we humans do indeed have some sort of, and some amount of, free will (and also implies that we humans are probably the only creatures that do have it.)
|
Some sort of . . . ? And this evidence is to be found exactly where? If it
overwhelmingly supports your premise, why do you so mysteriously fail to reference it in your argument? Is this an example of your
rigorousness?
Quote:
|
Fred: (Additionally, for those asserting that we humans do not have free will, that free will is some sort of illusion, then the burden is on them to come up with a definition and/or theory for this “illusion of free will,†to show that this definition/theory is falsifiable; and also to show how creatures that lack free will and that are unable to discern objective truth could ever “know†and/or “prove,†and/or evaluate the reality of anything.)
|
Just like it's my burden to show that god doesn't exist . . because
all the available evidence which is never actually provided tells
some people that he does?
My challenge for you was to provide a logical explanation of just how this free-will operates to affect behavior - something that can be examined against actual observations in the context of some plausible model of the mind. As I predicted, all you've offered is a rewording of your ideological beliefs.
I find this baby particularly ugly and in desparate need of a change of diapers.
Margaret