Free Will, Consciousness, Identity (Identity)

by romansh , Monday, July 30, 2012, 00:32 (4499 days ago) @ dhw

Of course they don't. No 'ism' can "give" you free will. It can only explain why free will is or is not a possibility.-It is not "isms" as such, but what they decribe - how does cause and effect allow us free will? How does fundamentally probabilistic universe allow us free will or any combination thereof?-You can point all our knowledge or dark matter for that matter, it [free will]remains a hail Mary into the darkness.
> 
> This is indeed a clue that our consciousness depends on biological matter. On the other hand, mystic and psychic experiences (such as NDEs) are a clue that our biological matter acts as a receiver, not a transmitter, and that consciousness and identity can survive the death of the brain. Neither clue is decisive, and so I keep an open mind.-Frankly I read this with not a little dismay dhw. NDEs OBEs and psychic phenomna are like are like phlogiston and luminousferous aether, once we turn on the scientific scrutiny they are not there.-> I know you regard the subject as irrelevant, but I also asked to WHAT. (See the next point). If I looked at the problem as you do, I would agree with you. But I don't, and that's why we're having this discussion.-You imply later on that in your youth you did not believe in free will. In that case I would have expected you to show some understanding of the arguments against free will. (I'm not sure how this comes across, but no offence is meant). 
> -> We can hardly separate our perception from our self-understanding or our consciousness, and the nature of the latter (materialism versus unknown form of energy) is relevant to the God question. Therefore we now agree that the subject is relevant!-I can.
But to be fair irrelevant is Matt's term. 
 
> They are connected. Both beliefs entail a form of energy that does not depend on the material world as we know it.-This I think is poorly thought out. This form of energy that does not depend on this world - either it does or does not repond to cause and effect. How does this help the cause of free will?-> True, but this is precisely the "if" that's in dispute. We seem to have a different concept of how definitions function. For me the term free will automatically refers to a faculty for making conscious decisions. If consciousness is an illusion, that does not mean the definition is wrong, it means we do not have free will as I have defined it.-We don't really have a clue of the cause consciousness, we don't have a a sense of how it works. We are not even very sure we have it. 
 
> ROMANSH: I can't show you that I am conscious, and you cannot show me that a brick is not conscious. These are assumptions we make.
> 
> Believe in conscious bricks if you want to, but I'm not sure what relevance that has to our subject.
This is exactly why I don't want consciousness in defintion of free will. You can't demonstrate to me that you are conscious so how on earth are you going to show me you have free will.
 
> I have lived a lot longer than you, thought about it, and went the other way, from youthful disbelief to open-mindedness! It makes sense to me, but so does determinism, 
So in your youth what was objection to free will?-> and that is why I neither believe nor disbelieve in the concept. If you could present me with evidence that the materialist concept of consciousness is correct, that every mystic and psychic experience is a fake or a delusion, and that my self-awareness and intuitive sense of control are illusory, I would share your disbelief.-It's not that the materialistic concept is correct, free will in the materialistic sense is a non sequitur. In what sense do you defend the possibility of free will, dhw?->> ROMANSH: But is it [the will] a consequence of something? Or is it some independently intrinsic entity?
> 
> See below.-> I don't like the word "supernatural" as it implies that we actually know what is natural. About 90% of the material world is unknown to us (dark matter and dark energy). The quantum world is a mystery. But yes, this discussion boils down to whether all our questions about consciousness (of which free will is one possible manifestation) can be answered materialistically. I don't know. Nor do you. So how can you be so sure that our "ability to make choices" (part of your own definition) is never under our own conscious control?-If you cannot answer the question materialistically (or in terms of naturalism or physicalism). In what frame of reference would you like to discuss free will?-ps I don't think I have ever said I disbelieve in free will. Like you I maintain a solipsistic attitude to free will. Nevertheless it is a concept that simply does not make sense to me.