A Sense of Free Will: the consciousness quagmire (Introduction)

by romansh , Monday, September 28, 2015, 00:47 (3132 days ago) @ dhw

You think it is unnecessary and I think it is essential, especially in view of the borderline cases (involving levels of consciousnesss) I have outlined in the post to BBella which you have quoted above. If, as you tell us, you are only conscious “historically”, i.e. after the fact, it is small wonder you cannot even contemplate the possibility of free will. -Then we can compromise and have both - consciousness and "cause and effect".-> If freedom from cause and effect must be part of the definition, so must the compatibilist freedom from coercion by other individuals, social conventions and institutions. Both of you would then be demanding a definition that supports your view, and nobody can say that either of these criteria is correct. The argument is only circular because you keep coming back to the cause and effect criterion, ignoring the “coercion” alternative and dismissing individual identity on the vague grounds that the self is not what it seems although it is real (see my post of 21 September at 19.40).-Coercion is not the issue ... Compatibilists can redefine free will however they will. In fact that is all they can do. The central issue around cause and effect does not go away regardless. There are consequences to everything but everything being a result of cause and effect. -We can dance around consciousness all day. -There are consequences for us if we truly believe everything we do is a result of cause and effect. -> Not “but” - BECAUSE it depends on one's point of view. You do not seem to have grasped the fact that any issue on which there is no general consensus will offer contradictory arguments according to the subjectivity of the viewpoint. Human nature is good/bad because...Life is comic/tragic because...Religion is beneficial/harmful because...Science is/is not our most reliable means of access to truth because...We have/we do not have the ability to make conscious choices because...Of course it all depends on your point of view. But you prefer to ignore the opposing arguments and merely quote the opposing conclusions as if somehow the contradiction invalidated the arguments (or at least those you don't like).-This argument is post modernism gone raving mad. Reality depends on my point of view. Really? This is nonsense. Reality is independent of consensus. I might have incomplete access to that reality and the access I do have might be skewed. -But I do think the scientific method is a more accurate method of chasing after the truth than other methods. I am not saying other methods should not be used, but that any conclusions we might come to, it would be sensible to verify them using the scientific method. -This Clarence Darrow quote describes my point of view ...
>> Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.
I might argue with word free, but the intent is fine with me.
 
> I have noticed the strength of your tone, and I would argue just as strongly that there is no authority on earth who can make such a judgement. However, if you think both viewpoints could be wrong, let me ask you once again what other criteria you would consider to be valid.-I ignore opposing arguments? I certainly don't go down every rabbit hole that is presented. I have asked you a number of times to describe what are the consequences of everything being a result of cause and effect. As far as I can tell you avoided answering this question. So it would behoove you not to accuse others of such activities. -dhw you do not know what I may or not contemplate. I believed for fifty or so years in free will. So exactly how am I ignoring these arguments?-Also I would caution you against reading 'tone' in this format. Otherwise I might be tempted to express my opinion based on incomplete information