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

by dhw, Monday, November 16, 2015, 12:56 (3295 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: When I was agnostic I still accepted the immateriality of thought and consciousness without all this worry about religious implications. In my 'conversion' I never looked at or used religious precepts. You are still comparing yourself to religious thought from your childhood.-dhw: The problem is not the immateriality of thought and consciousness but, once again, the SOURCE of thought and consciousness. If it is not material, and if NDEs are what the patients think they are, there is a whole “spiritual” world beyond that of materials.-DAVID: Of course.-dhw. Religion is not only about precepts: its basic premise is the existence of a god or gods, and so the existence of an immaterial mind is absolutely central to your belief in a God of “tough love” who started evolution --DAVID: Again you are debating with me by pointing to religious precepts. I arrived at my concept of a universal consciousness as the only viable solution to the issue of SOURCE, recognizing that religions had established an anthropomorphic, human friendly God in the West and a divine level of Reality in the East, which I do not accept. Is God friendly? Adler said 50/50, yet he eventually converted to Catholicism.-There is a misunderstanding here. Your approach to the subject of free will entails dualism, which I have avoided because of its inevitable religious ramifications (such as predestination). Somehow we got sidetracked into your own belief in the immateriality of thought and consciousness even prior to your ‘conversion', which was independent of religion. I pointed out that the problem was the SOURCE of (immaterial) thought and consciousness, and the moment you claim that the source is immaterial, you enter the realms of religion. Belief in an immaterial mind is central to belief in your God. We needn't discuss your personal concept of that god (I was only having a little dig at you over “tough love” and your anthropocentrism!) or Adler's or anyone else's. I don't think there is any debate here, is there?