Dog wrote:If there is such a "intemporal/immaterial" something, why is it affected by what happens to your brain?
The reality, the immaterial, is not affected, the perception of it is. Just like when you're depressed, the world around you still enjoys itself, only your malfunctioning brain can't enjoy it.
Where is it when it's not there?
It's still there, just in a damaged form or resting. What we really are, and the perception of it are two different things. What we see and what we feel are our brains interpreting the being around us, changing colors, perspectives, wave lengths and whatnot into pictures, sounds and data to make us function. Could it be that other interpretations of environment could exist? Those that we have not evolved to perceive?
Where is it when it's not there? Seems to me much more likely that it's just the brain, operating under cause and effect like everything else in the macroscopic world and consciousness is just a feeling we sometimes (a subjective awareness) get when some dense neural nodes get activated. neurospy studies do show that actions that people report having "freely decided" originated before they had consciousness of it
'm saying the God argument and the Free Will argument is ultimately the same. We equate consciousness with free will because that's how we feel. If consciousness is just a passive feeling, then it's not free will.
I'm not sure I understand this to the full extent. You suggest that our actions are determined but the interpretation of those actions is not? Like I stab myself in the eye is determined but my enjoyment of the action I have no control on is not? And how does it make any sense that we have power over our thoughts but not the beneficiary of the same thoughts? If I didn't enjoy the action of stabbing my first eye, do I still get to stab my second eye, or the consequence of stabbing my first eye out has somehow given me the power to not stab my second eye because it was not so enjoyable (what is apprentissage vicariant).
It also strikes me how Darwinism functions in the same manner, everything is predetermined yet evolution works in trials and errors.
physics can certainly disprove certain falsifiable claims. to the dude's point, a particle travelling faster than speed of light would experience a reversal of cause and effect (it would arrive before it leaves). It would travel backwards in time. If time is a 2 way street, there can be no free will. For free will to be possible, the future must be undetermined. It must be something "new" that doesn't exist. this is exactly what the dude is arguing (ie. he's trying to keep the future open in his book as the majority/consensus view is that space-time is a block and the unidirectional arrow of time that we experience is simply a by-product of entropy and not a fundamental law). Relativity is real and produces both time and spacial dilation. Observers in different states of motion will disagree on the simultaneity of events. The sequence of events does not occur the same for all observers. Something going faster than light would experience things "in reverse order".
Again, things in the quantum world don't work in our world. How do you apply waves/matter thing in our world, and if you don't, why then do you only selectively pick laws that help your initial idea? If one doesn't make sense, why does the other?
quantum physics is the most successful (ie. predictive) theory in physics history. it explains everything, except for gravity (in a theory that has been validated by experiment or observation). the probabilistic nature of the quantum world is fundamental. The "stickiness" of the macro world is a consequence of quantum probabilities being skewed towards one outcome (fundamentally because their interactions limits their possible energy states). Greg is very unlikely to end up in Nepal in the next instant, but that is not impossible just incredibly unlikely.
It's been the most successful theory to explain the little world, yet it can't explain why gravity exists or why free will exists. Maybe it was never meant to explain either, and that different modes of being apply to different modes of existence.
All this to say, that you can't philosophize without taking science into account.
I don't, I'm really open to know.
The goal is to understand the world. As honestly as possible. Not to mention that neuropsychology (the mapping of brain connections) is more direct and some of the findings have been troubling for free will.
I don't expect or want you to believe in anything I say, I'm not proselytizing. I'm simply asking you to not call people retards because they believe, through logical/ontological/metaphisical, tradition, the unexplained or the mystical, that a universe with it's own purpose is a possibility.
But somebody that searches has to really try to just follow the evidence available and make educated guesses based on probability (ie. the strength of underlying evidence). Some things you'll be more sure of than others. You have to be very careful to check biases and "wishes", to the extent possible
I will when the day we attain that kind of knowledge, pretending that we already have reached this point might also have do with biases and "wishes" on your behalf.
Again, I'm very happy to have those talks and I will read upon the subject as I'm really interested and feel very ill equipped to face all of your arguments... and I know I'm in the easy chair pointing at might be's