The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution


Subject:  Re: Libet and free will revisited Date:  3/11/2019  1:53 PM
Author:  1poorguy Number:  26767 of 27155

Do I have that right?

Mostly. Though it's not "what I would rather". And there is oodles of evidence that our brains lie to us. Two people standing next to each other witness a hit-and-run and then can't agree on what color the car was. A parole board is harsher before lunch than after lunch. There's a plethora of examples. We believe we perceive everything correctly, and think things through rationally, but the fact is that we really don't. At least not reliably. The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't rely on any of that (at least not much), and so gives us reliable results in spite of ourselves.

I am saying consciousness is a property of matter. This is based on the observation that a universe that only contains matter also contains consciousness. Why is that extraordinary?

Well, as benjd25 pointed out, there is mpg (for example) in this universe. Is that a property of matter? You're not using your scientific rigor here, IMO.

If so, then I gather you would agree that such behaviors would not be deterministic.

Of course. They'd be probabilistic. Which still isn't "free will", but would no longer be deterministic either.

I bet you rarely question the many things you subjectively perceive while driving, because if you did it would be very difficult to drive...

Absolutely correct. As I stated previously, I know the human mind is flawed but it's what I have to work with so I just go with it out of necessity. So far it hasn't walked me off a cliff (as the example I gave previously). I agree our interpretation of sensory input does appear to be a reasonable facsimile of reality (as you say, we'd have gone extinct if it wasn't). However, it also fools us often enough that we cannot say that all of our perceptions are accurate. Just because there was a Pontius Pilate does not mean that the story of his involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus/Yeshu is accurate (or that Jesus was even an actual person). The Bible getting one thing right doesn't indicate it gets everything right. Each point has to be demonstrated.

It doesn't demonstrate that the doctor doubts the subjective perception of the patient. Just the opposite, the doctor trusts it enough to look for the objective cause of that subjective perception of pain.

It's consistent with my statement that subjective perception is a starting point for investigation, not the end point. You're starting with subjective perception and saying "there ya go! free will and consciousness is a property of matter!". You could be correct, but not because of subjective perception. That only gives you a starting point for investigation.

We would be running away from imaginary predators while ignoring real ones.

Somewhat tangential, but that partially is what happens. We fear and run away from the unknown, and have forever. It's a survival thing. We don't know what the rustling in that bush may be, therefore we fear it and run (because while it could be a rabbit it also could be a bear). We don't ignore real ones, but we definitely run from imaginary ones.
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us