The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution


Subject:  Re: Libet and free will revisited Date:  3/11/2019  3:00 PM
Author:  btresist Number:  26768 of 27155

And there is oodles of evidence that our brains lie to us.

No doubt but irrelevant to the central question of why do you believe you are conscious but not that you have free will? In what way is the evidence for consciousness better than the evidence for free will?

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.

I don't get this at all. MPG is simply a rate, a relationship between volume and distance. Both concepts exist in mathematics and so it is not magical that one can get a higher order relationship that starts with distance and volume to now give distance/volume. But note what you don't get. If you increase the complexity of concepts like volume and distance together you don't get Spanish. What emerges from complexity is not completely unrelated to the starting products. Increase the complexity of air molecule interactions and what emerges is a tornado, not mpg or a chicken pot pie. Emergence is not magic in that it doesn't create a property from stuff that completely lack the essentials of that property.

Here is a more apt analogy. Dark matter. Like consciousness, dark matter cannot be directly measured. Because it cannot be directly measured, dark matter (like subjective experience) seems to be very different from classical matter. Because of that difference, it doesn't seem likely to me that non-baryonic matter (dark matter) can arise from baryonic matter. Similarly I question how subjective experiences or qualia can arise out of the non-conscious.

It's consistent with my statement that subjective perception is a starting point for investigation, not the end point.

This is like pulling teeth, but I think we are making progress. If subjective perception is valid enough to be a starting point then I think it has to qualify as evidence of something being real. We now have common ground.

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.

Again progress. You now agree that the great majority of our conscious perceptions are accurate. We now have more common ground.
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us