Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
I KNOW my brain is not trustworthy. I trust it only so far as I do not have mechanical data...I trust the math...

But that "trust" you get from mechanical data is also coming from that untrustworthy brain. Math is a product of your brain. So is logic. Consider the statement: if a=b then b=a. You feel that must be true in much the same way you feel that it is your conscious mind deciding whether to reply to this post or not. If you doubt the validity of the latter I'm not sure why you wouldn't be skeptical of the correctness of the former.

Not to put words into your mouth, but I think you assume your brain IS trustworthy unless proven otherwise. It is hard to live otherwise (...did the barista really give me a grande mocha latte or is this all a delusion?). I also suspect that despite what you post you lead your life as if free will exists. I suspect that if a co-worker stole your ideas you would probably hold him accountable rather than assume he had no choice because of his genes and the events that occurred since the Big Bang.

The point is that these are nice philosophical discussions but in reality people live their lives assuming free will. They do so because that assumption works. It has led to sophisticated societies, facilitates social interactions, and allows parents to raise responsible children. IMO, the fact that the assumption of free will works so well strongly suggests that it is for the most part true.

You assert it because you "feel" it, as a born-again "feels the lord". Neither of you can prove it. I am not asserting there is anything "extra", so I have no burden of proof here. Those asserting that extra "something" have to demonstrate it, as surely as the theist has to prove the existence of their deity.

If I assert that I "feel" nauseous and you claim my feeling of nausea is false and I am delusional, who has the burden of proof?

This "extra" argument of yours by the way is I think a misapplication of Occam's Razor. The "razor" doesn't mean to assume the simpler hypothesis with respect to whether something exists or not. It is to favor the hypothesis that makes the fewer assumptions to achieve the same outcome. If to explain human behavior you reject free will, then you have to assume that the feeling of free will is a delusion and that the conscious mind despite appearances has no affect on choice. Not clear to me that "no free will" makes fewer assumptions than free will.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.