CIN, your position against free will fails because of two basic shortcomings in your argument. Felix correctly points out that no evidence found by science of a "free willed" subject is not evidence that there is no "free willed" subject. It may be that science has missed something and, as Felix said, science can't easily observe and measure that something.Felix wrote: ↑May 19th, 2018, 1:02 pmIn the domain of strictly physical phenomena, it cannot be found, that should be obvious, science cannot interpret what it cannot observe and measure. In fact, your position is unscientific and nonsensical because there could be no advancement or evolution, scientific or otherwise, if reality was ruled strictly by physical causation.CIN: There is no evidence for any non-physical existence
It poses no problem to say that the will is physically indeterminate, only to say that it is not, for a wholly determined will is no will at all and thus has no agency (agent) behind it.CIN: Besides which, if it were acausal, this would pose an insoluble problem for the free will advocate, because as I have already pointed out, for an act to count as a free will act it must be an act of the agent,
And this synthesis is not initiated by an act of will? Do you not see how ludicrous this idea is?CIN: All so-called 'creative' thought and action is a synthesis of elements that preceded it.
Bohm's theory is one of undivided wholeness, and is therefore compatible with religion.It is fully compatible with Vedanta/Hinduism.None of this is compatible with any religion I've ever heard of.
Your other mistake is that you fail to conceptualize a metaphysic that could unite our "physicality/subjectivity" into a self. You seem stuck on our commonly used Aristotelian Metaphysics. Science seems stuck on it why not you? Some undefined "substance" carries physical attributes. The self is gradually whittled away as its physicality is discovered. If your toe itches and you scratch it then it was your toe not your self that caused the scratching. Whitehead's pan-psychism, Bohm's Implicate order, pantheism, Hinduism, eastern philosophies in general, Ram Dass, Timothy Leary and many of our own personal experiences, having used LSD, Aldous Huxley, etc. all report various feelings of connectedness to a wider region of reality than just our own body. You, CIN, talk about our own physical body as if its parts were external casual agents diminishing our will.
In my opinion, there is my own subjective self in every finger, toe and living animated cell of my physical body. The subject of my being is a mereological sum of its parts. The nervous system is not what creates an integrated conscious self. The nervous system/brain manifests, not the self, but special organs of the self. The self is the mereological sum of the subjectivity of every cell including the cells forming the nervous system.
Until science expands its metaphysical ideas you should not let it be your bitch.