Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 7th, 2018, 4:24 am
Your asserting is not clear. You still can't make people understand what you intend to discuss.
I am asking about the elephant in the room. Are you denying free will, and if so, how is that 'pragmatic' for you as an individual?
You are making an argument that mind is matter, and the next logical step is that the mind must be bound by the laws that govern matter, and therefore can only act as a result of prior causes.
1-Consciousness is material.
2-Material things are bound by the laws of physics
3-One law of physics is that every action is caused by prior action; nothing material acts of its own accord.
4-Therefore, the mind is not able to act on its own, but only to react as a result of prior causes.
Can I assume that, if you buy your argument, then you would also buy the one I just presented? If you do, then I don't see anything 'pragmatic' about the line of thought, in the sense that I understand that word, which is to do what is most useful or practical in the situation. Maybe it is 'pragmatic' to some scientist who is struggling to explain or predict actions, or to someone who wants to control the actions of others, but I don't see it doing me any good for reaching my goals.
So, I asked you quite directly if you believe a free will is compatible with a mind made of matter. Further, if a mind made of matter implies a mind whose actions must be fully determined by prior causes, is there any way to square that with the prospect of a free will? Are you denying free will as a result of what you are putting forward or not? If you are not, please show us how. If you are, consider that this path might not be called 'pragmatic'.
These things are not proven to any standard that requires a reasonable person to choose a 'side'. I can easily say that my free will disproves materialism.
1-I have a free will (I think, therefore I am--I exist as a thinking entity of some kind, and can not deny such existence without needing to be there to do the denying)
At every waking moment I am conscious of my ability to choose of my own free will. Call it a priori if you wish, but I say it is simply acknowledging reality as presented to me. Do you deny reality as presented to you through other senses? If you see a boat on the water, don't you take that as fact? You don't assume that outside forces are fooling you into believing in a boat that is not there, do you? If you smell bacon cooking, don't you draw a conclusion that bacon is being cooked nearby? Or is the universe telling you bacon is cooking, despite the impossibility of bacon cooking? So, if your sense of reason tells you that you can go to 7-11 and buy a Slurpee right now if it suits you, why would you assume that option is fully driven by outside forces, if you take it? Does the universe conspire to make you think you are choosing, or can you accept the input of your sense of reason telling you that you are free to choose, as presumably you would in the case of the boat or the bacon?
2-If my will is free, then it is not behaving by the rules to which all matter is subject; it is acting without being fully forced by prior causes.
3-Therefore, my consciousness is not matter.
Further, if consciousness is material, what kind of material thing is it? Can I assume it has no mass? Then, is it some kind of wave, like light or radio waves? If any other form of wave entered my brain, would it stay there, or merely pass through? Do you have even the slightest idea of what material thing you are describing and how it could hover inside my skull?
I am not trying to say my argument is any more valid than yours, but only that the jury is out. I just don't see any percentage in denying your own free will, nor any reason to do so. My actions are consistent with free will, and the 'pragmatic' thing to do is to accept my free will. I've yet to see someone deny free will who did not come right back and say that, as a practical matter, it makes sense to go ahead and act as if you have free will. Isn't that a huge red flag that an assumption along the way might have been flawed?
Free will is the central issue, and you are dancing around it. If you can describe the nature of the material thing you say is my consciousness, please do. If you have a form of compatiblism to go with materialism/determinism, then I would be interested in seeing you lay that out for us. If you don't, then I simply challenge the idea that you are being 'pragmatic' by denying yourself the only thing of real value any of us have.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."