Nothing. We have no idea how those physical processes are connected to thought itself, which is still entirely another thing. No scientific examination of the thought itself, of the experience, is yet possible. There is a hard problem which can't be dismissed simply because some of the evidence seems to fall on your 'side' of the argument. My body is sending me information, and I am likely to respond in a rational way, most of the time, to the info. Sure, I am likely to decide to eat if my body tells me I am hungry. If you see that part of the brain firing that receives the hunger signal, then you might predict I am about to decide I should eat.Faustus5 wrote: ↑February 21st, 2021, 9:44 amThat's not what you are being asked to justify. Please stop playing games and try to be intellectually honest for once.
Right now, scientists can look at a scan of your brain--purely physical, deterministic activity there by your own admission--and predict which of two or three choices you are going to make as much as ten seconds before you yourself have had the experience of making that choice.
What does that do to your thoroughly un-justified, evidence-free assertion that the mind is not subject to the "rules" of determinism?
But, I can also make a decision not to eat. I can choose to starve myself until I die. Despite most people taking most of the prompts from their physical side and acting reasonably in response to them, this says nothing about free will. This is influence. If you wish to believe that all our choices can only result in a predictable answer in response to these impulses, if there is only one response possible to each impulse, then why are you bothering to debate the issue? Nothing matters and you don't exist as anything but a pass-through at that point.
You are free to attach whatever meaning you wish to your life. It is very sad that you would deny this ability. I can only guess that you might be afraid of the responsibility of choice. Perhaps you wish to find a set of hard rules that define and explain everything, so you can be relieved of the burden of choosing for yourself. Lots of people try to revert to the safety of the child's world by taking religion as a hard fact, meaning that they don't have to decide right and wrong for themselves. Others abuse science in the same way, and tend to be quite full of themselves for being serious enough to take science as fact. Because science is a useful tool for describing objects, they assume it must describe subjects, even as every moment of their existence is telling them otherwise. However, the serious world IS the world of the child, where there are only hard facts to discover, where actions don't have real consequences, and where we don't have to decide for ourselves what we wish to become. But, philosophy is a lot more than just science.
In contrast, I am saying that I don't have all the answers, that I don't treat existence as solved or on the verge of being solved. I'm a finite being in an infinite universe, and therefore my knowledge (and yours, and all of science) effectively rounds down to zero. The honest answer is to say that we just don't have all the answers. However, if your belief system results in treating your own subjective existence as if it doesn't exist or doesn't matter, this is an indication that you might be on the wrong track.