AB,
The bum on the seat is not a very good example.
We are really talking of cause and effect, so the chair is simply causing your bum not to hit the floor. How it does it is irrelevent to the fact that is is the cause of this behaviour. Take the chair away, and we can be certain that the bum will hit the floor
You’ve missed the point. All that was being said is that we often perceive explanations very deeply that nonetheless turn out not to be the case. There have been countless beliefs just a strongly held as your own that have been shown to be wrong. Flat wrong.
For some reason though you privilege your strong personal feeling about something above all the evidence that contradicts it, and despite the absence of evidence to support it.
Why?
So there are some things my body can only do if initiated by an act of conscious will, for example speech. Without the act of conscious will, these things will not be enacted. How this occurs is irrelevent to the fact that the speech can only occur by an act of conscious will.
And yet again you confuse “conscious/free” will of the little man at the controls type with the
impression of “conscious/free” will of the little man at the controls type.
There’s plenty of evidence for the latter, and none for the former. But for your religious faith, why then cling to your version despite the evidence problem it gives you?
If deterministic science can't explain how it works, we must look beyond this for the true explanation.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
First, “deterministic science” has already made considerable inroads into explaining consciousness. The story is far from complete, but many of the pieces are in place and more come along all the time.
Second, when science doesn’t have an answer people who do science do even more of it in search of an answer. That’s why for example we now know that germs rather than bad spirits cause diseases. Had we adopted your method before we knew that, we’d still be stuck with bad spirits theory.
Why on earth would you think that science not having an answer
just now means we should just abandon science in favour of something else?
Third, where else would you propose that anyone “look” for this “true explanation” in any case? Just guessing about stuff is fun as a party game, but you have no means of knowing whether you have the “true” explanation until and unless you finally produce a
method to
test your assertions.
Which once again is where your case falls apart because, well, "strongfeelingology" is
not a method
