AB,
Of course I understand the evidence.
That seems very unlikely to me given your absolute refusal ever to engage with it, preferring instead the same failed trope of “If I’m typing this I must have free will”.
I understand that the evidence which is entirely based upon the observation of the physical electro chemical activity in the material brain will inevitably come up with a conclusion that all human behaviour is entirely attributable to pre defined physical reactions.
What the hell is wrong with you? I’ve corrected you on this over and over again, yet in response you’re like a fly endlessly banging against the window unable or unwilling ever to go outside.
For the last freakin’ time, materialism concerns itself with claims
that are investigable. If you want to posit (albeit incoherent and irrational) speculations about a supposed supernatural, then what you have is white noise until and unless you finally come up with a means to
investigate these claims. Might you be right just as a matter of dumb luck? It’s conceptually possible I suppose, however unlikely. Do you provide any reason to think you
are right on the other hand? None whatsoever.
Materialism produces
functional truths verifiable through inter-subjective experience – the aspirin still works regardless of our personal opinions on the matter. It makes no claim however to ultimate truths.
Why is this so hard for you? Seriously, why though?
But the evidence which is ignored is the human ability to consciously invoke acts of will, and this evidence is written off as an illusion because it does not fit in with the materialistic scenario, even though the materialistic scenario does not fully define our human awareness or how it works.
Breathes deeply, counts slowly to ten etc…
…That is NOT evidence. It’s just a narrative you happen to find persuasive, and nothing more. And it’s not “written off as an illusion” at all unless by “it” you actually mean your fundamentally irrational take on “free” will, which must necessarily be written off because of its irrationality. Actually the “materialistic scenario” readily accommodates your relatively superficial impression of unfettered decision-making - the mistake you make is an explicable one - but it’s also capable of much deeper analysis to uncover layers of reality that sit beneath it.
I put it to you that it is not just a case for the materialistic scenario not being fully explained, but that it is inexplicable - because any materialistic explanation will effectively deny the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices and confer ultimate control to the laws of physics.
Then you put it to me utterly wrongly for reasons that have been explained to you countless time now but that you continue to ignore. You cannot possibly know what’s likely to be inexplicable in future; that “reality of our freedom” is just an irrational and unqualified assertion; and of course the laws of physics are currently the prevailing paradigm because they provide the most robust model we have – and certainly more robust than the white noise of mindless assertion.
You can't have it both ways, Blue.
Of course I can. The reality a goldfish has is
a reality even though it’s unable to comprehend other realities outside the bowl. Those other realities exist too though – which is why you
can “have it”
many ways, like a Russian Easter egg of realities. Your huge mistake here though is to think that your goldfish reality must somehow bound any other possible realities.
Either I have the freedom to consciously choose my words - in which case I can rightly be accused of personal incredulity.
Give it a break willya? Yes of course you can when that “I” is one reality and the accusation is directed at that level or reality. That there are levels of reality underneath that changes nothing, despite your frankly bizarre notion that the way things seem to you must necessarily define every reality there is regardless of the reasoning and evidence that falsifies you.
Or all my choices are in fact physically predetermined in subconscious brain activity, in which case there is no possibility for me being personally responsible for the choices I make.
I’m crying now. On the plus side, you have perhaps created a new term for the next edition of the OED:
“Burnsism (mass noun)
The irrational and unqualified notion that personal experience necessatily provides explanations for deeper realities.
Eg:
The Earth looks flat to me, therefore the Earth must be flat.”
