What we must accept if we accept evolution

Only if the laws of physics are deterministic, which they don't appear to be. From all appearances there's more than enough room in the universe for chance.Furthermore - if all we have is the appearance of choice, and there's no way for us to distinguish that from "real" choice, whatever that is, what's the difference?

How is it free in your model? Under your system, we make choices according to the aspect of our will, or the machinations of a soul, or whatever. How is that any more free than random electric potentials in the brain?Reasonable people make reasonable choices. Even unreasonable choices are made because, at the time in that situtation, the chooser thought that was the best, for whatever reason. It stands to reason that, were a person in that exact situation again, knowing only what they knew then, they'd make the same choice. So how are any of us truly free under your concepts of freedom? No, just that the laws themselves aren't deterministic. They're statistical. They describe the universe not in terms of this being definately here or that there, but in terms of probability that such a thing will happen, or won't. "Us" is the physical. How could we be independant from ourselves?

This seems like a game of moving goalposts. Any time that something we consider mental is found to have a physical basis in the brain, you're free to simply redefine "mind" in such a way that the function in question isn't part of it.We know where speech and self-awareness are the brain, where memory is, where decision-making occurs. If those things aren't the province of the "mind" then the mind has no relevant function; it's not needed to explain human consciousness.

I've already shown you that this isn't the case. In a non-deterministic universe your choices, by definition, cannot be predetermined because time is not symmetrical or repeatable. Rewind time and let it play again and something different happens. (Probably.) It's the consequence of a quantum universe. So, you'd rather retreat to ignorance than face reality. Well, I can't argue with that. I wish you had warned me before, though, that you weren't going to approach a rational discussion rationally, and that you were going to discount any reasoning that didn't take you exactly where you wanted to go.Would have wasted a lot less of my time. Well, I take that back. It honestly didn't take very long to poke holes in your sophmore philosophy class. There's no difference between the matter in the universe and the laws that govern its behavior. The laws are the universe. The laws are the matter.

But what does that mean? For almost every choice, the choice is actually pretty simple. There's always at least one choice that you simply wouldn't ever choose, either out of moral concerns, or practical, or the like.You haven't actually proved that choice is possible in the first place. Either our choices are determined by the states of our brains, or by the states of our souls. I don't really see what the difference is. You draw some kind of distinction between the brain and the self - you suggest that anything the brain does is seperate from what "I'm" doing - but you don't draw the same distinction for the "soul", whatever that is, even though the brain is just as much "me" as a soul would be. Well, in fact, the existence of choice is not universally assumed; the original developers of determinism, or another way to describe that would be "predestination", were religions.Whether or not we actually have a soul, in fact, speaks almost nothing to the question of choice. Just because we have souls doesn't make our wills any more free, if the actions of those souls was determined all along. In that case there's no real difference between having our decisions determined by rational, physical brains and having our decisions forordained by God, except that the first is much more likely to "feel" free. Since that's what it is, what other conclusion would it come to?

Actually a rather small lizard, but whatever. Oh, I think it's absolutely clear why some people get so worked up about it; their personal ego is so expansive that they simply cannot countenance the idea that their species doesn't have a magnificent supernatural origin that places the entire universe at their disposal.

Your concept, maybe.It doesn't do anything to my concept.

Then wny do we think in words in our own language?It seems to me that language and thought develop together; language allows for high-level symbolic thought. Evidence for this would be that humans who (terribly) develop absent language also aren't capable of the high-level symbolic thought that typefies being human.

Hardly. I'm simply intelligent enough to recognize the difference between the significance some things or some people have to me, personally, and the significance those things or people have to everybody else, or the universe.

You seem to think that I'm going to have some kind of problem with the idea that the vast majority of human beings do things and hold beliefs that have a tenuous rational basis, or none at all.I would offer that the history of humanity makes it very hard indeed to argue that the majority of humans are rational at anything.You seem to think I'm going to have some problem putting forth my position as humble when I'm essentially saying I'm smarter than most people. And it's true. Put me in a room with 100 random people and odds are I do better on tests and stuff than all but 1 or 2 of them. But you tell me which is the greater ego - the conclusion that one has an IQ of 135 or so, which isn't that high but puts me in the 98th percentile at least*, and that I have the statistics and assessments to prove; or the guy who believes that the entire universe has been bequeathed to him as his playground, by a cosmic eternal entity with powers beyond imagining who could do or create anything, but seems to content himself with monitoring the minutae of what he eats, says, and who he has sex with?As infinite as you theists are always assert your God is, and as magnificent as the universe is, you tell me about the degree of conceit involved in asserting that it all exists for you.*(Just to clarify, this is probably true compared to 100 random human beings, or even 100 random westerners, but amongst this august company I doubt I'm even in the upper half.)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-28-2006 09:58 PM

I don't understand why this is so personal for you. Can you explain why you're completely unable to approach this discussion with any detachment?