Just to say, it's not good enough that you allow people to talk in terms of alternatives, without retribution for being unevidenced according to the scientific method. If you don't love knowledge about freedom, you're a bigoted hater of knowledge altogether. And I don't see any love of that knowledge among Darwinists.
So, how much knowledge have you destroyed today scientist? Just look at your friends in the other threads, distorting, denying and oppressing knowledge of free behaviour. You wanted evidence of destruction, you got it.
When they do a wrong, it's philosphical fogtime for knowledge of free behaviour, and does it all exist really?; and when they do a right, then it's; oh yes of course there is free behaviour, can't live without the knowledge. The attitudes presented in relation to the relentless pressures of conscience dictate that they would behave so.
You could just read it in the news one day, it's a possibility as far as we know because of global warming. So then what good did the scientific revolution bring, besides the total destruction of the earth?
Seeing that there are many big moral responsibilities going on in the world, one would always want to be on the safe-side of ethics. Now is denying, oppressing, and destroying knowledge about free behaviour, being on the safe side of things?
Folks, we already have knowledge about free behaviour, lots and lots of it. There is little need to go philosophizing inventing knowledge about free behaviour. Just do exegesis on books, newspapers, movies etc. in general where they talks about choosing, deciding, purpose and all that. That's our knowledge of free behaviour, as it is. Then you might do something useful in figuring out general patterns in our knowledge of free behaviour. See the main underlying assumptions in the knowledge. Such as;
- consciousness, emotions, etc. can only be manifest at a point of choice between alternatives.
That is what we propose to know already by the way we talk about those things, according to my exegesis. It's good knowledge we have, now only to emancipate this knowledge from scientific oppression.
I don't buy it anymore that people are so stupid to be mislead by Dawkins "God delusion", and all the things he wrote against knowledge of free behaviour. Dawkins is much innocent, just an eccentric nutcase who can hardly do different. The evil is of the masses of readers of the book who actually know better then Dawkins how important knowledge of free behaviour is, but who willingly choose to believe some kind of sci-fi fantasy of mechanistic selfish genes and memes over the truth of creation.
As explained in post 1 of the thread, objective knowledge about conscioussness is in terms of randomness, while subjective knowledge of consciousness comes from experience, from the spiritual act of choosing.
Do this experiment, pick an object, any object, and look at it. Now when you're looking at the object your mind will basicly go as follows:
- a coin flips in your mind on the one side of the coin it says, "there is this object", on the other side it says "there is no object"
So looking at this object you will repeatedly have a surprise kind of feeling that the object is actually there. But at other times, completely illogically, you can't actually see the object because the coin flips to "there is no object". The harder one concentrates on looking at the object the closer one gets to a 50/50 split between the object being there and not there. That is because the harder one concentrates, the closer one gets to choosing, in stead of relying on much automated logic, reason etc. So if you concentrate hard and long enough on an object, any object, that object will start to disappear from your vision half the time.
Of course there are ways of concentrating that makes the thing not dissappear, but a blunt effort at concentration like this on an object for no particular reason, will have the described effect of making the object disappear from vision.
And that proves that consciousness is essentially about choosing alternatives.