It means “we” are superfluous. Why postulate an impotent entity?
Do you mean “we” as a species, or “we” as individuals with thoughts and desires?
If the former: Why not, if that’s what the evidence points to? Any personal desire to be uniquely important and special in the universe is nothing more than arrogance. Assumption based on desire is faulty logic.
And yes, we almost certainly
are superfluous, in cosmological terms. The universe would carry on just fine without us in it.
If the latter: Superfluous to whom? Not to our families and friends, who (hopefully!) love us for who we are. Not to ourselves who are able to live fulfilling lives under the illusion of free will. A lack of free will doesn’t lead to fatalism, despite what many objectors claim. Nor does it lead to humans being emotionless automatons.
Rationality consists of far more than logical consistency!
Perhaps - but that’s irrelevant to the comment I made. Which was that a computer can act consistently on its (name removed by moderator)uts and internal state without needing free will, so to suggest that humans would somehow turn into random number generators without free will is clearly nonsense.
Irrelevant personal remarks…
They’re not irrelevant, and they’re not personal. I was pointing out that your comment completely misrepresents, or misunderstands, the effect of a lack of free will. As I explained, a lack of free will does not result in incorrect conclusions, which is what you asserted.
An independent mind is a far more credible hypothesis than a mindless brain.
Why is it more credible? *I *grant it
seems more credible to us, as we’re the ones caught in an illusion. Free will seems real to us. We feel that we are in control of our decisions. The illusion makes the concept credible. Just as the illusion of the sun going around the earth made geocentricity credible for thousands of years. However, the
feeling that we have free will is not supported by current scientific knowledge and furthermore, objective experiments strongly indicate that free will does not exist.
Interaction exists in the fact of direction. The conductor of an orchestra has a powerful influence on the music that is played. The driver of a car determines whether we reach our destination or an untimely death…
Both of these examples are plausibly explained by the concept of a brain processing its (name removed by moderator)uts. And its outputs make become (name removed by moderator)uts for other brains.
**Purpose **is the factor missing in materialism.
Purpose is not a missing factor, unless you refer to an overarching purpose given to us by some supernatural entity. For that there is not one jot of evidence. It is a vanity of our species.
If by purpose you mean the result of a freely-taken decision, then yes, purpose is also an illusion. That doesn’t cause a problem for any of the science, but it might make individuals feel uncomfortable or despairing. That’s not a good reason to discard the evidence though. If it were, science would not be as successful as it has been.
There is no obvious reason why **physical **awareness of a decision should be instantaneous
Not sure what you’re saying here, but it seems to be that someone can make a decision and remain unaware of what that decision is for some time. And that other people, driving the experiment, are aware before the individual himself? Because that’s what the experiments show. How does that comport with free will? Or am I misunderstanding you?
but there are obvious reasons why a mindless brain is a self-destructive hypothesis. If it cannot think abstractly, let alone think for itself, it is restricted to biological events and lacks **insight **into anything - including itself.
I haven’t suggested a mindless brain, you’re attacking a straw man again. A lack of free will does not lead to mindlessness. The mind is what the brain does.
And yes, it’s a biological computer. Why would that preclude insight? Sorry, but this is why I think you haven’t troubled to familiarise yourself with the documentation on this subject.
