A
We know what the consequences of naturalism is and we can certainly determine whether or not it is consistent with what we do know about the human experience.We don’t know enough of how the brain works yet to know the answer!
I am a scientist – a biochemist – and I know the laws of nature. As I point out, in the physical world there are only either determinism or quantum probability. Neither allows for free will under naturalism.You are making some assumptions in there. Just because the emergence of intelligence is still not fully understood, I think it’s a bit too early in the science to say…[…]
I’m not educated enough in philosophy or neuroscience to respond to what could or could not happen in a natural process and I really don’t think you are either?
Only if by no free will you assume that we are automatons. That we simply robotically repsond to stimuli. No more than a flower turning towards the sun. But even if there is no free will we can still make decisions. It’s just that if the exact conditions were repeated, we’d make exactly the same decisions.If we do not have free will, as under naturalism we do not, my conclusion logically follows, which is that under naturalism the assertion “Naturalism is true” is incoherent and self-contradictory. I have explained above the reasons why.
Thus, the conclusion of my argument still stands.If someone was omniscient (feel free to nominate someone at this point) then they’d know the infinite number of factors that would lead us to make any specific decision, they would know what you would decide and you’d then conclude there was no free will.
Your conclusion seems to be that if there is no free will then that proves that there is.Even if your decisions are not by automaton, they are not free under naturalism. You admit as much:
Freddy:![]()
Thus, the conclusion of my argument still stands.If someone was omniscient (feel free to nominate someone at this point) then they’d know the infinite number of factors that would lead us to make any specific decision, they would know what you would decide and you’d then conclude there was no free will.
How do you arrive at that?Your conclusion seems to be that if there is no free will then that proves that there is.
"If we do not have free will, as under naturalism we do not, my conclusion logically follows, which is that under naturalism the assertion “Naturalism is true” is incoherent and self-contradictory. "Freddy:![]()
How do you arrive at that?Your conclusion seems to be that if there is no free will then that proves that there is.
Colour me bemused indeed.
Maybe you should re-read my argument.
i don’t think that physical processes have to be deterministic. The classical models we have for the forces of nature are deterministic. However, my guess is that these deterministic models do explain a whole lot of what is going on, but not everything.Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts).