If I unintentionally saved a person's life, say by accidentally bumping into them, then I shouldn't be praised for it. — Samuel Lacrampe

Absence of free will does not equal absence of intentions, so again, I have to disagree.

Are we assuming everything reduces to electron/quark interactions? — JupiterJess

Yes.

Why would it be impossible to speak about consciousness if it were an epiphenomena?

Seems fair so far, but what then is the role of consciousness? Couldn't all of this be done without conciousness? Or would it be impossible?

Is your view that there is something immaterial about consciousness?

Or that there is at least something about it that does not follow the classical laws of mechanics?

Sorry for any confusion; English is not my first language.

The laws I am talking about are the laws that determine the motion of bodies in the universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

I think that the laws of nature have been pretty well defined.

And I don't think I'm ready to dispense with them without some sort of alternative.

Do you have an alternative view to how the world is being run, or are you just "anti science"?

I think the argument is that the brain recieves information from the outside world, but both the brain and the outside world is deterministic.

But, your argument, is then simply: there is no such thing as deterministic laws of nature?

You believe that the choice has a deeper origin? In the will? What, then, controls the "will"?

On the contrary, a determined universe seems really terrifying, which is why I am trying to look for a strong counter argument ^^

But how do you address Laplace's notion - that if you knew the facts about every atom you could predict the future of the universe.

Even if you introduce chaos and uncertainty as an obstacle to this prediction, is there really any room for a "free choice" in chaos and uncertainty?

Sure, but wouldn't that imply that we have no basis for knowing anything about free choices? A sort of kantian "thing in itself"? And what is the difference then between the concept of free will and dogma?

outcomes are always unknown. — Rich

So how do you respond to scientists who have carried out studies where they are able to predict the choices of people, before they have "made the choice"?

I don't see why free will is necessarily connected to praise / blame. Mostly, the purpose of praise and blame is to negatively/positively reinforce certain behavior, right? We often give praise and blame to our pets, but as you mentioned, they probably don't have free will.

Evolutionary theory does indeed answer the question of why things act as they do.

I was not looking for an evolutionary answer per se, I was looking for the reason behind the sense of spiritual beauty, or awe. But if you say that it is culturally constructed, then that is a fine answer :)

Natural selection may not have a purpose but it certainly has reasons.

Every human that I know of is able to experience this kind of beauty, so I am wondering why it has been selected for.

As it is a positive sensation, arising at particular moments, that the body seems to have a reason for delivering, why would it not make sense to look for the evolutionary reasons?

No, but it is still a "good" feeling :)

And that's why I asked about tragedy - I wonder what the reason might be for getting a "good" feeling from something tragic.

The feeling is certainly "awe inspiring", but awe before what? And why?

Serenity. Awe. Wonder. Harmony. Joy. Humility. Delight. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I actually think I would describe those experiences as pleasing.

I completely agree :D But I am trying to understand the origin of a specific behavior, so it makes sense to ask why it developed in the first place.

I know, I can't find an evolutionary reason for developing a sense of beauty before tragedy, but logically, shouldn't there be an evolutionary answer for all of our behavior?

Maybe it has something to do with compassion?

On the metaphor, then: maybe someone can elaborate on how Nietzsche uses the metaphor of women? :)

Ah, well I happen to be a fan of his poetry, so I guess that's why I'm interested in discussing the quote ^^