I am consciously aware of situation and can decide too about whether I should move my hand or not. There is always a fork when a decision is involved, so called options. I choose the branch which I wish. So the chance that laws of nature exactly dictates what I decide is 50% if there are only two options. People makes decisions at each instant. This makes the chance even lower. — bahman

For someone so offended by those who claim something is simply 'true' when it is, in fact, a belief. You seem remarkably certain that consciousness is a real thing and not, for example, an illusion, as neurologists like Bruce Hood believe.

Far from your overstated claim that materialism is impossible, all you're saying is that materialism is incompatible with a dualistic understanding of free-will. Well, no ever said it wasn't.

No.

You are trying to hard to make a case for determinism/materialism. Insignificant > 0. Electrons aren't even particles. — Rich

I mean the chance of finding an electron is bigger in a place that the wave function is bigger.

Now it's getting ridiculous. Zero support for this statement. But it's part for the course. If one is willing to make up a myth like Determinism why not call the Schrodinger equation deterministic. It's all an illusion anyway.

Nice talking to you. — Rich

Well, Schrodinger equation has two parts, left and right sides. On the left we simply have the derivative of wave function. On the right we have Hamiltonian which act as operator on wave function. Given wave function at specific moment we can know the right hand side. This means that left hand side is known. The left hand side is derivative of wave function which means that one can obtain the wave function in later time given the wave function in earlier time.

It seems to me that without a dieus ex machina argument, consciousness must have evolved from matter, that consciousness must be a potential state of matter as configured by nature in its evolution over the eons. Matter must contain within itself the configuration potential to become spiritual, as a potential state of its being. I don't think there is logical alternative...or else how does the spiritual arise in the universe. — Cavacava

The problem that I am trying to highlight in OP is exactly due to existence of material and consciousness.

For someone so offended by those who claim something is simply 'true' when it is, in fact, a belief. You seem remarkably certain that consciousness is a real thing and not, for example, an illusion, as neurologists like Bruce Hood believe. — Pseudonym

We know that decision and consciousness are real. My hand goes where I decide and I am aware of that.

Far from your overstated claim that materialism is impossible, all you're saying is that materialism is incompatible with a dualistic understanding of free-will. Well, no ever said it wasn't. — Pseudonym

No, I am saying that materialism is impossible if consciousness and free will are emergent properties within materialism.

We know that decision and consciousness are real. My hand goes where I decide and I am aware of that. — bahman

How do we 'know' this? When we see a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat it seems as if it has appeared from nowhere but that's definitely not the case. Just because it seems to us that we decide where our hand goes, doesn't mean we do.

Brain scans have consistently been able to identify the neural instructions to move a hand as much as ten seconds before the subject actually 'intends' to do so.

The monist argument is that free-will and consciousness are 'illlusions' that emerge from materialism, so your issue is simply that you hold to a dualist philosophy, and of course that is incompatible with materialism which is a monist philosophy.

How do we 'know' this? When we see a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat it seems as if it has appeared from nowhere but that's definitely not the case. Just because it seems to us that we decide where our hand goes, doesn't mean we do. — Pseudonym

That is the issue that I am stressing too. Have you ever observe that you decide that you move your hand somewhere and your hand moves elsewhere. Our bodies always follow our decision. This is an empirical evidence very similar to empirical evidence that scientists use.

Brain scans have consistently been able to identify the neural instructions to move a hand as much as ten seconds before the subject actually 'intends' to do so. — Pseudonym

I am aware of those studies. This however question the use of consciousness and conscious decision. Why should evolution grant consciousness if there is no use of it?

The monist argument is that free-will and consciousness are 'illlusions' that emerge from materialism, so your issue is simply that you hold to a dualist philosophy, and of course that is incompatible with materialism which is a monist philosophy. — Pseudonym

I can buy the claim that consciousness and free will are illusion. I am however puzzled by the fact that why there is such a great correlation between what we expect to happen and what happens.

I am however puzzled by the fact that why there is such a great correlation between what we expect to happen and what happens. — bahman

Its quite simple, our bodies do not follow our conscious decision. Our bodies follow the subconscious instruction, then we construct an illusion that we consciously instructed it. There's no mystery about the correlation. It correlates perfectly because the brain is making it up ten seconds after the event. It has all the benefit of hindsight to get the feeling exactly right.

Its quite simple, our bodies do not follow our conscious decision. Our bodies follow the subconscious instruction, then we construct an illusion that we consciously instructed it. There's no mystery about the correlation. It correlates perfectly because the brain is making it up ten seconds after the event. It has all the benefit of hindsight to get the feeling exactly right. — Pseudonym

Why should evolution grant consciousness if there is no use of it? This is subject of another thread that I am going to open.

The problem that I am trying to highlight in OP is exactly due to existence of material and consciousness.

K

Everything we experience we experience consciously. Man thinking a world independent of his thought is a performative contradiction. If man has a physical relationship with the world then the laws circumscribing that relationship ought to be logical, but it does not work that way because there is no reason to believe that the structure of thought mirrors the structure of reality,

Yet the laws we derive from the world are amazingly accurate and useful. I think man's relationship with the world is based on probabilities, and the laws that men abstract from the manifest, idealize what is experienced. Laws that can the formally manipulated and reapplied/utilized in the world. If it works then fine, if not then we revise, and reapply.

Transcendental realism looks at our pragmatic experiences including their history and their advances and it tries to determine what they must presuppose in order to be as we experience them. This is an epistemic move, and not an ontological one (the world as it is in itself is unknowable),TR thereby proposes to avoid the paradox (maybe).