hottest backseat bangers backseatbangers…

To Lory Jean-Baptiste & LBBP et.al. regarding freewill…

I’ve just come across a book written by Daniel C. Dennett called “Freedom Evolves”, in which he explains freewill. I’ve just started reading it , and so far so good. (He’s ‘pro-freewill’ and he’s an atheist)

I have that book. I started it early last year, but then school intervened and I never finished it. I thought it was pretty good, but I’m not sure whether I like his argument (as I understood it from the brief bit I wrote). I need to read it more thoroughly before deciding- it was certainly an interesting idea. It seemed like a possible solution to the problem of free will that does not abandon determinism or turn to superstition.

From what I remember, Dennett was arguing that since more complex organisms have more options, they have more free will than less complex organisms. So I have more free will than an amobea, even though my choices are ultimately deterministic. I don’t want to try and describe it further, for fear of my incomplete memory and understanding of the book causing me to mangle his argument.

Our discussions here have inspired me to go take another stab at it… maybe when I get home.

I’ve just come across a book written by Daniel C. Dennett called “Freedom Evolves”, in which he explains freewill. I’ve just started reading it , and so far so good. (He’s ‘pro-freewill’ and he’s an atheist)

While understanding the physical world is realm of science consciousness and free will are beyond the realm science.

The scientist is first and foremost a conscious being of intention. He makes his observations through the mystery of consciousness and he chooses to accept theories through the mystery of free will. However, he can not explain conscious using the objects of consciousness. I repeat, you can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness. And you cannot explain free will without invalidating it.

In short, the scientist can explain his world through science but he can never explain himself.

What basis do you have for saying this? “you can never explain consciousness in terms of objects of consciousness.” What does that even mean? Objects of consciousness? Sounds like vacuous psychobabble to me. Just stating that consciousness and free will are beyond the realm of science does not make it so. You may not be able to comprehend how it is possible to understand the mind and consciousness in an objective, empirical fashion, but that does not preclude others from gaining this understanding. Arguments from ignorance will get you nowhere. Granted, we may not know everything yet, but we have discovered a great deal in the past few centuries and there is a great deal more that we are beginning to unravel regarding the nature of the human mind. It’s really very exciting if you ask me.

The scientific examination of consciousness has in fact been a serious field of study for quite some time. Psychology? Neuroscience? Here’s one field I bet you haven’t heard of, cognitive science. It draws together disciplines as varied as psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, artificial intelligence, anthropology and biology to explain how the mind, intelligence and consciousness can arise out of a complex organ such as the human brain. Indeed, there is a vast amount of important research happening in this field, as well as many others, and we are learning more every day.

I am not about to explain it all in the comments section of a blog, so I suggest you check it out for yourself. Wikipedia is probably a good starting point, as it has a ton of information on this stuff, see: cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology, behavioral neuroscience, neurobiology, and psychometrics. This Wikibook on consciousness is also particularily helpful in understanding these fields, I recommend that you check it out as well: Consciousness studies

LBBP on May 24th, 2006 at 11:40 pm said:
I’m sorry if your life means so little to you that you have to devot it to an imaginary friend in the sky. Personaly, I think life itself is meaning enough. I mean, life is pretty fucking amazing don’t you think? I don’t need belief in “God” to diminish it. The search for knowledge and beauty provides purpose, and life itself provides meaning. What else should I need? When I die, yes it’s over. That makes me embrace the life that I have now, and makes it more meaningful, not less.

How right you are…. it baffles me that so many would dismiss the incredible complexity of this world, the diversity of life on this planet, human existence itself and the search for knowledge and beauty in science and art as meaningless and not worth understanding or appreciating without the existence of their imaginary friend.

“If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.” - Albert Camus