right, about 3/4 of the interviewees in the article fit into that category. I'm on the free will side, but don't see how the question can be resolved logically. As to the experimental evidence, some recent experiments mentioned in New Scientist test behavior on the basis of what they believe to be true. The results emphatically demonstrate that (regardless of the actual truth of the matter); what people believe to be true makes an difference and can be experimentally measured. ... The article mentions Zen and a "no self" assumption; but I don't see how that helps in supporting determinism; since the question relates to the broadest interpretation of "material". imo that word should be replaced with "anything relative" or relative aspect of Brahman; then continue with the inquiry inclusive of the higher dimensions and deep emotions, as well as ESP. ... But again, I don't see how including mind-stuff helps the free-will argument; since somebody could say that thoughts and emotions are in the same category wrt the determinism/free will question as ordinary dense physical matter. (although the "materialist" group would posit brain/matter as the cause of mind/emotions). A proof for the existence of ESP might discredit the Harris arguments as to the importance of neurophysiology; as might phenomena such as NDE's. ... In any event, should free will be an illusion, a contrary belief is associated with measurable certain behavior differing from the behavior of determinist "believers". http://www.surrealistic-art.ch/art/confrontation1.jpg
--- In [email protected], "shanti2218411" <kc21d@...> wrote: > > The majority of people discussing the free will issue are > materialists.This would include the majority of people quoted in the New York > Times article.Their assumption is that everything that exists can be > explained completely in terms of physical matter and the laws that govern > physical matter.Consequently the mind does not actually exist any more than a > mirage does.All statements regarding mental events are purely human > inventions having nothing to do with reality e.g "i love you" has no > fundamental basis in reality(you will never actually see "love" observing the > brain function).Materialists as a rule do not accept any evidence that there > position is wrong.An example of that is how ESP research as been treated in > most academic institutions.One problem with materialism is that there is > anything but universal agreement on what matter IS. > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/science/05askscience.html > > >
