Michel Jullian wrote:
Sensible contribution Stephen, but you must admit it's not reassuring to think of oneself as the
result of a number of dice throws. If you go down that slope, the next thing you lose is your own free will isn't it?
We are getting 'way off topic.
One problem with "free will" is that it's very hard to define. If we
admit up front that we're not entirely sure what it means, then we can
stumble on to recognize a few things about "mind" and "will" and "soul".
First, as far as I can tell, nobody has a clue what "consciousness" is,
despite the large number of arguments on the subject. Among other
things, we don't even know whether the reason we're "conscious" is
material or otherwise. This would seem to have a major bearing on the
issue of "free will"; the two issues seem inextricably linked.
Second, discussion of evolution and related issues deals solely with the
/organic/ aspects of life; it doesn't touch on "consciousness". Memory,
yeah, that's organic, and emotion seems to be rooted in organic
processes as well, but there's a ghost in the machine which isn't
accounted for by today's science; I know it whenever I look out of my eyes.
Of course, as I'm sure you're aware there's no disproof for solipsism,
and what's more, while you can determine by simple introspection whether
you yourself are "conscious" (ill-defined as the term may be), you can't
determine by any means whether anyone else is conscious, and science
today not only can't define it or explain it but also can't detect it.
So, scientists are no help in determining who's conscious and who
isn't. Consider the following little "quiz", given here with my
suggested answers (with which you may disagree, of course):
Are you conscious? Presumably.
Is your dog conscious? I'd guess so.
Is a goldfish conscious? Uh... I think so.
Is an ant conscious? Hmmm.
Is a paramecium conscious?
Is a dandelion conscious? Almost assuredly not.
Is a rock conscious? No, of course not.
Now go back and prove your answers true or false. (Whoops, you can't.)
It's worth mentioning in passing that anthropologists love to confuse
the term "conscious" with the term "self-aware" and then babble about
how only great apes seem to recognize themselves in a mirror so nothing
lower than the apes is "self-aware", and then act like they've proven
something about consciousness. IMHO experiments with mirrors and
lipstick show nothing except how quick on the uptake animals are as
regards mirrors and lipstick.
So, to sum up, yes, there's a slippery slope there, but at the bottom of
the slope lies the quagmire of Total Confusion rather than Nihilism --
or at least, it does if you slide down the slope with your mind open to
the assertion that today's science doesn't know everything.
