I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
Until consciousness is better defined I am still open minded to it not being a slave to the subconscious.
It's an epiphenomenon of the brain. Even what comes through the eyes and ears goes through the brain before you're aware of it.
If it isn't subject to the control of the subconscious, then it must be spirit, right? What else could it be?
If you believe in spirit, then you are religious in some sense of the word. Believing in spirit is probably the only thing common to all religions.
Are you suggesting that something controls the body?
Are you suggesting nothing does?
The operative word is "control."
How about coming out with some declarative statements. I don't want to indulge you in a guessing game.
We've talked about the need to define terms earlier. Contrast the concept of "influence" with the concept of "control". I accept direct observation as a form of proof. How about you? Can you get closer to a concept of proof? There are some basic words that are very difficult to define and agree upon. These words include the personal pronouns, the word "understand" and the word "know." They are surrounded by controversy, yet we use them as if we understand what the other means.
RE: "A rainbow doesn't really exist in space, though it appears to."
The water droplets that refract the light exists in space, as does the refracted light.
True, but irrelevant. The rainbow looks different from different angles and appears to be in different places. The refraction you see from where you stand takes place in different places in the mist cloud for different observers in different locations.
The rainbow exists in your eye and mind as a multicolored arc. There really is no multicolored arc out there where the rainbow appears to be. You never see rainbows from the side as would be the case if a rainbow existed as a physical object in space.
Also, any other object, be it a horse or a table or a building, you can walk around and see it from the side or back. You'll only ever see a rainbow (other than in something like a photo or other graphic reproduction) with your back to the sun. A rainbow isn't an object in the same sense as most other objects.
I assume that Penrose's reasoning is similar, but it still made me wonder. Would random chance in decision making actually make free will seem more likely?
My problem (and @unseen's probably ahead of me) is in how the hell do we define free will? I'm thinking now that, since it has always seemed and felt like I have free will, then perhaps I have never defined it properly to start with. I.e., it feels like I am making instant decisions, without coercion, or at least without outside coercion.
Perhaps more importantly, I'm sure I want my unconscious to help me make decisions. I often have a feeling about things before making a decision, even if it seems like a sudden revelation when I suddenly realize the decision I "need" to make.
What if it only took a microsecond of pre-thought for the brain to come to a quick decision, and what if all those pre-decision-making neurocircuits were doing the same thing that takes seconds now, but only faster? Would that somehow make the whole process seem more acceptable?
I have no answers to these questions yet. Hey, guess what... I need to think about it more, or maybe even sleep on it!