TAKE THE TEST!!! ARE YOU LOGICALLY CONSISTENT????

There is a common problem with modern intellectualism and layman thinking: logical disconnection. Most individuals tend to postulate x----then go on to postulate y—yet logical consistency demands that x and y not contradict each other (they must conceptually and/or empirically co-exist or be capable of co-existence). Too often, however, one states x—with x later contradicted by y–usually held due to an emotional prejudice toward a belief.

For an example, consider the following postulates and discern a break in logical continuity:

(1) Consciousness depends for it’s very existence and maintenance upon the activity of a physical object–the brain.

(2) Human will and choice is an aspect of consciousness.

(3) If the neural circuit and function responsible for a certain choice does not fire, or fires in a different way (given all action potentials are alike, thus “a different way” for a circuit to fire requires a different area to fire rather than the relevant circuit responsible for a given choice)—one cannot choice or decide a certain choice or decision.

(4) Free will exists.

[Free will being defined as an amalgamation of Frederick Hayek’s and Norman Swartz’ definitions of free will—as will that is not “forced” by an external agency or cause, and does not depend upon an external cause for it’s existence: in this sense, acausal will is “will” that is believed to epiphenomenally pop into experience independent of a necessity for a previously operating neural function of the brain.]

Out of the postulates of (1) thru (4) above—where might one find the logical contradiction?

For believers in free will, there is no contradiction. However, if one understands the implications of (1)-(3) (if the implications are true)—then (4) becomes a matter for logical disconnection.

Unless one believes that “will” magically pops into existence independent of the necessity for biochemical electrical flow through a particular area of the cerebrum to give rise to it’s existence, then a belief—[that there must exist a dependency for the existence of consciousness through electrical conductivity through a physical object (the brain)]—logically denies the existence of free will as defined disambiguously (following Hayek and Swartz) above.

What are your CORE beliefs? Feel free to outline your core beliefs concerning the world and how it operates—then test each one to see if one contradicts the other(!)

Jay M. Brewer

blog.myspace.com/superchristianity

(An easy-to-read comic book detailing what was going on within the mind of Jesus Christ while dying upon the cross! You’ll NEVER feel the same after reading this stuff!!)

What if freedom is present in every neuron on the quantum level? Alternatively, what if the brain is just a receiver for universal mind which flows through the universe in a way analogous to a radio wave?

Interesting.

But what do you mean by “freedom” in this sense? Is it a form of energy?

The typical argument for “anti-freewill” philosophy (which I propose, as a skeptic of the existence of free will and a supporter of theonomous reductionism*) is that that aspect of consciousness that manifests as “will”, “intent”, or “choice”----independent of the matter of the fact that the environment and our physical capabilities and incapabilities influence the nature of all rational choices----is that human will, like consciousness, is causally dependent upon something external to itself in order for it to exist.

If it is believed that the brain is the sole arbiter of our experiences, and that no subjective experience can exist independent of a physical structure and function believed to enable it to come into being, then all of our choices, intentions, and decisions must have a neural basis. Electrons must flow through neural circuit x before an individual can, say, choose to go to the grocery store.

If that circuit fails to fire, the individual cannot make that particular choice.

This is causal determinism, or the view that human will (and everything else) is actually supported “beneath the stage or behind the curtain” by a “puppetmaster” of some sort. Within secular or atheistic reasoning, the “puppetmaster” is the cerebrum of the human brain (in terms of absence of free human will due to the fact of neural despotism, as proposed by Frederick Hayek in Gary T. Demsey’s: Evolutionary Neurobiology, Artificial Intelligence, And the Question of Free Will—who also “pooh-poohs” the existence of free will).

As for “freedom” existing at the quantum level, one might be forced to deny causal dependency, and claim that certain aspects of consciousness can exist without depending upon an entity that previously exists before and is responsible for it’s appearance. The question is begged, in terms of the existence of “will”, that if this is true why it is that “will” should be so exempt from the control of physical process.

Just a thought,

Jay M. Brewer
superchristianity.com (A hypothesis of what was going on within the mind of Jesus Christ while dying upon the cross, and how this is analogous to the experiences of Dr. Sam Beckett [Scott Bakula] in the 90’s sci-fi series: Quantum Leap)

[*Theonomous Reductionism is the view that the Judeo-Christian God controls human will and action like a puppetmaster or a cartoonist who determines the actions, words, and thoughts of his or her “characters” in a cartoon strip. The prevailing view of theonomous reductionism in the hypothesis of Superchristianity is that God is re-enacting a revision of the contents of his omniscient mind)