By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Teeqoz on 24 June 2016
Edit Thread
Nuvendil said:
Teeqoz said:

There being two options and you ending up on one of them doesn't mean you actually chose the one you ended up on.

 

You say there is a conflict between two wills/needs. You are hungry but you want to lose weight. Okay. But think about what those two needs/wills actually are; neurons and electrical signals and chemicals in two different systems. Whichever one wins is just the systems that is dominant there and then. Do you think you actually choose which system of neurons, chemicals and electrical signals ends up being dominant?

Well the issue question at the heart of all this is the existence or non-existence of the nonphysical side of reality.  Something that can't be examined externally.  We can't step outside of reality to examine it.  We do have what appears to be a sense of such an existence on some level, that we can feel effects beyond our usual physical instinctive stimuli but you have to choose to believe that sense.  In that case the physical aspects we examine in our brains are part of a set of systems, a two part relationship.  

 

And we also live according to that which makes sense.  As I already said, debate, science, reason, all that is nonsense without free will.  You asking about free will and trying to understand that is nonsense.  The search for understanding is nonsense.  It is all nonsense because reasoning of all kinds is predicated on free will.

I'm not sure what you mean by "we do appear to have such an existence on some level". How does it appear that we have an existence in a non-physical reality in any way at all?

We live according to what? Free will? Us thinking we have free will doesn't mean we have it. Debate, science and reason isn't nonsense without free will. Why would it be? You stated in your previous comment that we have two options which we explore, and based on evidence and facts, we choose the right one. We don't though. You don't "choose" what is correct in science. You discover. Free will isn't a necessity for science not to be nonsense (whatever you mean by nonsense.)