It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not particles are absolutely determined, and it is irrelevant to the existence of free will in sentient creatures. You persist in commingling two unrelated logical categories, that of physics and that of epistemology. Physics cannot and does not address non-material transcendentals, some of which you are fond of using: reason and logic and language come to mind. What you are doing is begging the question, by asserting ("asserting the premise", a logical error), asserting that consciousness and "will" arise from the material realm as epiphenomena. Since that is what you need to prove in order to move the Determinist Religion out of the realm of mystical belief, you hardly get to treat this assumption as fact. And you'll have to construct a truth-test for your assumption. I don't think you will be able to think of a test, because physics is in a different logical category from epistemology. We can discuss particles all you want. But if you'll notice, physics books don't have chapters on epistemology and philosophy, whereas philosophy books do have chapters on Determinism. That should be your first clue.
>>Of course, that isn't a good analogy, [beards and minds], as it is only a word game.
The argument of the beard is found in ALL textbooks on logic, it is an ancient example and hardly "only a word game.". You were trying to get me to tell you how many neurons are required to generate "will", and so I pointed out that you want to play the argument of the beard: if I can't tell you how many neurons makes up "will", then "will" doesn't exist. If I can't tell you how many hairs make up a "beard", then "beards" don't exist. It doesn't matter that minds and beards are different; it is the underlying logic of your argument that I was bringing into question. |
