In truth you did use delusion to describe human experiences, but I am not going to waste my time looking up the exact comments. It is not important.
Another falsehood Ron.
But you are right you would be wasting your time.
Roncooper wrote: All I can say is so what. How does this preclude my freedom to choose? I can think about real life problems and choose a course of action. I might make a good choice or a bad choice, but I choose.
We are discussing the nature of reality, not recounting the perceptions of what we think goes on in our conscious mind.
Roncooper wrote:The one for free will is from Kant. It states that the intellect is free because it is not limited by what is, but can think about what ought to be. This is a compelling argument
Can your mind think about what ought to be independently of the biochemistry that goes on to form your opinions.
Roncooper wrote:The first one against free will is based on energy and the laws that explain how it works. This argument fails because we consume energy when we think. Decisions burn calories.
Actually the energy gets moved around and "diluted".
Roncooper wrote:The second argument against free will is based on cause and effect. I can make a reasoned choice or an emotional choice. I can make a random choice or an arbitrary choice. I can choose for the fun of it, and somehow, magically, my choices are inevitable.
I am not claiming that choices are predetermined. Just that they are a result of cause and effect.
Your reasoned or emotional choice are both a result of biochemistry are they not?
I don't think you could make a random choice realistically. The human mind is poor at doing random.
Test yourself here ...
http://faculty.rhodes.edu/wetzel/random ... ml#imagine
Roncooper wrote:I can choose to set the cruise control at 56 mph or 57 mph and somehow I am compelled to make that choice. I don't buy it. Explain how the universe forces me to choose 57 over 56?
Forces? The universe is just unfolding.
Explain to me how you choose without using biochemistry.
Roncooper wrote:Before there can be a science based argument against free will based on cause and effect there would have to be a conservation law for cause and effect and there isn't one. The intellect can choose between outcomes without violating any known laws of physics.
Yes you keep saying this, but then for this to be true, differences in energy and overcoming activation energies would have to seen as not being causes.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"