Epigraph
“Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny.”
― Lao Tzu
By Zia H Shah
I believe free will research by psychiatrists and neurologist has enough data to present as a defeater for physicalism that only reality is physical, matter and energy as the physicist know it.
More broadly the study of consciousness will also join forces with free will to the same goal that metaphysical materialism or physicalism is wrong.
With these ideas I want to collect relevant article and videos here and over time will find tune the presentation.
…
The philosopher that he is referring to Alfred North Whitehead and one of his books is available in audio form in Youtube:
…
…
In the above video Denis Noble also lays foundation for guided evolution also.
Additional reading
Gathering Philosophers and Scientists Who Believe in Free Will
Presenting a Psychiatrist and a Writer in a Muslim Paradigm to Understand Meditation
Rewiring the Brain to Treat OCD and Its Impact on Free Will
Is Human Consciousness Putting God the Creator Back in the Game
How a Single True Revelation Defeats Materialism or Physicalism
Can AI be Conscious: A Billion Dollar Question?
Free Will: It’s the Best Proof for Providence of God
Archives
Categories: Consciousness, Evolution, Freewill, Religion & Science
If we deny free will it has huge consequences as we see in the above video
How do philosophers and scientist defend free will?
(Some) Philosophers defend free-will by giving arguments. Typically, these are arguments against some other argument that claims that we don’t have free-will. The dialectic tends to proceed in this way because our everyday experience seems to suggest that we do in fact have free-will. Free-will is kind of the pre-philosophical position. The standard argument against free-will that needs to be refuted looks something like the below (informally stated. It would need a bit of tweaking but it’s easy to make it valid):
1. If determinism is true, then all future actions are entailed by the conjunction of the laws of nature and the prior state of the world
2. Determinism is true
3. Free action requires you to be able to do otherwise, than what you actually do
4. One cannot change the laws of nature, or the prior state of the world (since nobody can change the past)
5. Therefore, action P that occurs could not fail to occur
6. Therefore, S could not have done otherwise than P
7. Therefore, S could not have freely done P
Generalise for all actions P’
There are two general sorts responses to that determinist argument:
The libertarian response (note: this is nothing to do with libertarian politics), which denies premise 2.
The compatibilist response, which denies premise 3, or tried to interpret “could do otherwise” in a way that is compatible with determinism. The details of the response vary depending on the precise compatibilist account being offered
For good introductions to the debate, you could do a lot worse than read:
Robert Kane, Free Will
Gary Watson (Ed), Free Will
Both books are suitable for an educated layperson with no formal study of philosophy.