[lfuller]

The burden of proof is on you to show it is in fact supernatural. Were it not, literally anything could be claimed as truth.

At this point in time, the overwhelming majority of evidence indicates that consciousness is deterministic. If you disagree, you'll need to provide concrete proof to the contrary.

[theorytheater]

  At this point in time, the overwhelming majority of 
  evidence indicates that consciousness is deterministic.

The burden of proof for the proving the lack free will would have a prerequisite of knowing all aspects of physics and universal forces, which would allow accurate predictions of the future from any given point in time.

Regardless if we're a brain in vat, can we not enjoy the ride?

[loki49152]

The alternative to "deterministic" is not "supernatural". This is a false alternative that leaves out all of the other possibilities, including the option that "deterministic" is not an accurate description of causality in the first place.

[ythl]

> The burden of proof is on you to show it is in fact supernatural.

I'm not claiming it is supernatural. I'm only challenging the definitive statement that it is not supernatural and asking for proof.

[gpderetta]

Are you stepping into invisible pink unicorn territory?

[ythl]

Let me put it this way:

Consciousness is definitely not deterministic.

[gpderetta]

It could go either way, but so far the biology and neuroscience point to quantum indeterminism effects having little to no role in the brain.

Still I do not see how indeterminism would actually enable free will. Would an automa without free will acquire it if a higher counter was added to its brain?