Free will and determinism

[Hans Blaster]

Then why are you defending philosophical positions, rather than expressing an agnosticism towards them? If you're simply pragmatic about it all, and don't have an assumed ontology and uncritically adopted epistemology then how can you even begin to decide whether or not what you are investigating "works"?

Compare to data.

 

[Fervent]

OK, whatever. Doesn't matter.

And this is why I try to avoid talking about this stuff. The moment some of you guys realize I am a "naturalist" of some kind the focus changes to me and my "worldview". Whatever point I was trying to make just goes out the window. I really hate that. I have the same problem with people who reply "You just say that because you are an atheist". The truth is that it is almost never the case.

I have no issue with naturalism, in fact I consider myself a naturalist of sorts. Where the issue crops up, is you hold to ontological positions that intersect with the discussion we're having and refuse to engage with the issue that is truly at the core of it all.

I used to think that, but I am no longer bothered by it. Of the three "hard problems" of naturalism, the nature of consciousness seemed the least explicable. (the others are the origin of the universe and of life) I accepted some sort of mind-body dualism until well after I stopped believing in the existence of a god. Then I learned from people who knew the specific areas far better than I about the plausibility of brain-derived mind (and the near impossibility of a "mind-force"). That was enough for me. I just moved on. No point wasting time working out some sort of "ontology" about it. Not my area.

Not a conversation I am interested in, in the slightest.

I'm not interested in getting at ontologies either, though the question of ontology is inseparable from the question of consciousness especially if we assume some form of materialism. Which is why I tried to keep the discussion on the epistemics of it, because materialism undermines reasoning of any sort unless the laws of the universe are the product of rational agency in some way. If they are just arbitrary, undirected, mechanical laws, then your conclusions are ultimately simply the result of arbitrary, undirected, mechanical laws and therefore untrustworthy. So any reasoning that moves you to conclude that materialism/physicalism is true is automatically invalidated by such a belief.

 

[Fervent]

I certainly agree that there is a fundamental explanatory gap between the phenomenology of consciousness and the standard materialistic model of the world. However, this certainly does not require us to connect consciousness to some sort of supernatural element.

Require? No, we could simply accept that there is no good explanation for something so fundamental to human experience. But it's reasonable to infer universal agency abductively from human agency and the incompatibility with mechanical models of the universe.

 

[Fervent]

If you can't detect it directly then you'd still be able to detect it's effect on physical matter. So if you can point to any change within the brain that's not caused by anything that we already know about, then we'll be making progress. Can you tell us what we should be looking for an where?

What would you call the phenomena of consciousness, other than an effect on physical matter? You assume that because correlates exist, then that means identity. But the only reason for assuming as much is metaphysics you haven't even attempted to justify. Your whole argument hinges on the metaphysics, with the supposed "evidence" simply being like a lawyer moving from a conclusion to a "rational" argument. So why should we assume materialism?

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, you can sum it up in that manner.

Darn tootin' I can. It was quite an accurate summation.

Waaay back in this thread you kept saying that it wasn't up to you to offer an alternative. But I just knew that if it went on long enough, with some prodding, we'd eventually get there. And that was the case. And I knew why you were reluctant. And your explanation (I was so very tempted to put that in scare quotes) confirms it. You were reluctant because you didn't have one that makes any sense whatsoever.

I think I'll bookmark the last 2 or 3 pages of this thread. And if the subject of free will ever comes up again in the forum and someone is in two minds about it (pun intended), then I'll mention that all effects have a cause, offer that as the basis for there being no free will and then ask if they want to see what the alternative might be. And link to said pages.

I'd not need to do anything else.

 

[Bradskii]

So why should we assume materialism?

You don't have to. But whatever it is that you think interacts with physical matter, then show us the effect. We should be able to see that effect with no discernable neurological, biological, electrical, chemical or physical cause.

 

[Merrill]

You don't have to. But whatever it is that you think interacts with physical matter, then show us the effect. We should be able to see that effect with no discernable neurological, biological, electrical, chemical or physical cause.

let me ask you this:

is everything in the mind a product and consequence of the material, contingent world? In other words, is everything I can conceptualize and imagine with the physical universe in which I live? There is nothing "outside the universe" and therefore, "outside the mind"?

 

[Fervent]

Darn tootin' I can. It was quite an accurate summation.

Waaay back in this thread you kept saying that it wasn't up to you to offer an alternative. But I just knew that if it went on long enough, with some prodding, we'd eventually get there. And that was the case. And I knew why you were reluctant. And your explanation (I was so very tempted to put that in scare quotes) confirms it. You were reluctant because you didn't have one that makes any sense whatsoever.

I think I'll bookmark the last 2 or 3 pages of this thread. And if the subject of free will ever comes up again in the forum and someone is in two minds about it (pun intended), then I'll mention that all effects have a cause, offer that as the basis for there being no free will and then ask if they want to see what the alternative might be. And link to said pages.

I'd not need to do anything else.

It really wasn't an accurate summation, but you've demonstrated issues with reading comprehension multiple times so I'm not surprised that that's how you believe our exchange has gone. I haven't altered what I've been primarily arguing, which is that your claim is self-undermining since it leads to the conclusion that the reasoning that got you there is irrelevant to your conclusion.

You don't have to. But whatever it is that you think interacts with physical matter, then show us the effect. We should be able to see that effect with no discernable neurological, biological, electrical, chemical or physical cause.

I've already shown the effect, which is to take abstract semantic content and convert it into chemical and electrical activity in the brain and over time to re-shape the structures of the brain. Mental events alter brain events at least as much as brain events alter mental events. Simply writing mental events off through reductionist/eliminativist claims does nothing to explain said events, and trying to call them "emergent" is nothing more than ascribing it to mystery. There is no reason to treat it as an identity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The issue with calling it "emergent" is there's a categorical gap between the phenomenon.

Perhaps we should start with a little set theory. You "philosophy" studying guys like to think of yourselves as knowing some math and reasoning, let's put it to use.

Start with the set of all things that have consciousness or mind (even if you think these are not quite correlated, just go with me, OK). Then the set of all things with brains.

The things with mind set is a sub-set of things with brains. All things with minds have brains, but not all things with brains have minds.

We can impact the mind by physical stimulation of the brain, etc. So far no minds have been found in anything without a living brain. Find one and we can talk about it.

This is strong circumstantial evidence that minds are an emergent property of brains and then it is up to the relevant researchers to investigate. (And no, they are not going to consider supernatural causation in their studies.)

It's not simply a more complex interaction, but an entirely new development.

There are all kinds of emergent phenomena that seem like "entirely new developments" when examined superficially.

It's analogous to claiming that you could arrange white blocks in such a way that they would produce a black tower.

I don't know about black from white, but I could definitely take a bunch of transparent stuff and make an opaque something.

This is a bad analogy anyway. With black and white you are talking about two different collective properties that are in the same category.

I could show the equations of atmospheric motion to an expert and they couldn't point to the term or equation that makes hurricanes occur, yet the equations do describe general atmospheric motion and when solved on a computer will generate computerized hurricanes without any prompting or additional input. The hurricane is an emergent phenomenon from the motion of the atmosphere and emerges in models built from equations that describe the atmosphere.

 

[Bradskii]

let me ask you this:

is everything in the mind a product and consequence of the material, contingent world?

Yes.

In other words, is everything I can conceptualize and imagine with the physical universe in which I live? There is nothing "outside the universe" and therefore, "outside the mind"?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not trying to evade answering. I just want to make sure what the question is. There is nothing 'outside the universe' (assuming no other universes). But the universe is itself in some way 'outside the mind'. Notwithstanding that we are obviously part of the universe. I'm inside it looking out at it.

 

[Merrill]

Yes.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not trying to evade answering. I just want to make sure what the question is. There is nothing 'outside the universe' (assuming no other universes). But the universe is itself in some way 'outside the mind'. Notwithstanding that we are obviously part of the universe. I'm inside it looking out at it.

OK

so if everything in my mind is a consequence and effect of stimuli and motivations from the natural world --or physical reality

how do I come up with the idea on on ontologically incontingent God who is outside of space and time?

where does this "idea" or concept come from?

 

[Bradskii]

It really wasn't an accurate summation...

You are free to take any point I made and I'm quite willing to quote you to confirm that what I said was correct

I've already shown the effect, which is to take abstract semantic content and convert it into chemical and electrical activity in the brain...

We know the cause of whatever electrical and chemical activity is in the brain. You need to show me something in the system that has no detectable cause. An action potential without a cause? Hormones being produced without a cause? An increase in neurotransmitters without a cause? Chemical changes in the synapses without a cause?

C'mon. There was meant to be a 'body of evidence' that shows all this. Hand waving 'there are changes' cuts no ice. Tell us what changes we should observe that have no causes.

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps we should start with a little set theory. You "philosophy" studying guys like to think of yourselves as knowing some math and reasoning, let's put it to use.

Start with the set of all things that have consciousness or mind (even if you think these are not quite correlated, just go with me, OK). Then the set of all things with brains.

The things with mind set is a sub-set of things with brains. All things with minds have brains, but not all things with brains have minds.

We can impact the mind by physical stimulation of the brain, etc. So far no minds have been found in anything without a living brain. Find one and we can talk about it.

This is strong circumstantial evidence that minds are an emergent property of brains and then it is up to the relevant researchers to investigate. (And no, they are not going to consider supernatural causation in their studies.)

Considering the only mind I am fairly certain exists is my own, I'm not sure I can adequately identify what the set of things with minds consists of. It's not something that can be observed, so simply because there is a correlation does not mean there is an identity and silly little "math" examples like yours involve assuming what the set of things with minds is based on an understanding of identity so does nothing to actually demonstrate the case.

There are all kinds of emergent phenomena that seem like "entirely new developments" when examined superficially.


I don't know about black from white, but I could definitely take a bunch of transparent stuff and make an opaque something.

This is a bad analogy anyway. With black and white you are talking about two different collective properties that are in the same category.

I could show the equations of atmospheric motion to an expert and they couldn't point to the term or equation that makes hurricanes occur, yet the equations do describe general atmospheric motion and when solved on a computer will generate computerized hurricanes without any prompting or additional input. The hurricane is an emergent phenomenon from the motion of the atmosphere and emerges in models built from equations that describe the atmosphere.

I'm not having issues with dynamic systems leading to emergent properties, but there is a categorical gap between phenomenal conscious experience and physical processes and saying it is "emergent" does nothing more than calling it "mysterious" accomplishes.

 

[Bradskii]

OK

so if everything in my mind is a consequence and effect of stimuli and motivations from the natural world --or physical reality

how do I come up with the idea on on ontologically incontingent God who is outside of space and time?

where does this "idea" or concept come from?

All ideas are constructed from input. You receive information and formulate ideas. You look for connections. You look for reasons why something is as it appears.

A lightning bolt hits a tree and if you have enough input you can determine that it was caused by electrical charges in the atmosphere grounding at that point. If you don't have much input then you might think someone caused it.

You look at life and think it happened entirely naturally. Or you think that someone caused it.

 

[Fervent]

You are free to take any point I made and I'm quite willing to quote you to confirm that what I said was correct

Considering I clearly stated what I've been arguing all along in that post, which is not at all in line with your summary of what you believe I've said, how about we start by you demonstrating you understand my criticism of your position first?

We know the cause of whatever electrical and chemical activity is in the brain. You need to show me something in the system that has no detectable cause. An action potential without a cause? Hormones being produced without a cause? An increase in neurotransmitters without a cause? Chemical changes in the synapses without a cause?

Oh? So then you're saying the hard problem of consciousness has been solved? And the binding problem? When did this happen?

C'mon. There was meant to be a 'body of evidence' that shows all this. Hand waving 'there are changes' cuts no ice. Tell us what changes we should observe that have no causes.

It's called a prima facie case, as the fact that the semantic content of our conversation is lighting up parts of the physical organ in you even though I am not exerting any sort of physical influence upon you. You're staring at a screen with dancing lights, and yet your conscious experience is able to interact with the statements that I am making in a meaningful way.

 

[Bradskii]

Considering I clearly stated what I've been arguing all along in that post, which is not at all in line with your summary of what you believe I've said, how about we start by you demonstrating you understand my criticism of your position first?

I've already given you a summary. Yet again, point to anything I said in that and I'll quote you to show it was valid.

Oh? So then you're saying the hard problem of consciousness has been solved?

We're not discussing consciousness. Just making decisions. That will require a conscious mind but we're not interested in why we are conscious. Just how we make what you consider to be free will decisions. You say that something acts on the physical brain. Show me where. Show me the changes that have no cause.

It's called a prima facie case, as the fact that the semantic content of our conversation is lighting up parts of the physical organ in you even though I am not exerting any sort of physical influence upon you. You're staring at a screen with dancing lights, and yet your conscious experience is able to interact with the statements that I am making in a meaningful way.

Yeah, we know how all this works. There are symbols on the screen, the light enters my eye, the info is sent to the thalamus etc. etc. We know all this. At what point is this something changing any part of the process. Just tell me what we should be looking for and where.

 

[Merrill]

All ideas are constructed from input. You receive information and formulate ideas. You look for connections. You look for reasons why something is as it appears.

A lightning bolt hits a tree and if you have enough input you can determine that it was caused by electrical charges in the atmosphere grounding at that point. If you don't have much input then you might think someone caused it.

You look at life and think it happened entirely naturally. Or you think that someone caused it.

If God does not exist in the universe (or outside it), where does this input come from exactly?

If all my reasoning is contingent upon the natural universe, how would I come up with an "unnatural explanation"?

"If you don't have much input then you might think someone caused it." --OK, but if there is no God in this universe or outside of it, how would I ascribe the lightning bolt to God?

Do you see the issue here?

 

[Fervent]

I've already given you a summary. Yet again, point to anything I said in that and I'll quote you to show it was valid.

You've given an incorrect summary, since no where did you mention my principal contention in epistemics and instead focused on metaphysical statements that are more or less superficial to my argument.

We're not discussing consciousness. Just making decisions. That will require a conscious mind but we're not interested in why we are conscious. Just how we make what you consider to be free will decisions. You say that something acts on the physical brain. Show me where. Show me the changes that have no cause.

We've gone far past decisions, since we've established the whole basis of your position ultimately boils down to nothing more than a prior commitment to materialism. Where free will is involved, you've left my principal rejection of your position unaddressed.

Yeah, we know how all this works. There are symbols on the screen, the light enters my eye, the info is sent to the thalamus etc. etc. We know all this. At what point is this something changing any part of the process. Just tell me what we should be looking for and where.

We know what the correlates are, but we don't know how it happens. The materialist position ultimately boils down to either eliminativism which simply pretends that our conscious experience is irrelevant to the whole interaction, or it throws out a non-explanation that amounts to calling it mysterious. We seem to have both materialist positions represented in this thread, and neither offers anything approaching an explanation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not interested in getting at ontologies either, though the question of ontology is inseparable from the question of consciousness especially if we assume some form of materialism. Which is why I tried to keep the discussion on the epistemics of it, because materialism undermines reasoning of any sort unless the laws of the universe are the product of rational agency in some way.

I'm not interested in your metaphysical commitments.

If they are just arbitrary, undirected, mechanical laws, then your conclusions are ultimately simply the result of arbitrary, undirected, mechanical laws and therefore untrustworthy. So any reasoning that moves you to conclude that materialism/physicalism is true is automatically invalidated by such a belief.

This series of arguments you are now making about the nature of reason remind me of attempting to argue the existence of god with a presuppositional apologist. I shall not do it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Considering the only mind I am fairly certain exists is my own, I'm not sure I can adequately identify what the set of things with minds consists of. It's not something that can be observed, so simply because there is a correlation does not mean there is an identity and silly little "math" examples like yours involve assuming what the set of things with minds is based on an understanding of identity so does nothing to actually demonstrate the case.

You could write a long response explaining how this is different than solipsism, but I shan't read it.

I'm not having issues with dynamic systems leading to emergent properties, but there is a categorical gap between phenomenal conscious experience and physical processes and saying it is "emergent" does nothing more than calling it "mysterious" accomplishes.

That just an argument from incredulity.