Choice or Determinism

[aiddon]

To make the point, let's try a thought experiment. Materialists insist the brain is composed of nothing but "materials": in specific, we might say something like, it's made up of amino acid molecules. Well okay -- can one amino acid molecule have "consciousness"? Obviously not. Can two? Obviously not. How about three? No. What if the three were arranged in a triangle? No, there's no reason to think that would make a difference. Four, arranged in a square? No....

I take your point, IC. But you must be careful here not to jump to conclusions. Anatomy is very complex. For a long time it was thought that pain was attributed to too much blood in the system, therefore unfortunate patients underwent excrutiating blood-letting episodes, often resulting in their death. Because we do not understand how something works yet doesn't mean we can attribute it to something immaterial or transcendent. Surely we have a responsibility to try and understand it before we jump off the cliff? If, throughout history, it had been otherwise, then you and I would be living in a very different world. Aristotle thought the universe was composed of five elements (one of which was ether or the divine substance until modern chemistry thankfully proved otherwise). Now if we were living in Aristotle's time, without the aid of modern scientific equipment such as electron microscopes etc. I would wager that you and I both would have taken the Aristotlean line. Yes, we are only coming to grasps with consciousness but it is important not to simply dismiss it and something divine given that the whole history of human endeavour and science has been one of throwing off the shackles of misunderstanding about the world.

The issue is that pure materials, no matter how much of them there is, or no matter what the nature of the physical arrangement is, do not account for the existence of consciousness.

I think it is important here not to get confused about what "pure material" actually means. It is too simplistic to suggest that materials equals molecules. Force, for example, cannot be explained in terms of molecules. As the recent Nobel winning physicists recently uncovered, the nature of mass is fundamentally different to how we perceive it. The Higgs Boson is not "material" in the common understanding of the term, but rather a field of force. The forces of gravity (though not fully understood yet), electromagnetism, nuclear force are radically different to "material". Yet I doubt even hardened anti-materialists offer a theist rationale for such things.

Once again, I must reiterate my amateurishness on this topic. I am not in the least bit qualified to come down heaviliy one side. I do wrestle with the notion of reconciling responsibility with determinism. Free will seems to be more agreeable in this sense. But perhaps even the term "free will" is not properly understood. What does "will" really mean. Are we confusing it with choice?

Then, as Compatibilism inevitably does, you tack on the directly contradictory claim that somehow "free will" applies to "certain aspects," though you cannot really justify that addendum.

But IC, are you not in one sense a Compatibilist also? I mean, yes obviously believe in free will - but you must also allow that there is a degree of determinism intrinsic in nature. I mean, the central thesis of science is determinism, and you have stated before that science itself is a powerful (yet limited) tool. Newtonian mechanics is the most powerful statement of determinism. You throw a ball into the air at a certain angle, with a certain speed, and if you know the external forces acting on that ball, i.e. gravity, air resistance, then you cannot accurately determine that ball's trajectory, height, final speed and distnace travelled. This is determinism which you agree with perhaps unbeknownst to yourself. Okay, quantum mechanics deviates from this on a microscopic level, but for the macro, the laws of nature hold true. So you may not agree with determinism in terms of defining human behaviour, but there is a level in which you agree with it. Therefore are you not a Compatibilist?

[3Sum]

I think that the biggest problem with "free will" is the "free" part because our will is so obviously limited in so many sense that calling it free is ridiculous and somewhat asinine. Will, or "choice" in certain aspects of our lives I agree with.

But IC, are you not in one sense a Compatibilist also? I mean, yes obviously believe in free will - but you must also allow that there is a degree of determinism intrinsic in nature. I mean, the central thesis of science is determinism, and you have stated before that science itself is a powerful (yet limited) tool. Newtonian mechanics is the most powerful statement of determinism. You throw a ball into the air at a certain angle, with a certain speed, and if you know the external forces acting on that ball, i.e. gravity, air resistance, then you cannot accurately determine that ball's trajectory, height, final speed and distnace travelled. This is determinism which you agree with perhaps unbeknownst to yourself. Okay, quantum mechanics deviates from this on a microscopic level, but for the macro, the laws of nature hold true. So you may not agree with determinism in terms of defining human behaviour, but there is a level in which you agree with it. Therefore are you not a Compatibilist?

That. It's also interesting how we can f.e. determine the orbit of Pluto even though its orbit time is over 200 years (forgot the exact number). And we can determine its exact position in the next few million years. Next. Few. MILLION. YEARS.

To make the point, let's try a thought experiment. Materialists insist the brain is composed of nothing but "materials": in specific, we might say something like, it's made up of amino acid molecules. Well okay -- can one amino acid molecule have "consciousness"? Obviously not. Can two? Obviously not. How about three? No. What if the three were arranged in a triangle? No, there's no reason to think that would make a difference. Four, arranged in a square? No....

Are you being serious right now? In case you didn't know, a dead body and the same body when alive can have the same amount of molecules. It's the extremely numerous and complex interactions between them such as chemical reactions which add up to chemical processes and electronic impulses that form our mind, consciousness, perception etc.

How is it that out of nothing but "materials" the strange property of consciousness suddenly emerges?

Odd and perhaps counter-intuitive to some but nonetheless, TRUE. And that's all that matters. Science is slowly advancing, be patient and wait for real answers instead of doing something that ignorant people of ancient times would do, jump to conclusions and attribute everything unexplainable to supernatural or magical.

What sort of magic produces it?

There we go. Surprise, surprise. EVERYTHING before that was contributed to supernatural/magical which we gained knowledge of and studied in depth was proven to be NOT of supernatural and NOT of magical origin. Do you really think this will be an exception?

In short, we know that brains DO work in this regard, but we don't know WHY they work

In a scientifc sense, we also know "why". However, in an existential sense, no, we don't know.

And unlike the brain itself, "consciousness" is an indivisible quality, just as Descartes argued, whereas the brain can be sectioned off and mapped.

What if we separated your brain in two halves and put each half into a new body? Though that's more a problem of identity than consciousness. Though there are different levels of consciousness, depending on the brain. Us humans have a higher consciousness (by that I mean we're more conscious of oursleves, the outside world etc.), dolphins and monkeys a little lower, snakes and lizards again a little lower etc.

I agree that there is much that is mysterious (though I prefer the word "unknown").

[Immanuel Can]

Are you being serious right now? In case you didn't know, a dead body and the same body when alive can have the same amount of molecules. It's the extremely numerous and complex interactions between them such as chemical reactions which add up to chemical processes and electronic impulses that form our mind, consciousness, perception etc.

Of course I'm serious. The "dead body" illustration just says precisely the same thing I did: it's not the number or situation of molecules that accounts for consciousness. Nor is the appeal "It's really, really complex" a reasonable retort. "Complex" just means the "same problem, but more of it, and more difficulty in discerning anything."

Odd and perhaps counter-intuitive to some but nonetheless, TRUE.

You don't know how it happens more than anyone else. Of course it's "odd" and "counter-intuitive," I've said as much; but you don't know at all that that is the way it happens. Unless you're far ahead of modern brain science personally, you know nothing about true mechanism by which "consciousness" magically emerges from mere material entities.

I agree that there is much that is mysterious (though I prefer the word "unknown").

It's always interesting to me how quasi-religious faith takes over when people are using the referent "science". We admit that "science" so far does not have the answer, but we have total credulity that one day it will. Are there no questions that Materialist science will not one day answer? And how on Earth could anyone know that now, except as an article of faith? Consider the possibility that a scientific paradigm may be flawed. When it is, it needs to be replaced, not rescued by blind faith. I would suggest that things like "consciousness" show that Materialism has turned dusty as a paradigm. It's time to move on, for the good of the future of science. Materialism seems to have gone as far as it can.

[3Sum]

Of course I'm serious. The "dead body" illustration just says precisely the same thing I did: it's not the number or situation of molecules that accounts for consciousness. Nor is the appeal "It's really, really complex" a reasonable retort. "Complex" just means the "same problem, but more of it, and more difficulty in discerning anything."

Not necessarily, the difficulty of the problem can also increase qualitatively. My points are: 1) Your example with counting is ridiculous 2) It's also about the types of connections and relationships of those molecules.

You don't know how it happens more than anyone else. Of course it's "odd" and "counter-intuitive," I've said as much; but you don't know at all that that is the way it happens. Unless you're far ahead of modern brain science personally, you know nothing about true mechanism by which "consciousness" magically emerges from mere material entities.

I know less than some people, more than some others. We know that it happens. We know how it happens in scientific terms. The reason that it seems counter-intuitive and odd is that we have thought ourselves to think wrongly about many things over the centuries due to being used to our extremely limited senses. Do you really think that f.e. the monitor as you see it is the way it actually is? In reality it's just atoms and empty space. But due to our inept eyesight we see it as a whole while in reality there are tiny little spaces that we aren't capable of perceiving with any of our senses.

It's always interesting to me how quasi-religious faith takes over when people are using the referent "science". We admit that "science" so far does not have the answer, but we have total credulity that one day it will.

Who said that science will one day have all the answers? Not even Richard Dawkins would say that.

Besides, what's important about scientific answers is that they're true, tested, proven and in most instances useful.

So WHAT are you suggesting INSTEAD? Do you have all the answers but the science is simply unfit for your answers cause they are so advanced and insightful? Cause none of the answers science or materialism have so far contradict reality, they're just lacking answers to other questions, and that I admit to. Materialism just describes how things really are and work. Not "why" does consciousness emerge or "what's the higher purpose" or whatever, that's not its goal. Those are the questions we have no answer to yet, although up to now all evidence indicates there is no deeper purpose, at least not in any religious or spiritual sense.

[Immanuel Can]

We know how it happens in scientific terms.

Oh really? Go ahead. Inform me. Perhaps we should also inform the neuroscience community, since they also eagerly await the revelation.

2) It's also about the types of connections and relationships of those molecules.

While you're at it, explain what "relationship" produces consciousness, since, as you say, you know that particular kinds of relationships produce consciousness. (Hint: no one knows this).

We know that it happens.

Of course we know that consciousness exists; but we don't know how it comes about, or why it comes about for some "material" entities, and in different ways or not at all for others. We also don't really know what consciousness itself is...we see its actions and manifestations, but from Materialism we can find nothing about its essential nature.

Who said that science will one day have all the answers? Not even Richard Dawkins would say that.

I didn't. I don't think it will, but I will not jump to a conclusion either way. But what I said is that a statement like, "One day Materialism will have an explanation for the consciousness" is a purely blind-faith-based statement, since it manifestly hasn't happened yet, and we have no reason beyond empty optimism to believe it's true.

So WHAT are you suggesting INSTEAD?

I'm suggesting we do what Thomas Kuhn showed science often does: reform the paradigm. Drop Materialism, because it's become a dead end; revise our assumptions to include data about non-material entities, and then pursue normal scientific procedures. That is the most reasonable thing to do in the face of the manifest ineffectiveness of an entrenched paradigm. It's what any rational person does in such a situation.

[Blaggard]

Materialism is a dead end in what way has it failed may I ask?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh hey, lots and lots of ways...

In almost anything non-material, it immediately becomes reductional, tongue-tied and impotent to investigate beyond the material itself. (For those naive souls who cling to the belief that there is nothing but "materials" within the realm of the Real anyway, this doesn't seem a problem; but for most of us, at least those of us who have common sense, we cannot help but realize that Materialism gratuitously excludes huge and important areas of human existence and inquiry.)

Materialism is not only impotent to describe "consciousness," but "selfhood," "human dignity," "rights," "values," "morality," "justice," "meaning," "purpose," "concepts," "experience" and so on. For each of these items I have listed, Materialism is reduced to what you might call "nothing-buttery": as in, "Morals are nothing but phenomena," or "Consciousness is nothing but brain tissue in action," and so on. This is intellectually stultifying. And not only do I think so, but on the other side, staunch atheist Thomas Nagel has come out clearly in favour of this view in his latest book, titled "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False." For any honest atheist, I would recommend this small but potent book for a read.

But even a little common sense helps us to recognize Materialism's flaws. Do any of us really live as though we have no genuine "self"? Does anyone who does philosophy imagine that they are just "moving materials"? Does anyone actually live as though all morality were nothing but phenomena -- and not care even whether those phenomena favour them or hurt them, or not cry out for justice when someone else behaves immorally toward them? Of course not. And the inability of *any* Materialist *ever* to live as though his worldview were actually true is proof positive of the hypocrisy of those who even profess it.

So I say it's time to drop the delusion and move on.

[Blaggard]

Of course you are speaking of what materialists know now, which is almost nothing. One could of course make the case that it has to be explored to find out any sort of fact, and where in it fails. Abandoning before it has been fully explored would be naive at best and stupid at worst. It's not that I disagree that materialism per se can know it all, it's just the idea that it should be thrown out with the bath water, despite actually only scratching the surface.

Drop what delusion? The delusion that a subject that knows even less, dualism etc and themes there of will somehow prove more provident, without using our logical arm to find out all we can about one field that seems to have made progress, at least as far as it can with our deficiencies of knowledge? See now that strikes me as ignorant. A god of the gaps argument, and a waste of all true philosophers time. Surely if you are truly open to ideas and not your biases therein, you should let the "baby" have its bottle?

[K1Barin]

So what is your choice, choice or determinism?

Do you really think that's a valid criticism? Do you really think you have a choice in believing in determinism vs believing in free will? Well, I don't know about you, but what I believe in is based on my observations and experiences. I don't base my beliefs on what I want to be true because I care about ACTUAL truth. I can only believe something that convinces me. F.e. if you showed me you have a pen I can't "choose" not to believe that a pen exists. I don't have a choice in that matter. Determinists can just simply say that the fact that you can believe both is also predetermined, since us humans are very different.

Your example is not valid. I am not saying every thing is by choice, most events are predetermined, but some events happen by choice. As far as pen, I am the one who has the choice to show you the pen or not, but after I showed the pen to you, you may not have a choice in believing it or not.
The issue is as SIMPLE as this: Which one is your choice: Choice or Determinism?
We sometimes make the issue more difficult than it is.

[3Sum]

I am not saying every thing is by choice, most events are predetermined, but some events happen by choice.

,

Which one is your choice: Choice or Determinism?

The views you described in the first quote are compatibilistic, yet just a little later you again make it out to be a black and white issue between determinism and free will when there's so much grey area.

Are you even aware that there is a third option (compatibilism) which advocates something between determinism and free will?

[aiddon]

The argument has become bogged down in the merits or lack thereof of materialism, so I will rephrase the question that no one yet addressed: if scientific determinism holds, as in Newtonian physics, then if one decides to believe in free will does that make he/she a compatibilist?

If scientific determinism holds true (and I think everyone here would agree with this - otherwise throwing the ball in the air will result in a completely random outcome each time), then why is determinism in the case of human action utterly scoffed at? Whether we like it or not, the human body consists mainly of carbon and water - I know this is a lot for some to swallow, but unfortunately it is true: the human creature is nothing more than stuff. Disappointing, yes, but hey very refreshing in another sense, depending on your point of view. Hence we are formed of the same stuff as exists everywhere else in the universe. This begs the question, if we are truly different from every other sentient being, as was God's supposed design, then why are scarily similar to every other sentient being? Consciousness has evolved. But if one cannot subsrcibe to evolution, then the discussion on free will versus determinsim is very much redundant as neither side will concede ground.

[aiddon]

Your example is not valid. I am not saying every thing is by choice, most events are predetermined, but some events happen by choice

Predetermination and detemination are very different. I think you are very confused.

No one has believed in predetermination since around the 17th century. Except for the insane, that is.

[Immanuel Can]

Predetermination and detemination are very different.

Aiddon, I'm thinking they're probably pretty closely related, actually. the "pre" doesn't add much.

My suggestion would be that perhaps "predetermination" occurs most frequently in discussions based on Theistic Determinism and "determination' in those premised on Materialist Determinism, the "pre" primarily signalling the putative prior intention of the Supreme Being. Does that seem plausible to you?

If so, maybe it would help us to stipulate that distinction for the purposes of present discussion. Just an idea.

And in point of fact, ultraCalvinism is still alive and well in some quarters, unfortunately.

[K1Barin]

I am not saying every thing is by choice, most events are predetermined, but some events happen by choice.

,

Which one is your choice: Choice or Determinism?

The views you described in the first quote are compatibilistic, yet just a little later you again make it out to be a black and white issue between determinism and free will when there's so much grey area.

Are you even aware that there is a third option (compatibilism) which advocates something between determinism and free will?

I thought Choice is believed to be some choice and some determinism. I agree with compatilbilism.

Then my original argument is against Determinism, in favor of Choice and Compatibilism. Believing in that there is some choice.

[Immanuel Can]

I thought Choice is believed to be some choice and some determinism. I agree with compatilbilism.

Then my original argument is against Determinism, in favor of Choice and Compatibilism. Believing in that there is some choice.

Yeah, I can understand the mix-up. The terminology here is really confusing. "Compatibilism" as it is properly defined in theology or philosophy is not the belief that Determinism and Free Will are "compatible" to an equal degree (which is what one might think it is); rather it's the belief that in a convoluted way "choice" is really no more than an appearance and Determinism is the deep truth.

So the word is very misleading, if taken at face value. It's basically Determinism, but tries to save the idea of "free will" by saying something like "actions can still be free even if our wills aren't," or some similar strategy. But there's a bunch of similar ways they try to overcome the contradiction.

I agree with you: there are some things we can safely say are Determined, but also others that we can say are genuinely "free." But we're not "Compatibilists," either of us.