Heddle on Free Will
by BradfordDavid Heddle wrote Honest Science at his blog He Lives. David linked to and commented on this article. Quoting Heddle:
There is no scientific explanation possible for free will. True free will, if it exists, is inherently supernatural. By its very definition it involves circumventing nature. The universe's differential equation is leading you to perform action A, but you rise up against nature's next time-step and choose B instead.
Hey nature, you didn't see that one coming didja?, you dumb old broad!
There is no way out for science. Free will is supernatural. All science can ever say is that there is no free will, it is only an illusion. And they are are usually loath to admit it.
Nature can exhibit that which science is incapable of either confirming or debunking. Free will is a rational and reasonable idea. A theologian could make the argument that free will is a necessary component of a reality which includes a divine creator and that it is inherent to Judeo-Christian doctrines. On the other hand a biologist would be hard pressed to devise an experiment which effectively debunks the concept. What physical mechanism would give rise to it or conversely confirm its illusory nature?
In the previous post Michael Ruse was quoted:
Natural selection working on unguided mutations cannot guarantee the emergence of anything. It has no direction.
Natural selection cannot even explain the emergence of free will except in a very abstract way that does not note a physical mechanism and a resulting aha moment. Dogmatic statements about free will will not disappear from scientific publications. There is too much at stake from a culture war perspective.
April 20th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
OK, so in this conversation, by definition "free will" is supernatural.
Well, saying it's an illusion wouldn't be scientific, but science and non-scientists alike are forced to say, "We do not know whether free will exists."
I do not know why Heddle feels science would want a way out from that or why they would care whether they needed to admit it. It's simply a logical conclusion based on the definition.
People that are not interested in supernatural explanations — or simply reject them — will not be interested in free will as defined. So when exploring how people make choices, they would look into other explanations. Specifically, human decisions could be part of nature rather than having confrontational relation with nature that Heddle's supernatural free will suggests.
Comment by don provan — April 20, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
dp:
No. Read what Heddle wrote- "true free will." In other words he is making the argument that if free will truly exists then we have evidence for the supernatural.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Incidentally, the free will concept is indirect evidence for the existence of God and a major obstacle to the advance of broader materialist based goals IMO.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
All Heddle has shown is that we can define "free will" in a way which makes it impossible for science (or any other approach) to either confirm or debunk. He has not demonstrated that "nature can exhibit" this thing he has defined as "free will". Indeed, the supernatural part of the definition kinda implies that Nature cannot exhibit it.
No argument here. It is also, by definition, impossible to confirm it exists.
That would be an assertion, not an argument.
In fact it would be completely impossible for the biologist to debunk the concept. It would be impossible for anyone to debunk it. We've defined free will as supernatural. That means it cannot be debunked.
It's supernatural, remember? It has no relation to physical mechanisms. That's why we rejected it: not because we don't want the answer to be supernatural or even because we don't believe the answer can be supernatural, but only because the supernatural explanation is not helpful.
Yes, nature can have no relation to the supernatural mechanism Heddle calls "free will". That doesn't rule out some other mechanism behind human choice which is not supernatural. Natural selection could explain the emergence of that mechanism.
Well, now we have to worry about whether they are dogmatic statements, or simply statements that use a definition of "free will" that doesn't include the inherent characteristic of being supernatural.
Comment by don provan — April 20, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
He's simply defining "free will" to be supernatural. He says "true free will" just to convince us that we're not allowed to consider any other cause for human choice. But, of course, we are free to consider other possibilities that he's overlooking. Such as something that has exactly the same effect on reality as his "true free will", but isn't supernatural. We can call that "false free will", if you'd like.
Comment by don provan — April 20, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Heddle's own words:
He infers that natural laws could indicate that x behavior should result while in fact y is observed. A real example might occur when someone who has had a long history of addiction (involving an addictive physical component) resists the addictive behavior following a spiritual change altering his thoughts and attitudes. Confirmation that neurorchemical causal factors are not implicated would add support the the rising up against nature interpretation.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
For those interested, my final paper in seminary is on various aspects of the soul including free will. I show (a) that it is real, (b) that it is unaccountable by physics, and (c) a possible way of reasoning about it that neither brings it under the purview of physics nor leaves it as a total mystery.
I'm not making it public yet (I'm still making some final revisions at the request of my instructor, and I hope to publish it somewhere), but if you are interested in reading it send me an email: jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com. Include in the email a statement that says you won't share the thesis with anyone else or steal the ideas.
Comment by johnnyb — April 20, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
He has defined "free will" to be something outside nature, and the discussion follows. What he fails to establish — because it's impossible, of course — is that this thing he's calling "free will" actually exists or has anything to do with human decisions.
But he's only getting away with that by insisting that human decisions are not operating according to natural laws. In other words, he's assuming his conclusion. If the human decision process runs according to natural laws, then suddenly Y behavior would be what should result.
No, it would only distinguish the neurochemical causal factors for addiction from the human decision to resist them. That that resistence was "against nature" would not be confirmed at all. The decision to resist the addiction could just as easily be part of nature, just a different part than those neurochemical causal factors.
Comment by don provan — April 20, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Nope. He has pointed out that expressions entailing choice of options are revealed in the real world. If free will is outside nature then its effects are very much within nature.
Bradford: He infers that natural laws could indicate that x behavior should result while in fact y is observed.
He is simply pointing out that if decisions are assessed based on neurochemical pathways then we would assume governance according to natural laws and a determinacy of choice based solely on physical factors.
Confirmation that neurorchemical causal factors are not implicated would add support the the rising up against nature interpretation.
If those resisting decisions are not grounded in biochemistry then there is no such thing as implicating neurochemical causal factors.
How are they part of nature if chemical pathways are not linked to the decision process?
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I divide humans into two categories, one's that see consciousness and free will the way I do (immediate, needing no further evidence), and those who don't. The one's that don't are so radically different that I've learned to simply avoid discussion of the subject. There's no point in arguing with every fly that buzzes around my head. Sometimes you just swat them and move on to more important issues.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 20, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 7:12 am
This is so typical of the the ID approach to science. You make a claim, then demand that it is truie until someone has proved it otherwise.
In real science, when you make a claim, you are required to support it with evidence.
In fact, what this is saying is that the claim cannot be falsified, so it clearly is not science at all.
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 21, 2010 @ 7:12 am
April 21st, 2010 at 9:08 am
Bradford: A theologian could make the argument that free will is a necessary component of a reality which includes a divine creator and that it is inherent to Judeo-Christian doctrines. On the other hand a biologist would be hard pressed to devise an experiment which effectively debunks the concept. What physical mechanism would give rise to it or conversely confirm its illusory nature?
Except no one is claiming free will can be empirically determined. If you read Heddle's blog entry you get the opposite message- a supernatural source would not lend itself to a scientific approach. My remark above similarly shows the difficulty of devising a biological experiment capable of distinguishing between an illusion and the real thing.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 9:08 am
April 21st, 2010 at 9:33 am
Okay, so long as we are all clear that there is no way to tell if it is imaginery or real.
Only I thought you said that "a theologian could make the argument that free will is a necessary component of a reality". I suppose, then that you would accept that a biologist could make the argument that free is not a necessary component of a reality? I.e., you could make an argument either way, but we have no way to actually determine who was right.
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 21, 2010 @ 9:33 am
April 21st, 2010 at 10:04 am
Again, the claim was there is no empirical approach that settles the free will matter. That's not to say other means cannot be employed.
A biologist is constricted by the methodology employed. Unless he wishes to make an argument not grounded in experimental results. In that case his expertise in biology is not his guiding factor. A theologian would cite scriptural, philosophical and historic grounds for his case.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 10:04 am
April 21st, 2010 at 10:43 am
Oh, I get it. You have set this up so that the theologian is on the side you want to win, and you allow him to use any tool he want to make his argument. Meanwhile, you set the biologist on the side you want to lose, then declare that the biologist is not allowed to use the tools that the theologian uses.
Consider this instead: A Christian theologian could make the argument that free will is a necessary component of a reality which includes a divine creator and that it is inherent to Judeo-Christian doctrines, but an atheist theologian could just as readily make the argument that free will (at least, true free will, as Heddle uses the term) is an illusion. The biologist (whose religious beliefs we have yet to estabish) merely note that neither position can actually be determined.
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 21, 2010 @ 10:43 am
April 21st, 2010 at 1:56 pm
We only observed that they are not the neurochemical pathways involved in addiction. That doesn't rule out other neurochemical pathways.
By the way, are we still talking about Heddle? He doesn't appear to be saying anything about neurochemistry in what you've quoted.
Comment by don provan — April 21, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Bradford: How are they part of nature if chemical pathways are not linked to the decision process?
Sure. Atheism in the gaps.
Heddle wrote "The universe's differential equation is leading you to perform action A, but you rise up against nature's next time-step and choose B instead" and I used a the term neurochemical to place the "differential equation" in a neural context.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I don't understand what you're saying. I thought you were asking how the decision process could be part of nature in light of addiction. Didn't I answer your question? What does that have to do with atheism or gaps?
OK. So to you, I've pointed out the possibility of other chemical pathways. To Heddle, I'll point out that the decision to perform action B could be just one more part of the universe's differential equation. In either case, we now have a second possibility other than Heddle's "true free will" and no conceivable way to judge which possibility is the explanation.
Comment by don provan — April 21, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
When abiogenesis discussions come up and I point out an absence of identifiable pathways to cells and add that intelligent input would overcome the physical obstacles to ordered, functional genomes someone invariably will level a charge that I have placed God into the gaps of our knowledge to support a paradigm favorable to theism.
I'm pointing out that there is a parallel to free will. A straightforward interpretation of the addiction example I provded would be that a change in the thinking and attitude of the individual led to an abandonment of a physical addiction. But that makes no sense to a materialist mindset which must presume that an unidentifiable physical cause produced the change in thinking leading to an abandonment of a physical addiction. A conceptual chemical pathway provides the basis for an argument that free will is illusory. And when the chemical pathway remains conceptual in nature the materialist presumption is that this is attributable to a lack of knowledge and that once the pathway(s) are identified the explanation, favoring materialist atheism, will fall in place. That's placing atheism into a (presumed) gap of knowledge.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Freewill is very much demonstrated everytime we express a plan of action and act accordingly. How much evidence is needed?
Freewill only circumvents natural law. Mind and life is what coopts natural law, as noted in my book review of Fodor`s "What Darwin got Wrong":
http://www.amazon.com/review/R...
In coopting law, mind is able to find room to store specified information in the free space left unrestricted by law. Stephen C. Meyer seems to be saying this in his book, "Signature of the Cell."
In Section 6 of my paper, I relate law as a two-sided action that has a freedom side that underwrites an organizing principle and universal grammar:
http://vixra.org/abs/1003.0268
Comment by Stephen — April 21, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Hi Bradford,
This is just what happened – I'd say your description would qualify as an observation rather than an interpretation. The addict decided to stop using, and (s)he suceeded in resisting the urge.
Eh? It makes perfect sense to a materialist, of course – materialist addicts can change their minds too
Just because we can't identify the physical cause doesn't mean it doesn't exist, obviously. And materialists don't really say that brain changes cause changes in thinking; rather, they say that brain changes are changes in thinking – it's just different ways of describing the same thing.
For a materialist (I'm simplifying here; there are a number of different materialist theories of mind of course) when we use mentalistic terms we are just using different levels of abstraction to describe what people think and do. It's like talking about temperature vs. average kinetic energy. It is very convenient to talk about temperature, and we sense temperature, and the fact that temperature is really averaged kinetic energy doesn't mean temperature doesn't exist or is an illusion. It's just a description of kinetic energy at a level of abstraction that helps us think and talk about it.
Atheism isn't something can be placed into gaps, because atheism is not an explanation of anything. Atheism and theism are not symmetrical: Theism is offered as an explanation (of all sorts of things), but atheism is not supposed to explain anything at all. Instead, atheism is nothing more than a rejection of theistic explanations.
Comment by aiguy — April 21, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Hi Stephen,
It isn't a matter of evidence that we express plans and act accordingly – of course we do. We think and feel and plan and act – everybody agrees on this. The issue is whether or not in doing these things there is anything going on in our heads that transcends physical causation. Nobody knows the answer to this question, even though it has been debated for thousands of years.
I have argued here in the past that ID in general only makes sense if it assumes that "true free will" (libertarian or contra-causal free will) exists. Since this assumption is untestable, that means ID rests on unscientific assumptions. Other scientific theories (such as evolutionary theory) do not assume either that free will is contra-causal or that it is not.
Comment by aiguy — April 21, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 7:53 pm
aiguy:
Couldn't resist could you? Should have bet chunkdz a flame broilled whopper that you would return upon seeing this thread. Or did you get an SOS?
I think your view of atheism is naive. Having spent most of my life around atheists my impression is that atheism is very much a reaction to values associated with (in this culture) Christianity or perhaps more generally Judeo-Christian norms. I suspect the existence of God is a secondary factor. The no God position is taken in reaction to a negative view of values associated with theism IMO.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Aiguy, by your argument denial of freewill is also unscientific! Of course physical causation is transcended, this is self evident in our choices, and in our calls of action, in society`s laws, and in the biological evidence provided by Fodor. Freewill comes with its own self-evidence, and denial of what is self-evident is the denial of evidence; a denial of empiricism.
Have a read of the paper I just posted above by the link to the PDF file. And look at my review of Fodor`s "What Darwin got Wrong."
Design implies life is mechanical only if causation is one-sided. But life, and mind, have the ability to coopt determinist chains to show enough freedom to store specified information in DNA. Therefore, design is the mark of teleology, and life is vitalistic because causation must be two-sided.
Comment by Stephen — April 21, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 8:04 pm
aiguy,
Not really, since materialists have severe trouble talking about both 'subjects' and 'minds' and even 'sense' in ways that don't either collapse into eliminativism (in which case there never was an "addict" nor a "mind" either) or something that hardly seems like materialism anyway (For example, Searle-style claims that subjectivity and the like are real and irreducible, but damnit, we're just gonna call these things physical. Play with definitions enough and you can make Berkeley a materialist.)
Your levels of abstraction are someone else's intentional or unintentional obfuscation. And there's no real materialist theory of mind – there's at most commitments to materialism (and even the definition of materialism has gone through some interesting, radical metamorpheses and continues to do so), and an insistence that somehow minds must be utterly explicable given such ground rules.
This simply is not true in the relevant sense, and atheism is offered as an explanation in plenty of contexts. What Bradford is talking about is probably better cast as explanations motivated by atheism at the very least, or atheist-metaphysics-of-the-gaps.
(Free-will denying) Calvinists have to deny intelligent design? Nick Bostrom has to believe in libertarian free will? Ray Kurzweil does? That just doesn't add up. Are you honestly saying we can't identify an artifact made by an agent without answering the free will question? Or that compatiblists are committed to denying that agents make artifacts, or that we can infer agents are responsible for such?
Comment by nullasalus — April 21, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Bradford,
If you must know, yes, I got an SOS on the secret Atheist communication network.
We're both right/wrong – you're talking about what actual people who call themselves atheists actually tend to believe; I'm speaking technically about what exactly the term specifically entails.
Stephen,
Yes, of course. The existence of libertarian free will is not something that can be decided by appeal to science, at least not at the moment.
No, none of this demonstrates that physical causation is transcended. The fact that these things do not settle the question of libertarian free will is common knowledge, so I won't argue this point with you.
No, Fodor makes no argument regarding free will by appeal to biological evidence of any sort.
Null,
You haven't disagreed with me yet. Materialists can certainly talk about subjects and minds and sense and will and every other intentional term you can think of without any trouble at all; it's only when the discussion gets explicitly philosophical and we try and unpack what these words mean technically that the trouble begins.
Uh, not mine null…
??? Of course there are materialist theories of mind. Identity theory is one of them. We just don't like these materialist theories, and don't believe that they explain what they purport to explain.
Uh, no, it isn't. It isn't an explanation of anything at all, and that should be obvious to you. If you mean that somebody confusedly has attempted to explain something by appeal to "atheism", then I find it hard to believe somebody could be so misguided, but I'm open to the possiblity… reference, please?
Well that's a horse of a different color altogether then. I guess different people are motivated by all sorts of things… I don't try to psychoanalyze or argue ad hominem; I'm much more interested in the ideas themselves than the psychological profiles of people who come up with them.
Of course they do, the way leading ID proponents describe it! How can they accept Bill Dembski's explanation of how intelligence is the ability to freely choose?
Once again, null, you must understand that if you construe things too broadly then they are immune from any particular rebuttal. ID proponents – even here! – don't agree with Kurzweil in virtually any meaningful sense.
What's an agent?
What's an agent?
Comment by aiguy — April 21, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 9:35 pm
aiguy,
Yeah, but that's uninteresting. It's like pointing out that a solipsist sure is capable of talking about 'that rock over there' or 'the guys back at the bar', and it's only when he has to explain what the heck he's talking about given his solipsism that things get interesting. In other words, "he can act as if these things are real". But who's interested in acting when we're talking about the accounting?
C'mon, you know what I mean. I'm not trying to suggest you're an EM.
But this is one of those places where it all breaks down. Go with identity theory: mental states just are brain states. But brains are wholly material, and the various marks of the mental – subjectivity, normativity, intentionality, etc – are supposed to be absent from the material practically by definition. Explaining the mind by denying it isn't much of an explanation. Explaining it by importing what's supposed to be explained isn't an explanation either (go ahead, say brain state X is 'about chocolate', etc, when I'm thinking about chocolate. I'd love for intentionality, even qualia, to be considered a rock-bottom constituent of the "physical" world. I have a sense of humor that way.)
Name one solution to the problem of evil that an atheist would favor. Or is it not a solution if the problem is denied in the process?
The same way someone can be an ID proponent by disagreeing with Dembski in other contexts – "I have a different view." That really is allowed.
But ID is supposed to be construed broadly even by its leading proponents – all that "big tent" talk. Granted, those may not be the most popular ID scenarios (maybe mormon ID proponents would enjoy them), but so what? Even Chalmers considered Bostrom's and related proposals to be ID. He classed himself as ID-sympathetic for those very reasons, if I recall. Chalmers may not be employed by the DI, but then neither is Mike Gene as far as I know.
Another way of putting it is this: Your particular criticism isn't going to work if ID is broader than you're taking it to be. And in response to you, I'm going to be able to cite ID proponents admitting it's possible that mere 'alien intelligences' could be responsible for given cases of ID. In fact, that's one of the harshest criticisms of it from theistic detractors. They bit that bullet a long time ago.
Are a fan of Van Fraassen by chance? Not meant as an insult, of course, but this sort of move reminds me of him from what I've recently read.
Comment by nullasalus — April 21, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Speaking as a freewill denying Calvinist. I have no problem with Dembski's explanation.
Unlike Zombies intelligent agents freely choose all the time it’s just that they always choose according to their nature.
If fact IMO genuine freewill does not make sense apart from compatiblism.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 21, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 10:56 pm
My favorite part of the underlying Scientific American article is where study participants read a passage from Francis Crick’s book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, and then started cheating at math:
‘
In a little known follow-up study, the participants then read a passage from Crick's other astonishing hypothesis:
whereupon they immediately donned tin-foil hats, gave each other a collective Vulcan nerve pinch, and patiently awaited the arrival of the Mother-Ship.
Comment by David S — April 21, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 11:00 pm
David S,
Bwahaha. That bit by Crick & Orgel has to be quoted far, far more often. I've never seen it before, but man, does it say a lot.
Comment by nullasalus — April 21, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 am
Free will is a sensation.
It's called speculation.
A view they have since abandoned due to advances in abiogenetics that have strengthened the case for a terrestrial origin of life.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 8:18 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 am
Reading your comments is a sensation.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 8:25 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
A man and woman bound across a meadow exclaiming, "We're free! We're free!" Far above, an eagle gazes down with pity.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 11:57 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Bradford:
What kind of free will, libertarian, or compatibilistic? There are some very good Calvinist arguments against libertarian free will and I wish libertarian defenders would take those on first before using free will against naturalism. For example:
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 22, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Good old fashioned Calvinist compatibilism is light years from materialistic determinism.
A compatibilist defines free will differently than a libertarian but a materialist denies freewill outright.
Libertarians and Compatibilists are in complete agreement against the Zombie meat puppet materialists.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 22, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:42 pm
freedom is the ability to act consistently with your nature. The human couple and the eagle can be equally free.
No subjective sensations necessary.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 22, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:44 pm
By that definition, no supernatural component is implied.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
On the contrary The "you" that possesses your nature is not reducible to matter and physics and is therefore supernatural by definition.
On the other hand for the materialist "you" do not really exist instead consciousness is a useful fiction and freewill is an illusion.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 22, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Likewise the eagle is supernatural at exactly the points that it is not reducible to matter and physics. Those are the points that ID looks to to make a design inference.
This is IMO Heddle's point.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 22, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:41 pm
There may be more to nature than your reductionist view of "matter and physics."
Consciousness and free will are sensations.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:48 am
With regards to the article in Scientific America…
Firstly, the experiment involving time travel and Hitler.
What I find curious about this is that on first reading it, I thought that showing the historical package to Hitler's parents was the "free will" option, while killing the boy was he "no free will" option (in particuarm the last dozen or so words seem to point that way). But then, when I started to write this post, I decided it was really the other way around. Showing what would happen to the boy and his parents would lead to his upbringing being quite different, i.e., that ss different environment acting on his genes would produce a different outcome. Meanwhile, if you believe in feee will, well you better kill the boy, because whatever his environment, he will make the same decisions.
Is that really how it is? Why did Hitler commit those atrocities? Something made him vehemently anti-semetic; if not his environment and his genes, then what? Do people choose to do things for really no reason at all (as opposed to bad or short term reasons)? I do not think so.
Perhaps this explains why we have evolved to have the illusion of free will. If in one tribe the people believe in free will, and another they do not, the second tribe will tend to do poorly because its members are more antisocial. Perhaps this is why free will evolved.
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 23, 2010 @ 6:48 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 am
His nature. His environment and his genes only constrained his nature like the bank constrains a river. you can direct a river in a certain way by limiting its freedom but you cant make it a tree
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
(Jeremiah 13:23)
Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him.
(Proverbs 27:22)
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 23, 2010 @ 7:17 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 am
Nice story, but as Michael Lynch and others have shown, we can’t assume selection works this way unless we have independent evidence the populations were substantially large.
As for the “illusion of free will,” given my direct and continual subjective experience with free will (as real as my subjective experience with thinking), this is a rather extraordinary claim. And, as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2010 @ 8:40 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 am
So too does the claim that free will is supernatural. All we can conclude is that we just do not know.
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 23, 2010 @ 10:28 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
fifth monarchy man:
I'd disagree, a materialist likely believes in compatibilism free will just like a Calvinist, while believing that nature is at the base of it all rather then God.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 23, 2010 @ 11:34 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Not to go off on a tangent, but…..
The Pixie:
Hitler states his numerous grievances in Mein Kampf, written in 1925.
In sum, (1) he felt greatly betrayed by German leadership in WWI, particularly with its humiliating aquiescence of the Versailles treaty and (2) he merged together the twin forces of Communism and Judaism and held them responsible for the cowardly (in his view) surrender in (1).
I don't know if it was his genes or environment that created Hitler the monster, but it seems mostly environment. WWI was an epic catastrophe, with millions of lives lost, without any noble purpose. That devastating aftermath provided a fertile environment for an ambitious, violent dreamer like Hitler.
The time machine hypothetical by the Sci Am author is stupid. Killing young boy Hitler in 1894, would not have stopped the 17 million lives lost in WWI, nor Versailles, nor the Weimar Republic, nor the seeds of WWII.
Comment by David S — April 23, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
It may be better to think of it as a sensation rather than an illusion. A pain is not consider an illusion as long as it is associated with an injury; so while a phantom pain is an illusion, the pain associated with a splinter is not. The sensation of free will occurs when someone has the sensation that they can do what they choose to do without an external constraint, even if they predictably always choose chocolate. The man and woman bounding through the meadow have the sensation of freedom because they can do what they want to do, even though the distant eagle pities them because they can't fly.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Meat and meat bound across a meatspace, making happy meat noises. In other meatspace, flying meat says "Look, jumping meat!" The flying meat was from Disney, since real flying meat can't form words with its meat ventilation tubes.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 23, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
If I were claiming that there had to be a physical pathway, then your point would be valid. But I was only pointing out that you can't rule them out. And you would have to actually rule them out — as opposed to looking very hard and not finding any — to interpret the results as support for a supernatural cause.
Comment by don provan — April 23, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
DP,
Again with the nature of the gaps dodge.
Always moving the goal posts always clinging to the hope that somewhere some how what we all know to be true can be explained away in order to continue the denial a little longer.
Ider;
We all experience freewill, freewill is supernatural therefore nature is not all there is.
Atheist:
You can’t rule out every possible natural explanation that will ever be concocted by every denier that will ever live in every possible world therefore it is out of bounds to even consider the possibility of the supernatural.
This is despite the fact I have absolutely no clue how it might take place naturally and I haven’t even attempted to formulate a hypothesis as to how it could happen.
Ider:
I can’t stand it
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 23, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
woodchuck,
You don’t see materialists defending compatabilist free will, You see them denying that freewill exists. That is exactly what everyone here has done.
Can you link me to a materialist defender of freewill?
That is a gargantuan difference.
Like fundamentalists new atheist hedonists agree on the shared human moral sense while believing that nature is at the base of it all rather than God.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 23, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Well, a bit better than your usual. But meadows are plantspace, not meatspace. And the eagle didn't speak.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
fifth monarchy man:
I assume everyone was talking about libertarian/contra-causal free will. That's what I assumed Heddle and Bradford were talking about. A materialist would say that kind of free will doesn't exist.
But compatibilism was originally championed by Thomas Hobbes, a classic materialist. David Hume defended it. Daniel Dennett is a compatibilist. Free will under compatibilism is not very controversial since freedom is then defined in terms of one's nature and desires. Compatibilism shows that free will, when defined correctly, is compatible with determinism, so meshes well with materialism/naturalism.
Materialists and Calvinists agree on the proper definition of free will and that's what's most relevant to this thread.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 23, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I was asking for a modern proponent.
From here
if Darwin is right, then we become just another effect. No longer a cause, no longer an author, but just another place where natural selection has its way in the natural world. I think many people are terribly afraid of being demoted by the Darwinian scheme from the role of authors and creators in their own right into being just places where things happen in the universe. That's deeply unsettling.
And
In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency
I don't care what Dennett says this is not Calvinististic compatibilism.
Could you share a detailed materialist definition of free will that I could agree on as a Calvinist?
The Calvinists I know of emphasize immaterialist things like the soul and human nature in their definitions of freewill.
On the other hand materialism would seem to require some kind of hard determinism that sees us as effects and just places where things happen aka Dennett instead of beings above nature.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 23, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 12:50 am
Not so. You do not have to rule out physical pathways. Dualists do not do that. They instead contend that thoughts and neural pathways are two distinct causal pieces to a puzzle and that they interrelate. Just as brain biochemistry can influence thoughts, thoughts can alter brain biochemistry. There is sequential significance to the order of events. If changes in thinking lead to altered physical pathways you have evidence for duality and, it is arguable, a supernatural effect which allows physical effects to result from intangible thought.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2010 @ 12:50 am
April 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Whether or not free will is supernatural is not important to me and I agree with you about that conclusion. But I do know that free will is not an illusion anymore more than my thoughts are illusions. I know from a lifetime of experience that I have the ability to choose against my biological urges and against my environmental pressures and conditioning. In fact, my life and identity are defined by those choices and nature and nurture together are insufficient to explain my life.
Zachriel likens free will to a sensation. That's too passive. Free will is sensory to the extent that we have rational minds capable of foresight – we have choices before our mind’s eye, we anticipate the consequences of those choices in light of foreknowledge, and then choose. So ‘sensation’ is not good enough in explaining what I experience, as the word ‘will’ accurately contains the motor connotation of the experience. To will, to decide, to choose – these are just as much motor as they are sensory.
Comment by MikeGene — April 24, 2010 @ 11:20 am
April 24th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I wrote:
I should correct this to say that materialist compatibilists and Calvinists agree on the proper definition of free will, rather than implying that all materialists are compatibilists.
fifth monarchy man:
Under materialistic compatibilism, free will is the freedom to act according to your nature. A person is not forced to make a choice, is responsible for their choices, and is the active agent behind those choices. But free will is not the ability to choose against who you are.
Now on issues of the source of human nature, source of determinism, source and nature of moral responsibility, obviously materialism and Calvinism diverge. But in the context of this thread, what is meant by free will at all is the most important point.
On Dennett:
This is not describing free will, this is describing the nature of the determinism present in nature. Clearly, Dennett does not agree that God's sovereignty is behind the origin of human beings.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 24, 2010 @ 11:36 am
April 24th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Other animals apparently have the sensation of being able to choose and of being confined. Wild birds in a cage, or a dog on a chain, come to mind. Humans have much greater foresight and imagination, so a person may feel confined when seeing an eagle in flight. But if they are happy bounding through a meadow, they have the sense that they have free will.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Substitute happily working out a math problem, sadly counting one's debt, happily contemplating your favorite team's victory, sadly thinking about the words you will use to convey your condolences and much more. So many experiences can be described as sensory that the depiction you apply could be described as- to use one of your (and Pim's) favorite words- vacuous.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
That's the point how we define human nature is the lynch pin for how we define freewill.
For the libertarian human nature is a force above nature that we can overcome with our choices.
For the Calvinist it a supernatural property that humans can't get above.
For both of these it is the supernatural thing that makes us who we are.
For the materialist on the other hand human nature is merely the sum of genes and environment.
Genes and the environment can not be held responsible for their choices. This view of nature leads to hard determinism not calvinistic compatibilism.
"Effects" don't have free will agents do.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 24, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Yes, all of those can be considered exercises of free will, but not necessarily. Debt can make people feel trapped, that they have no choice, and that their future is determined.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
We've been having a little fun with Sir Francis "Spaceman" Crick and his hypothesis about aliens, their unmanned spaceships, and the feasibility of disseminating inter-galactic DNA to our planet, Earth.
"
Our friend, Zachriel, dismisses this as "speculation" that was later abandonned by Crick. But, I'm not so sure this is a valid critique, for two reasons:
1. Icarus is a peer-reviewed journal, published by the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, based out of Cornell University.
So, how does mere "speculation" get published in a scientific journal? Is it a scientific hypothesis or not?
2. Crick did not explicitly state that he abandonned the "directed panspermia" hypothesis. He was coy about it. I searched for a clear statement of abandonment, and found nothing. This is Zachriel's interpretation of what Crick did.
But, this misses the point. The idea promulgated by Crick has certainly not been abandonned.
Indeed, check out Steven Hawking's recent ruminations about space aliens.
I guess my question is, Why are two absolute titans of British science, Crick and Hawkings, so prone to talk/write about space aliens, when there is not yet any evidence that they exist?
And, more saliently, when a galactic alien builds a space ship, is that an exercise in free will?
Comment by David S — April 24, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
No, I'm afraid you really don't. You still have to have evidence that thinking itself is not a physical pathway. You're just assuming duality, not finding evidence for it.
Comment by don provan — April 26, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
fifth monarchy man:
Plus the unimagineable complexity of the brain shaped through eons. I wouldn't
use "merely".
This view of nature also leads to compatibilism, not just hard determinism. Under materialism, moral responsibility is an abstraction partly built on top of moral indignation which itself seems to be essentially a hardwired biological drive: cheating detection. This drive is very important for cohesion in non-human primate societies so it stands to reason it serves a similar purpose in human society as well. Therefore, moral responsibility is useful and valid under materialistic compatibilism.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 26, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Thoughts are chemicals? One and the same? That's not a scientific position is it?
Comment by Bradford — April 26, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Journal Icarus: Icarus will strain his theories to the breaking-point till the weak joints gape.
Orgel & Crick, Anticipating an RNA World Some Past Speculations on the Origin of Life: Where Are They Today? Icarus 1993: We did not seriously consider the possibility that there was a midwife, a replicating pre-RNA world of quite different chemistry based, for example, on clays, as suggested by Cairns-Smith, or an alternative organic polymer. We now find this idea attractive… The lesson is clear: speculation is fun, but even correct hypotheses without experimental follow-up are unlikely to have much effect on the development of biology.
It's quite clear they now think that life originated on Earth. Their panspermia speculation was based in abiogenesis, just not on Earth (molybdenum hypothesis).
It just lacks empirical merit at this time. However, there is some evidence that organic chemicals may have been delivered by comets or other bodies.
There is evidence that life is a natural consequence of carbon chemistry. Due to the large number of plausible planets where life could originate, there is a reasonable likelihood of other planets with life on them.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Oops! Your scientism is showing!
Remember, without a plausible explanation there can be no plausible planets.
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
As we don't have "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities," your statement is off the mark.
There is evidence that life is a natural consequence of carbon chemistry. No one has a complete theory as yet, or knows the distribution of planetary environments, so the probability of its occurrence is still an open question.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Hey woodchuck,
“Unimaginably complex” nature is still merely nature.
Time is just another aspect of the environment, adding the phrase “shaped through eons” adds absolutely nothing to the phrase “genes and the environment”.
Exactly! For the materialist human responsibility and the free will that it relies on are based on a lie an illusion a biological drive like digestion .
A useful fiction.
Whether moral responsibility works is not at issue of course it works. What is at issue is whether it is real.
Are we really responsible for our actions or are we instead helpless zombie meat puppets being blamed for what we have no control over simply because it serves society?
Materialistic “compatibilism” attempts to ignore what it sees as reality because believes it is useful to do so.
Calvinist compatibilism on the other hand says that freewill is not an illusion. It is reality.
Genes and enviorment limit our nature they don't consitute it.
We are agents not effects.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 26, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
For an idea lacking empirical merit, there sure seem to be a lot of books, articles and published papers in the scientific literature on the topic.
Comment by David S — April 26, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
No, there really isn't.
Since you can't name a single planet where life is known to originate, your claim is obviously incorrect.
Yet you feel knowledgeable enough to claim
Lol.
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Not "exactly!" Digestion is hardly an illusion. Moral indignation is a sensation, not an illusion, and is an important adaptive trait.
It's a real sensation. Like pain or indigestion.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Interesting list: The rocky road to panspermia, Dusting off panspermia, Panspermia: Unlikely, unsupported, but just possible.
That's the amazing thing about science. It can investigate most any clearly stated empirical claim, and scientists will strain their theories to the breaking-point till the weak joints gape.
In any case, Crick proposed *directed* panspermia.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
That's sort of like saying that as we don't know exactly how the moon originated, it isn't reasonable to say it was plausible the consequence of the natural interaction of various masses. The theories vary so much, obviously none of them are true!
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
hey Woodchuck,
I’ve thought of an illustration that might serve to clarify our disagreement
I would never blame a completely physical object like a computer for always behaving according it’s programming. On the other had I would hold a Spiritual being like God responsible even though he always acts according to his nature.
So the question becomes are we more like a computer or more like God.
The Calvinist says God and therefore holds humans to have freewill.
The materialist says the computer and therefore twists the concept of freewill beyond recognition IMO.
To say that the two views are the same simply because they deny libertarianism is just silly.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 26, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
.
Well, this isn't a design inference, but it certainly is a "large number" inference.
What type of life are you envisioning here: simple bacteria or complex creatures, similar to humans (or something else?).
Also, what conclusions would you draw if NO evidence of such life exists on other planets, after we conduct a diligent search over many years.
Comment by David S — April 26, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Key word is plausible. There is no plausible theory of abiogenesis. Yet somehow, your scientism leads you to the conclusion:
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Most of the terms of the Drake Equation are still highly speculative.
A physical search is still a long way off, but various terms may be narrowed with additional research.
Repeating yourself without responding to the previous comment won't advance the discussion (assuming that was your purpose).
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Ahhh, the Drake Equation. One of Scientism's most cherished holy relics.
Do you think comments like
advance the discussion? I think they simply advance your exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science.
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I'm asking less about the Drake equation, and more about the "Zachriel" equation. You stated earlier that you thought it was reasonably likely that life exists on planets, other than earth.
So, What type of life are you envisioning?
This is not a "gotcha" question. Myself, I have seen no evidence of extra-terrestrial life, but the Universe is a big place, with many unexplored areas. So, I'm not totally adverse to that potential finding.
Comment by David S — April 26, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
The Zachriel Equation is largely just filling in the Drake Equation.
The evidence from Earth's history indicates a geologically short time between the formation of the oceans and the beginning of life. That would suggest that once the conditions were reasonably friendly, life begins. There is also evidence from history that life will tend to evolve to occupy new environments, including radiating out into niches requiring increasing complexity and coordination. As for technology capable of radio communications or space travel, that's much more problematic. A world of Socrates would be undetectable from afar.
Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
No. Sorry. It suggests no such thing. It only suggests something about your faith.
You have no idea what conditions are "friendly" to abiogenesis. You have no idea what time frame abiogenesis requires. You have no idea whether abiogenesis ever happened. You have no idea whether abiogenesis is even possible.
Yet you conclude that extraterrestrials are "reasonably likely" because your Holy Scripture, the Drake Equation, says so.
Faith. Scientism.
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Repeating yourself without responding to the previous comment won't advance the discussion
(assuming that was your purpose).Comment by Zachriel — April 26, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Wait – aren't you even going to call me a troll before you bail out of your argument?
Friends, fellow telic thinkers, we must always, always, always remember that these are NOT rational people we are dealing with. They often pay lip service to scientific method, testable hypotheses and reason, but in the end it's all just a facade to enhance the belief in extraterrestrial space aliens and miracle puddles which spring to life.
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Woodchuck
Here is a concise summery of the materialist position on free will to further explain why it has nothing in common with Calvinism.
Quote:
What alone can our teaching be? – That no one gives a man his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself (the latter absurd idea here put aside has been taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant, perhaps also by Plato). No one is responsible for existing at all, for being formed so and so, for being placed under those circumstances and in this environment. His own destiny cannot be disentangled from the destiny of all else in past and future. He is not the result of a special purpose, a will, or an aim, the attempt is not here made to reach an "ideal of man," an "ideal of happiness," or an "ideal of morality;" – it is absurd to try to shunt off man's nature towards some goal. We have invented the notion of a "goal:" in reality a goal is lacking . . . We are necessary, we are part of destiny, we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole,–there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole! – This only is the grand emancipation: that no one be made responsible any longer, that the mode of being be not traced back to a causa prima, that the world be not regarded as a unity, either as sensorium or as "spirit;" – it is only thereby that the innocence of becoming is again restored . . . The concept of "God" has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence . . . We deny God, we deny responsibility by denying God: it is only thereby that we save the world
End quote:
Nietzsche
nuff said
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 26, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You have ably opined that there is a reasonable likelihood of life on other planets.
You have ably articulated the basis for this opinion.
I have no problem with either of these.
Yet, you have twice now dodged the following direct question:
Crick has envisioned technologically-advanced aliens who can build unmanned spaceships, which travel at supersonic speed.
Hawking has envisioned "colonizing" aliens, looking to replenish their depleted resources.
What's yours? Is it simple bacteria forming in ponds on Mars? Is it something more advanced, like ET?
Of course, the $64,000 question, not directed to you, but to scientists like Crick and Hawking is, Why are they so comfortable with the idea of space aliens without any empirical support, yet so uncomfortable with the evidence of design on earth, ie, the utter complexity of the cell?
Comment by David S — April 26, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Why are they so comfortable with the idea of space aliens without any empirical support, yet so uncomfortable with the evidence of design on earth, ie, the utter complexity of the cell?
Because we know life formed at least once. But every appeal to the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena in the past has been a failure. The entire history of the supernatural is completely consistent with something that doesn't exist no matter how much people crave it.
Every mystery in nature every explained was NOT magic. The Sun, Moon, stars, the movement of planets, lightning, drought, flood, tides, earthquakes, crop failures, disease, schizophrenia, epilepsy, diversity of species, and on and on and on. All of these were once thought to have divine or supernatural causation, and were later proved to have natural causes devoid of divine intervention.
How many thousands of examples must we see before we are finally at peace with the starting assumption that natural phenomena have natural causes?
David S, you appear to be resting your argument for design upon the complexity of the modern cell, the product of 3 billion years of evolution. So when you demand to know what type of alien life someone envisions, it's really a silly question. All it takes is the discovery on some planet or moon of some pool of slime containing some simple, self-replicating pre-DNA life form, and your argument collapses.
In fact, given the irrefutable proof from thousands of examples that the natural explanation is always more likely than the supernatural, we don't even need to discover proto-life somewhere. All we need to do is devise a plausible scenario by which life could have developed naturally on the early Earth, and by definition, that will be a superior answer to "God did it".
Comment by RickK — April 26, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
As for free will, the whole argument is nonsense. The mechanistic interactions of particles and energies does not matter at the level of human interaction any more than quantum fluctuations matter at the level of colliding balls on the pool table.
You decide whether to have pancakes or yogurt for breakfast. Whether you believe your decision is based on what will please your personal deity, or based on what you think will make you more attractive to potential sexual partners, is entirely up to you.
And Nietzche was wrong. If there's no god(s) in your life, you're not denying responsibility – you're accepting TOTAL responsibility. If there's no divine force, if there are no guardian angels, no coming rapture, then humanity's future is ENTIRELY up to the decisions we humans make. It is entirely our decision whether our children's social skills are molded by meaningful personal interactions, or by watching television. It is entirely our decision whether a society based on mutual support and equality is better or worse than a society based on fear, force and greed. If there is no god to satisfy, then it is only us who will enjoy or suffer the consequences of our decisions.
If the people of this world took all the energy and resources they put into living in harmony with their various gods, and redirected it into living in harmony with nature and with each other, it's just possible that 50% of us wouldn't have to go to bed hungry every night.
The decision is ours. We have "will", but it is not free. It comes with responsibility.
Comment by RickK — April 26, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 7:44 am
That question was answered:
Primitive life radiating out into niches requiring increasing complexity and coordination. As for technology capable of radio communications or space travel, that's much more problematic.
If we were to sample planets, we would expect the vast majority not to have technological civilizations (defined as capable of radio communications). If you were to have sampled Earth over its 4 billion years of history, only a mere 0.000000025% of that period would yield a positive result for a technological civilization. The civilizations of Archimedes, Confucius, Buddha, Da Vinci and Newton wouldn't register. The overall probabilities are not currently knowable. However, the so-called Fermi Paradox puts somewhat of a limit on the numbers.
Because there is evidence that technological organisms evolved naturally from primitive forebearers, but there is no evidence to support Intelligent Design.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2010 @ 7:44 am
April 27th, 2010 at 11:22 am
fifth monarchy man:
I agree that there are substantial differences in the details. But my point in this thread was to highlight the agreement on the basics — free will is the freedom to act according to your nature, free will is not the ability to choose against who you are — because if one agrees with that, much of the thrust of the OP is negated. An argument criticizing naturalism/materialism based on libertarianism-like free will is nothing like an argument criticizing naturalism/materialism based on compatibilism-like free will. The former, in my opinion, is seriously lacking coherency, and good arguments demonstrating that are made, not just by atheists, but by the authors' "Christian brothers".
I would say hunger rather than digestion since we don't exactly feel digestion. Love is another example. But as a materialist, I can't call hunger or love a lie or an illusion– they clearly aren't–, so neither would I call the sensation of moral indignation a lie or illusion.
Clearly we aren't helpless zombie meat puppets, but in what sense do you believe we have control over our actions beyond the ability to act according to our nature? I need to understand what you mean by being "really responsible" while at the same time believing that we are unable to act independently of who we are.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 27, 2010 @ 11:22 am
April 27th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
To the contrary, there is ample evidence that intelligent agents can and do design biological systems. There is, however, no evidence that dirt and water possess this ability.
Also, as you've been reminded many times on this website, evolution from primitive forebearers does not logically preclude design.
You've simply chosen to focus exclusively on the bottom-up approach rather than to look broadly at both the bottom-up and top-down approaches. This limits your critical thinking ability, but it does preserve your cherished beliefs.
Which do you consider more important? Critical thinking, or preserving your beliefs?
Comment by chunkdz — April 27, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Hmmm. More worship at the altar of scientism.
In order for something to be a "paradox", it must contain at least two intuitive but contradictory statements.
The Fermi Paradox contains one intuitive statement (evidence is lacking) and one statement of quasi-religious faith (there must be space aliens).
No paradox here, Zach. Just another instance of your faith being utterly unsupported by the evidence.
Comment by chunkdz — April 27, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
woodchuck
I’m sorry but I just disagree. Whether you are just the sum total of our genes and the environment is not a detail it is the center of the argument.
Of course there are some things that materialists have in common with Calvinists. We are both human after all we can’t help but have some agreements. But agreement on the denial of libertarian free will is minor considering we disagree on the whole concept of what it means to be free.
You’d just as well claim that a small d democrat agrees with a totalitarian about government simply because they both support the police.
Would you hold a person to be responsible for being or not being hungry? I don’t think so.
We can’t act contrary to our nature but what is our nature. If it is just matter and physics then freewill is an illusion.
If our nature is on the other hand something that is constrained by matter and physics but consisting in something above them we can be held responsible for what it desires.
The issue is what do we mean by “we” if “we” means an effect of nature it can’t be held responsible for anything it’s only part of the whole.
Only if “we” are independent agents acting according to our nature and above matter and physics can we be held responsible for what we do.
Nietzsche had it right.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
fifth monarchy man:
Agreement on the denial of libertarian free will is significant, in my view, because it undermines the implication in Heddle's OP that denying libertarian free will is motivated by a desire to prop up naturalism. Since Calvinists deny it as well, this should demonstrate that there are good reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with denying the supernatural. And that is consistent with my view: I deny libertarian free will not because I'm committed to naturalism or refuse to consider the possibility of the supernatural, but because libertarian free will just doesn't make sense to me.
Drives have to be matched with what fulfills them. Moral responsibility fulfills moral indignation, food fulfills hunger.
I understand you to be saying that our nature is composed of two parts, natural and supernatural. Our will is the result of the meshing of two parts, physical matter in this universe, and mysterious spiritual "matter" in the supernatural sphere. But in the same way we are not able to choose the physical matter that consists us in this universe (we can't choose our genes or our environment), we can not choose the spiritual "matter" either, that's up to God. So either with or without the supernatural sphere, we're stuck with our nature, we can't change it and it completely defines our will and our decisions.
So I'm not really understanding how you get "real" moral responsibility from the supernatural that is distinctly different from moral responsibility under materialism. You seem to add an extra black box to human nature but I don't see how that automatically changes responsibility. If I make a mistake, now I have one more excuse besides my genes/environment: I didn't choose my spiritual decision mechanism, God did; I'm not responsible for its defects.
On the other hand, if we realize that as human beings we are genes, environment, and perhaps even a spiritual black box, than it is more difficult to deflect criticism of our decisions this way. And if I decide to do away with the spiritual black box as superfluous, it just means that I think that this universe is complex and grand enough to form human beings, not that human beings are insignificant.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 28, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Ah but that is not what the OP says now is it. Huddle is not concerned with just libertarian freewill but freewill generally.
Not at all our nature is composed of one part and it's supernatural. The physical constrains our nature like the bank constrains a river. It is not part of our nature.
Actually you did in the person of your federal head Adam. And every time you sin you reaffirm that choice. Do you really know what Calvinists believe?
It wasn’t difficult for Nietzsche. He did it in one paragraph.
In order to proceed perhaps you should explain how he is wrong given materialism.
That would at least give me an idea what you mean when you say you have freewill.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 28, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
fifth monarchy man:
I really don't see how it could be said of compatibilism free will (not Calvinist compatibilism) that "by its very definition it involves circumventing nature". That sounds like libertarian freewill to me.
Not enough, apparently. So I understand you to be saying that federal headship entails being in a sense the same as Adam, being the one who originally chose to sin and thus sharing in that moral responsibility. Did Adam have libertarian freewill? If yes, I thought Calvinism denies the coherency of that type of freewill. If he did not, then he acted according to his nature. But in what sense is Adam (and humanity) responsible for a nature he did not choose?
You said once before that you hold a Spiritual being morally responsible. Is that by definition or is there reasoning behind it?
Nietzsche is correct that if there is no God, we have no moral responsibility [to God] (I'm still stuck on precisely why we are responsible to God in the first place, as mentioned above.) But moral responsibility to each other doesn't disappear. Human nature recognizes and praises/condemns moral/immoral acts. Moral responsibility under materialism is realizing that your actions will be worthy of praise or condemnation and understanding that your nature is what is ultimately responsible for those actions. As long as humans are humans, we will experience empathy, admiration, moral indignation, joy, love, hunger, pain, etc. That's what really matters (hopefully holding off the qualia discussion for later.)
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 29, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Woodchuck
Thank you for the interaction I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
What I’d like to see is a coherent definition of materialist compatiblism.
It seems to me that it invariability crashes on the rocks of consciousness. It must treat "me" as an illusion. I can’t have Free will if I don’t really exist or if I am equal to matter and physics.
That is what Huddle is saying IMO.
No, for the Calvinist it’s the moral character of human nature that is paramount.
Adam’s nature was neutral as to it’s inclination to evil. This was not the equivalent of libertarian freewill. It just meant that he had the capability to choose good or evil.
His offspring on the other hand are hopelessly inclined to evil.
In one sense it’s just a restatement of Huddle’s contention in the OP. Like much in metaphysics its based on intuition.
I would hold God responsible for his actions but I would not hold a tornado to be morally responsible for deaths that result from it. It just would not seem right.
According to Nietzsche there is no “each other” we are all just part of the same whole.
Quote:
we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole,–there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole!
End quote:
He is saying we can't judge each other because we are not outside the whole.
But according to your world view your nature is just matter and physics just the emanation of an effect on natural selection. No different in kind from wind driven by a cold front. To say your nature is responsible is to say nothing is responsible.
I just disagree, hunger is not the same thing as moral responsibility and pain is not the same thing as freedom.
If it was bacteria would have freewill. I'm reasonablly sure even you don't hold bacteria morally responsible for spoiling the milk.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 29, 2010 @ 8:12 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
fifth monarchy man:
Likewise; I don't think I've ever had the chance to question a Calvinist in depth before and I appreciate the education.
I was trying to understand what you meant by real moral responsibility to see if it fit anything like my understanding of moral responsibility under materialism. I understand that part of the former goes back to Adam and the idea that a neutral nature allows one to be morally responsible for either a good or bad choice. However, I'm not sure I understand this completely because I interpret a neutral nature to desire nothing and therefore choose nothing, while Adam's nature seemed to be a mixture of both good and bad desires. God should still be responsible for choices that resulted from desires built in to Adam's nature.
The other part of real moral responsibility you have noted is our intuition that we are moral agents that are free and responsible for our actions. We have no similar intuition to hold a tornado responsible for deaths that result from it. Under materialism, moral agents form only from certain configurations of matter and energy that can feel pain and pleasure, can feel empathy/oneness/sameness towards others like them, can regret actions when shamed by others, can be proud of actions when praised, can feel moral indignation when others engage in forms and degrees of social cheating, all the unique features of human beings. (I agree that it is remarkable to imagine that matter/energy alone can do all that, but I've learned never to sell the universe short.)
My intuition of my own free will is that I am free to follow my desires whether they are good, bad, or unknown until further introspection. My free will does not seem to extend to freely changing my desires, so this intuition feels compatibilistic. But my intuition of other's free will is that they are always free not to have triggered my sense of moral indignation, which is quite libertarian. That intuition isn't really fair and always true under any worldview, but that's because moral indignation I think is an emotional response not a logical one.
The contradiction in intuition does not lead to an easy model of moral responsibility (sans spiritual revelation) and the only correct one I can imagine under any worldview is that we are responsible to each other because that's the way people want to get along and I'm a person. There is no easy way to argue moral agents could have done differently, or that they have broken a rule in some cosmic sense (which is what I understand Nietzsche is arguing against).
Perhaps in a far away utopian future, we'll be able to look inside the mind of another at the moment of transgression against us and discover all the reasons that cause the action. I think we can forgive them completely, while still hurting from the transgression and recognizing that the person may need socially-mandated help or healing of some kind. This seems to be the scope of moral responsibility under materialism.
Comment by woodchuck64 — April 30, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
That is OK as not everything requires a scientific explanation.
Contrary to some people's belief science is not the only way to come to an understanding.
Or artificial.
Artificial it is.
Comment by ID guy — April 30, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Perhaps I should have said mutable instead of neutral. Adam nature was good but not unchangebly so.
My favorite confession puts it like this
Quote:
In the beginning God made all things very good; created man after His own image, filled with all meet perfection of nature, and free from all sin; but long he abode not in this honor; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce first Eve, then by her seducing Adam; who without any compulsion, in eating the forbidden fruit, transgressed the command of God, and fell
End quote:
Notice that Adam when he was created did not have a corrupted nature.
God is responsible in the sense that he chose to create Adam and allowed him to fall. But my point is that Adam chose freely to rebel against God and to surrender his nature and his offspring to slavery to sin
What according to materialism leads you to believe that humans are unique in any real way? It seems to me that materialism holds that humans differ from tornados only in degree not in kind.
I think you need to define what you mean by “you”. Are you something separate from the universe? If so on what basis do you make the distinction.
So you hold to freewill because it is good for society? Good for society does not equall real
I read Nietzsche and those like him to be arguing that moral responsibility is illogical given materialism. He like Dawkins and company celebrate that discovery.
IMO moral responsibility requires an agent. You have yet to even explore what makes an effect become an agent.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 30, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Thoughts are not chemicals? Different? That's not a scientific position is it?
Remember, I'm not the one trying to take a scientific position here. Your criticism is right on the money and shows you exactly the problem with the claim that "if changes in thinking lead to altered physical pathways you have evidence for duality". You're trying to skip over the part where you establish that thinking itself is more than a physical pathway. You accuse me of not being able to prove it is, but I'm not asserting that it is, I'm just pointing out that you are assuming it isn't.
Comment by don provan — May 3, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
fifth monarchy man:
Which would mean either that Adam's nature was created with the desire to rebel against God in certain circumstances, or that one's nature does not necessarily dictate one's actions. The latter seems to me to be more the libertarian view of free will, the former holding God fully responsible. Am I not understanding this or is there a sort of axiom of faith to it?
If "really unique" means above matter in some sense, then I would agree that there is no real uniqueness. But I would prefer to use unique to refer to characteristics that are extremely rare.
If the universe has the ability to evolve conscious beings, then each being has a unique vantage point of perception but none are really separate in some non-physical way. So "I/you" ultimately refers to a conscious observer who nevertheless connects seamlessly to the rest of the universe.
I'm saying moral responsibility (resulting from the ability to freely act according to one's nature) as a consequence of moral indignation is part of my hardwiring and is therefore as valid as hunger, love, joy, etc. Like any biological drive, it is not completely rational (especially since it implies libertarian-like free will). More rational forms of moral responsibility can theoretically exist.
Let's suppose under materialism that I kill someone. I acted according to my nature and my nature in turn came from genes, environment, cause and effect all the way back to the dawn of time. Who killed someone? Ultimately the universe did. However, that is no consolation to me– I have to live with the memory of that act, the violence, the pain caused to the victim's loved ones, the regret, how it changes me as a person forever– and it's no consolation to the society whose rules I broke and which will seek to punish me. So if I value society, if I am a social being at all receiving value from being in society and interacting with other people, I must take responsibility for what my nature caused me to do and change myself, let society change me, or become something much less than human: an outcast. There is nothing illogical about this, it flows naturally from what human beings are.
If the universe has the ability to evolve conscious social beings, they may develop rules for social behavior called morality, and in following or not following those rules they become moral agents with respect to each other.
Comment by woodchuck64 — May 3, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I never said that ones nature “necessarily” dictates one actions. Such a statement would be false on it’s face. Lots of things besides our nature can determine our actions for example a nervous tick or genetic predisposition might cause one to do something against his nature Romans 7:15-8:1 is the classic text in this regard.
All that Calvinists claim is that one can’t get above ones nature to choose one thing over the other but humans sink below it all the time.
The fall is a singularity of sorts and like all singularities it is difficult to describe in detail with out sounding paradoxical.
All us reformed folks would affirm the following
Adam’s sin had a cause
God was not responsible in the immediate sense
Adam sinned freely.
These staments are not contradictory but they might seem paradoxical. To go father than them would be to move beyond revelation to speculation.
IMO From the point of view of a materialist the characteristics you mention are common in the animal kingdom it’s just that they are more highly evolved in humans.
Not a difference in kind only in degree.
If you and I are not separate from the universe we can’t be held individually responsible for our actions. like Nietzsche said:
, we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole,–there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole!
What separates us from the universe? If we are nothing but matter and motion it seems to me that nothing does and that free will is an illusion. It's as simple as that.
If contrary to folks like Dennet you believe that consciousness and materialism are both true the burden of proof is on you to explain how this could be. If you can do so I would agree that freewill is theoretically possible in your would view. The floor is yours.
As it is you seem to be trying to claim agency for yourself while simultaneously undercutting it’s basis.
In such a scenario responsibility is a sensation with no basis in reality like pain from a phantom limb. It might keep you up at night but it is just an illusion.
There you go with the “It’s good for society” argument. I’ll grant that it’s good for society the question I have “is it real?”.
From a purely utilitarian perspective I suppose it’s not illogical to act as if freewill exists but from the point of view of materialism it is certainly illogical to believe it does.
Again that is the question. How can a physical universe evolve something that is above the physical?
The floor is yours I’m open to suggestions
Again thanks for the discussion. You have been a gentleman through out and I have enjoyed it tremendously. I wish we could have done it on the front porch over a glass of cool lemonade
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 3, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
May 6th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Why is it necessary to show that thoughts are simply chemical pathways? Dualists do not deny chemical components in neural functions. But demonstrating that thoughts are chemicals is not necessary to discern thoughts or their timing within a sequence of physical events. If thoughts are nothing but chemicals then chemistry alone would suffice to explain and predict thoughts. If on the other hand thinking can alter biochemistry then we have an alternative model for making predictions. The alternative model has strong empirical support. Discern thoughts and emotions and resultant hormonal pathways are very predictable.
Comment by Bradford — May 6, 2010 @ 12:57 pm