Naturalism and human faculties...

kelly1

Hello all, long time since I wandered into this den of vipers!

I recently read this book and it prompted me to have a chat with you guys.

Presumably the atheists among you would hold a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, meaning that all of reality consists of nothing but physical matter and energy. OK so far?

If this is the case, I'm wondering how you would deal with questions such as the following:

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

- Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?

- Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

How do you guys deal with these questions?

Thanks.

looksee

Asking us to discuss a book that suggests atheism is a 'god substitute', and then expecting coherent answers is really a big ask. I can't say that any of your questions have caused me to lose any sleep. In fact I have no idea what some of them are about.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Asking us to discuss a book that suggests atheism is a 'god substitute', and then expecting coherent answers is really a big ask. I can't say that any of your questions have caused me to lose any sleep. In fact I have no idea what some of them are about.

I'm not asking for a discussion of the book.

Would you like clarification on any of the questions?

looksee

Er, no thanks.

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Er, no thanks.

You don't know what the questions are about and you don't want to know? Not much of a contribution to this thread is it?

magicbastarder

i would guess that a lot of atheists would be quite happy to respond 'i don't know' to many of those questions.
except the one about whether quarks are self-aware.

LionelNashe

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, long time since I wandered into this den of vipers!

I recently read this book and it prompted me to have a chat with you guys.

Presumably the atheists among you would hold a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, meaning that all of reality consists of nothing but physical matter and energy. OK so far?

OK with me.

kelly1 wrote: »

If this is the case, I'm wondering how you would deal with questions such as the following:

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

I don't think there's anything 'special' about consciousness that needs anything other than matter to produce it. I like to think of the human brain as a virtual reality machine that happens to contain a model of the world, that's sufficiently accurate to function in the world, and also contained within the model is an image of the self within the world. I think I got that 'virtual reality' aspect from David Deutsch, "The Fabric of Reality".

kelly1 wrote: »

- Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?

Isn't the faculty of reason just the ability to carry out calculations, including predictions of cause and effect? We can already make machines that do that. I don't see the issue with trusting it.

kelly1 wrote: »

- Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

How do you guys deal with these questions?

Thanks.

If the universe is naturalistic/materialistic (and I think it is), then I'd say the possibility of free will, in a very strict sense, is an illusion. If there's true randomness at some quantum level, or if we're living in a multiverse and every choice happens in some parallel reality, free will is still impossible.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would guess that a lot of atheists would be quite happy to respond 'i don't know' to many of those questions.

I suppose you're right.

If our minds, and hence thoughts, are the result of physical processes, then why should we trust our own thoughts as being rational. Any yet you and I can question the rationality of our own thoughts, showing that we can somehow rise above our own thoughts.

Similarly, if our brains work according to deterministic and quantum processes, would that not suggest we have no control over our thoughts, being either predetermined or random? If our brains operate like computers, then what room does that leave for free thought and free will?

kelly1

LionelNashe wrote: »

I don't think there's anything 'special' about consciousness that needs anything other than matter to produce it. I like to think of the human brain as a virtual reality machine that happens to contain a model of the world, that's sufficiently accurate to function in the world, and also contained within the model is an image of the self within the world. I think I got that 'virtual reality' aspect from David Deutsch, "The Fabric of Reality".

What evidence is there of this model of the world contained within the brain?

Isn't the faculty of reason just the ability to carry out calculations, including predictions of cause and effect? We can already make machines that do that. I don't see the issue with trusting it.

It's not just about calculations. How do we know the logic we use every day is meaningful? Common logic says you can't have a square circle. But how do we know this to be true?

If the universe is naturalistic/materialistic (and I think it is), then I'd say the possibility of free will, in a very strict sense, is an illusion. If there's true randomness at some quantum level, or if we're living in a multiverse and every choice happens in some parallel reality, free will is still impossible.

What does your experience tell you? Why not trust that? If you really lived according to the belief that we're automatons, would you not go mad knowing you're trapped inside a machine over which you've no control. Or rather, you are the machine.

LionelNashe

kelly1 wrote: »

What evidence is there of this model of the world contained within the brain?

Do you mean, what evidence is there that consciousness is the same thing as a virtual reality model of the world, or you do accept that but you're asking what evidence is there that the model is located in the brain?

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not just about calculations. How do we know the logic we use every day is meaningful? Common logic says you can't have a square circle. But how do we know this to be true?

We don't know that it's true, and we don't need to know that it's true. We just have to be able to rely on it well enough that we can function in the world and pass on our genes to the next generation. I'd say in fact that some of the things we take as givens are just useful illusions.

kelly1 wrote: »

What does your experience tell you? Why not trust that? If you really lived according to the belief that we're automatons, would you not go mad know you're trapped inside a machine over which you've no control. But it's actually worse than that, because you are the machine.

My experience is exactly what I'd expect my experience to be, if free will was an illusion. There's no contradiction as far as I'm concerned. If I'm an automaton, then nothing really matters. And, it doesn't matter that nothing really matters. So it's easier to just go with the flow and live life. There's no reason not to be pragmatic.

kelly1

LionelNashe wrote: »

Do you mean, what evidence is there that consciousness is the same thing as a virtual reality model of the world, or you do accept that but you're asking what evidence is there that the model is located in the brain?

I'm asking is what you wrote speculation or is there some evidence for the theory. I've never heard of it tbh.

We don't know that it's true, and we don't need to know that it's true. We just have to be able to rely on it well enough that we can function in the world and pass on our genes to the next generation. I'd say in fact that some of the things we take as givens are just useful illusions.

Then all human knowledge, including science, could be a crock of sh*t? It's all about survival?


My experience is exactly what I'd expect my experience to be, if free will was an illusion. There's no contradiction as far as I'm concerned. If I'm an automaton, then nothing really matters. And, it doesn't matter that nothing really matters. So it's easier to just go with the flow and live life. There's no reason not to be pragmatic.[/quote]
But can you *really* accept that could/must be possible? Does such a thought not cause huge revulsion within your mind? I would find such an idea repugnant and seriously depressing.

kelly1

Coincidentally, I just read this on Facebook:

"we readily take ourselves, in logic and mathematics, to be thinking about something that is independent of our thought; that can be so, according to Leibniz, only if we are thinking about something that exists, whether we realize it or not, in God's mind.

An epistemology of divine illumination is not a silly theory. I think, in fact, it may be the best type of theory available to us for explaining the reliability of our supposed knowledge of logic and mathematics, since the alternative type of theory most salient for us, in terms of natural selection, does not obviously explain our aptitude for the higher reaches of those subjects, which was of no use to our ancestors on whom the selective pressures were supposedly operative."

Robert M. Adams, Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist (Oxford university press)

LionelNashe

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm asking is what you wrote speculation or is there some evidence for the theory. I've never heard of it tbh.

I was trying to clarify from you what part you had an issue with. You mean, looking at consciousness as a 'virtual reality'? I think that's just another way of saying what it is. It's not a theory, or speculation, or something that would need evidence. It's describing 'consciousness' using a different set of words. I can't think of any other way to describe it, offhand. Just to stress, I think that the 'virtual reality' probably needs to include a model of the self for it to be considered consciousness as we normally apply the term to ourselves. I suspect that insects, for example, have the 'virtual reality' going on in what passes for their brain, but not self-awareness.

kelly1 wrote: »

Then all human knowledge, including science, could be a crock of sh*t? It's all about survival?

*Could be* a crock of ****, but I suspect it's not. Whatever differences there are between objective reality (which I'd say is unknowable), and our perception of it, they're small enough that they don't seem to matter much.

My experience is exactly what I'd expect my experience to be, if free will was an illusion. There's no contradiction as far as I'm concerned. If I'm an automaton, then nothing really matters. And, it doesn't matter that nothing really matters. So it's easier to just go with the flow and live life. There's no reason not to be pragmatic.

kelly1 wrote: »

But can you *really* accept that could/must be possible? Does such a thought not cause huge revulsion within your mind? I would find such an idea repugnant and seriously depressing.

Intellectually, I accept it. Not only does free will not exist, the concept is meaningless in my worldview. It couldn't exist. I remember when it first occurred to me, when I was sitting on a bus on the way to work. It didn't bother me at all. How could it, because it pales into insignificance if you consider the implications of there being no afterlife.


Just to add, I don't think that all of the above leads to a bleak view of reality. Just because we can be 'explained' to an extent in terms of component parts and biological & electro-chemical processes doesn't mean that we're lessened. A beautiful work of art could be described in terms of splashes and molecules of paint on a canvas, but that's just an alternative way of describing it that doesn't lessen it. It exists on two levels at once - it's bits of paint arranged on a 2-dimensional surface, and it's the Mona Lisa (bad example, possibly, because I don't know what people see in that painting)

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

Matter does produce consciousness somehow as that's what evidently is the case.
The exact way this happens is still being researched and it's probably going to be one of those questions that will be open and nebulous for a long time.
I'm not sure why you are suggesting quarks might be self aware...? Is this something people claim?

Also, there is no reason at all to believe the converse idea is in anyway true or useful. There is no evidence or logic to show or suggest that consciousness is in anyway supernatural or spiritual (or magic).

kelly1 wrote: »

- Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?

Things like the scientific method are designed to reduce and exclude our brain's biases and foibles.

If reason and rational thoughts are not real, then how do you personally explain scientific progress?
Why would it be more trustworthy if it comes a supernatural origin?

kelly1 wrote: »

- Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

This is an impossible question to answer without a solid definition of free wiil. So good luck with that.

But either way, the concept of free will has a much better chance of being a thing without supernatural elements like Gods and souls.

MrPudding

I find the whole free will thing interesting, particularly in the context of law. At a social level, it is interesting to go to a magistrates court and (if you are in the UK) , listen to the pre-sentencing reports. You hear the same thing over and over again, parent were alcoholic/drug addicts, was abused, left school early, fell in with the wrong crowd etc. Of course, not everyone with this kind of background turns to crime, but a very large percentage of criminals have this background. This kind of environmental programming seems to be very difficult to break out of.

If we are subject to our "programming" to a great extent, then perhaps freewill is an illusion. We make choices all the time, but do we actually freely make them? If we had a massive AI that could record and analyse everything that had ever happened to us, and everything we had done up to the point of the decision, then I believe it would be able to predict our behaviour. We think we are making a decision, but in reality we are only choosing the option that our experiences to date have programmed us to make.

MrP

Peregrinus

But our experiences to date may have programmed us to believe in free will, in which case it is pointless to challenge our belief in free will.

Though, of course, we may have no choice but to challenge it.

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

If we are subject to our "programming" to a great extent, then perhaps freewill is an illusion. We make choices all the time, but do we actually freely make them?

While we are influenced by our past and current context, constrained such that there are limits on our degrees of freedom, and moulded by experience, we still can and do act on a seemingly arbitrary basis from time to time.

If we had a massive AI that could record and analyse everything that had ever happened to us, and everything we had done up to the point of the decision, then I believe it would be able to predict our behaviour. We think we are making a decision, but in reality we are only choosing the option that our experiences to date have programmed us to make.

The fundamental problems I have with deterministic notions such as this are scale on the one hand and objectivity on the other. Scale because the systems we're talking about are so huge and causal chains so long and involved that in all probability we will never be able to model them, so while they might be theoretically deterministic they are largely non-deterministic from any practical standpoint. Objectivity because your AI would be part of the system you're trying to model and thus causally connected. Talking about complete determinism in an unbounded system of which we're a part is about as useful as trying to learn your infinity times tables.

smacl

King Mob wrote: »

Also, there is no reason at all to believe the converse idea is in anyway true or useful. There is no evidence or logic to show or suggest that consciousness is in anyway supernatural or spiritual (or magic).

This. Just because we don't full understand something doesn't lend credibility to any random fantasy we might substitute in place of our limited understanding.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

The fundamental problems I have with deterministic notions such as this are scale on the one hand and objectivity on the other. Scale because the systems we're talking about are so huge and causal chains so long and involved that in all probability we will never be able to model them, so while they might be theoretically deterministic they are largely non-deterministic from any practical standpoint. Objectivity because your AI would be part of the system you're trying to model and thus causally connected. Talking about complete determinism in an unbounded system of which we're a part is about as useful as trying to learn your infinity times tables.

Our system isn't unbounded. There's a finite (very large, but finite) number of particles in the universe, and there was a start point (the big bang) and we think will have an end point, which means a finite (very, very large, but still finite) number of interactions between particles. And a hypothetical being, observing the universe from without and gifted with total knowledge and total understanding, knowing the initial arrangement of particles, forces, etc, could reliably predit the entire history of the universe to the end of time.

I entirely take the point that causal chains may be so long and complex that it is beyond us to study them and see how things are determined, to the point where we can predict future events. But that's irrelevant to the moral issue raised by Mr P; if it was predestined that I would steal that chocolate bar, even though neither you nor I could predict it, I had no choice about stealing the chocolate bar, and therefore in what sense can I be morally accountable for the theft, and on what basis can it be right to punish me? You'd accept that if I were forced at gunpoint to steal the chocolate bar I couldn't be punished, wouldn't you? But, if you grant that, why would some forms of compulsion excuse my actions, but other forms not?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Our system isn't unbounded. There's a finite (very large, but finite) number of particles in the universe, and there was a start point (the big bang) and we think will have an end point, which means a finite (very, very large, but still finite) number of interactions between particles. And a hypothetical being, observing the universe from without and gifted with total knowledge and total understanding, knowing the initial arrangement of particles, forces, etc, could reliably predit the entire history of the universe to the end of time.

The bounds of space and time aren't determined by the number of particles involved nor how they interact but rather by the positions they could take in the space time continuum. For time and space to be bounded you would need to be able to prove that there is a spatial limit beyond which any particle cannot be moved. I'm not aware of any such proof.

I entirely take the point that causal chains may be so long and complex that it is beyond us to study them and see how things are determined, to the point where we can predict future events. But that's irrelevant to the moral issue raised by Mr P; if it was predestined that I would steal that chocolate bar, even though neither you nor I could predict it, I had no choice about stealing the chocolate bar, and therefore in what sense can I be morally accountable for the theft, and on what basis can it be right to punish me? You'd accept that if I were forced at gunpoint to steal the chocolate bar I couldn't be punished, wouldn't you? But, if you grant that, why would some forms of compulsion excuse my actions, but other forms not?

It is not binary, we have notions such as proportionality and extenuating circumstances which may range from lessening guilt slightly to making an action entirely acceptable. When we judge a persons actions (or our own for that matter) we consider context.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

The bounds of space and time aren't determined by the number of particles involved nor how they interact but rather by the positions they could take in the space time continuum. For time and space to be bounded you would need to be able to prove that there is a spatial limit beyond which any particle cannot be moved. I'm not aware of any such proof.

Here we run up against the (very great) limitations imposed by my knowledge of cosmology, but isn't the universe a finite size, the size being determined by the rate at which it is expanding plus the time which has elapsed since the big bang?

smacl wrote: »

It is not binary, we have notions such as proportionality and extenuating circumstances which may range from lessening guilt slightly to making an action entirely acceptable. When we judge a persons actions (or our own for that matter) we consider context.

But considerations such as proportionality and extenuating circumstances only make sense in a context in which we assume that the individual has a free will which is overborn by external factors such as these. If we conclude that, correctly viewed, he has no free will at all, and his actions are entirely determined by circumstances that he cannot control, how can we punish him?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here we run up against the (very great) limitations imposed by my knowledge of cosmology, but isn't the universe a finite size, the size being determined by the rate at which it is expanding plus the time which has elapsed since the big bang?

Not an area of expertise for me either. While the jury is still out on this one, the flat universe model would hold it as infinite. An interesting interview with Joseph Silk, Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford on the subject here. My take on this is that the bounds of the universe at any point in time are considered as the limits of space occupied by the particles within the universe at that point in time. As these particles continue to move apart from one another the universe is expanding and becoming less dense. Unless you can consider a circumstance that would prevent this from happening at some point in the future, the universe is unbounded.

But considerations such as proportionality and extenuating circumstances only make sense in a context in which we assume that the individual has a free will which is overborn by external factors such as these. If we conclude that, correctly viewed, he has no free will at all, and his actions are entirely determined by circumstances that he cannot control, how can we punish him?

If the person committing the crime has no free will in terms of committing that crime than neither does a jury in convicting them, and predestination cancels out nicely on either side of the equation My take on it is that predestination is moot in much the same way as determinism as there is no objective observer or entirely foolproof prediction mechanism. I'm guessing a religious person might place God in this role, though short of divine intervention it remains moot.

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

For time and space to be bounded you would need to be able to prove that there is a spatial limit beyond which any particle cannot be moved. I'm not aware of any such proof.

the explanations of 'finite and unbounded' i usually remember is the usual example of someone living on the surface of a sphere; their 'universe' is finite but unbounded. i.e. it's a finite area, but if they start walking on it, they'll never hit a boundary. and there's a theory that the universe is like this, but with extra dimensions. it's finite, but loops back on itself.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you guys deal with these questions?

I think I am, therefore I am... ...I think.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

If the person committing the crime has no free will in terms of committing that crime than neither does a jury in convicting them, and predestination cancels out nicely on either side of the equation My take on it is that predestination is moot in much the same way as determinism as there is no objective observer or entirely foolproof prediction mechanism. I'm guessing a religious person might place God in this role, though short of divine intervention it remains moot.

Your smiley here is not trivial. If it's true that the individual was predestined to commit the crime, then it's equally true that the jury was predestined to convict and the judge to sentence, and while it may also be true that we are predestined to question whether this is right in a moral sense, it doesn't appear that our questioning is of any significance.

One objection to the whole "everything is predestined" argument is that it's pointless, since if it's true then, by definition, having the argument is inevitable but, equally inevitably, won't change anything. But to my mind a more cogent objection to "everything is predestined" is that it doesn't accord with our experience. We experience ourselves to be making choices all the time. And, while our experiences aren't infallible, the scientific method proceeds on the assumption that they are, on the whole, reliable indicators of reality. (If they were not, scientific experimentation and observation would be useless.)

This isn't a simple binary, whereby either (a) our choices are completely unconstrained by external circumstances, or (b) we have no choice at all, and our experiences of choosing are simply illusory. Common experience and observation is that people's choices can be more free or less free, and while in any particular case it may be difficult for us to discern reliably exactly how free a person's choice is, there seems no reason to reject the idea of freedom absolutely.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

the explanations of 'finite and unbounded' i usually remember is the usual example of someone living on the surface of a sphere; their 'universe' is finite but unbounded. i.e. it's a finite area, but if they start walking on it, they'll never hit a boundary. and there's a theory that the universe is like this, but with extra dimensions. it's finite, but loops back on itself.

There are also more theories out there than the big bang as a singularity, such as a pulsating or cyclic model which starts dragging us towards M-theory and far more than my little 'brane can mange.

magicbastarder

i don't like string theory. not saying it's not true, but it seems so... undignified. overcomplicated.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But to my mind a more cogent objection to "everything is predestined" is that it doesn't accord with our experience. We experience ourselves to be making choices all the time. And, while our experiences aren't infallible, the scientific method proceeds on the assumption that they are, on the whole, reliable indicators of reality. (If they were not, scientific experimentation and observation would be useless.)

That we experience ourselves to be making choices therefore we are making choices therefore we have free will is something of a tautology. The best we can say is that our experiences are largely subjective. Using the scientific method we take discrete observations and use them to piece together an approximation of how we best understand reality. We do not and cannot observe reality in its entirety and our observations are incomplete and contain error. What scientific method delivers is our best guess at any given point in time of how we understand the universe while attempting to minimise subjective bias. My objection to predestination is that it demands an objective predictor and observer outside of the universe itself, which I have no reason to believe exists. Without that, we're simple left with cause and effect with unknowably complex causal chains.

Saruhashi

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, long time since I wandered into this den of vipers!

I recently read this book and it prompted me to have a chat with you guys.

Presumably the atheists among you would hold a naturalistic/materialistic worldview, meaning that all of reality consists of nothing but physical matter and energy. OK so far?

If this is the case, I'm wondering how you would deal with questions such as the following:

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

- Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?

- Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

How do you guys deal with these questions?

Thanks.

Oooft. I'm afraid my answer to all of the questions would be "I don't know."

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?
- Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?
- Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

We don't know that our thoughts are rational or coherent and maybe rationality is an illusion BUT some behaviors clearly lead to better outcomes regardless of the thought process behind them.

I choose to leave my building by the stairs rather than jumping out of the window so there must be some element of my thought process that is geared towards survival. The behavior of not jumping from high places is also a learned behavior from knowing that colliding with things at velocity will result in pain.

If you look at someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol you can plainly see the impact of introducing chemicals into the system. This at least shows that chemicals in the brain can drastically change thoughts and behaviors. So we can definitely assume that chemical reactions do produce our thoughts.

What if "consciousnesses" is a property of some types of matter? Maybe the thing is that we discuss how we don't understand consciousness when really we are talking about how we don't understand matter? Maybe "matter" and "consciousness" are not separate?

Free-will probably exists as a balance between instinctive reactions and conscious decisions.

For example, I might touch a hot pan and instinctively draw my hand away due to pain. I could also, with enough will power, deliberately touch my hand to a hot pan and deliberately give myself a severe burn. Both of those would still be behaviors that could be influenced by many factors. Free-will would be ONE of those factors but not the be all and end all of human behavior.

Free-will would then not be an illusion or not an illusion. It would be just one component of the many components of the human mind.

Even the whole free-will aspect is strongly linked to matter and could just be another property of some types of matter.

Or maybe consciousness is a property of some types of energy, I dunno.

Those are interesting questions from a religious perspective. I think the more someone would move towards "God" to explain things like consciousness or self awareness on the level or quarks the further away they would move from any of the mainstream Gods that humans describe.

How can the popular religions, as understood by their followers, tie these complex physics problems, to their chosen God?

Saruhashi

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't a simple binary, whereby either (a) our choices are completely unconstrained by external circumstances, or (b) we have no choice at all, and our experiences of choosing are simply illusory. Common experience and observation is that people's choices can be more free or less free, and while in any particular case it may be difficult for us to discern reliably exactly how free a person's choice is, there seems no reason to reject the idea of freedom absolutely.

I like to think of it in relation to time.

How quickly choices are made. How rapidly thoughts form in the brain and create our future. Even the decision to wait before committing to a course of action is a choice. So how long did it take to make that choice. Almost instantaneous, right?

We are constantly moving and the mind is always working but we cannot stop or reverse time. So our minds are moving at maximum speed with no way of stopping or even slowing down.

There's no way to have a thought and then undo that thought, or the consequences of that thought, and this makes the idea of "choice" seem like an illusion. You can't go back and "unthink" all the intangible thoughts that led to the choices we make with tangible outcomes.

The future can't be predetermined because it doesn't exist yet but the thoughts we have now now now now will determine the future.

So I think free-will exists but time moves too quickly for us to actually observe "true" free-will in action.

Maybe.

smacl

Saruhashi wrote: »

So I think free-will exists but time moves too quickly for us to actually observe "true" free-will in action.

Stops to ponder how best to respond to the above

RichieO

Free will, freedom of choice, and the whole of your reality is an illusion created by the mind to allow you to survive in a way you are comfortable with, it is not fixed, it is in a state of transition always, it has to be, to ensure you are right and everyone else is screwed up, except for those who happen to agree with you (if you can find anyone) which is one of the reasons you are on boards.ie....

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

It's an emergent property of an arrangement. In the same way that when you arrange some steel, plastic, glass and magnetic poles in a specific way and then run some power through it, you get a touchscreen phone that displays imagery and allows interaction. Can you play Angry Birds on a quark? No, because a quark alone does not have this property.

When you arrange chemicals and elements in a certain way and run some energy through them, they produce what we know as consciousness.

Take the energy away or disassemble the components and the consciousness is gone. Simple as.

Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin? So how do we know that chemical/electrical interactions produce coherent, logical, rational thoughts? Is our rationality an illusion?

Logic and reason are just extrapolated forms of 1 + 2 = 3. If X and Y then Z. Applying known data to create a model of the world around you.

The exception is that unlike maths, there are no absolutes in logic or rationality. Hence why for any given scenario two people may "logically" come to different conclusions.

Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

Does it matter? Our experience is going to be the same regardless.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you guys deal with these questions?

Usually by saying that:

a) we don't have firm answers to any of them (save the quark question) yet, but we're working on them.

b) we're fine acknowledging that we don't know the answers yet.

c) we're not going to take the inexplicability of consciousness and push off our plates and onto the plate of some other entity, and then - with a grand handwave - say that it's a divine mystery, or somesuch. That's not an answer, that's avoiding the question.

Finally, as others have pointed out, not believing in god is not a "god substitute", it's - well - not accepting that all the different religious stories we hear are true.

kelly1

*Could be* a crock of ****, but I suspect it's not. Whatever differences there are between objective reality (which I'd say is unknowable), and our perception of it, they're small enough that they don't seem to matter much.

If our thoughts (reasoning, logic, theories etc) are produced by physical forces (chemical reactions, flow of electrons, heat transfer etc) then we have no reason to assume that our thoughts are truly meaningful or rational.

This is a reductionist approach which says that we're nothing more than complex machines. And as we know, machines (e.g computers) do only what they're made/programmed to do, they behave deterministically. Inputs are received, processed and outputs are produced in a complex but determined manner. How is this any basis for the human faculties of reason, intellect, will etc?

Intellectually, I accept it. Not only does free will not exist, the concept is meaningless in my worldview. It couldn't exist. I remember when it first occurred to me, when I was sitting on a bus on the way to work. It didn't bother me at all. How could it, because it pales into insignificance if you consider the implications of there being no afterlife.

Then the illusion is an incredibly convincing one. We all make decisions every day. Take a moral decision for example. I see money left lying on a table and I can choose to take it or not take it. I know I want to take it but my conscience tells me it's wrong. I also know it will harm the person from whom I would steal. Do I *really* have no control over the decision to take the money? Is the person who takes the money really not guilty of any crime? Is the rapist innocent because he has no control over his actions?

Just to add, I don't think that all of the above leads to a bleak view of reality. Just because we can be 'explained' to an extent in terms of component parts and biological & electro-chemical processes doesn't mean that we're lessened.

This is where I completely disagree. As a Christian (to put my cards on the table), I believe that God has created in us a soul with the faculties of intellect and will. We are created "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1). But atheism strips all of this away leaving only a mechanistic and degrading view of the human person. It reduces us to "wet machines". I find this view very sad, tbh.

LionelNashe

magicbastarder wrote: »

the explanations of 'finite and unbounded' i usually remember is the usual example of someone living on the surface of a sphere; their 'universe' is finite but unbounded. i.e. it's a finite area, but if they start walking on it, they'll never hit a boundary. and there's a theory that the universe is like this, but with extra dimensions. it's finite, but loops back on itself.

That's how I think of it - like in Pacman, when you go off the left hand side of the screen and reappear at the right. Pacman doesn't realise that he's living in a cylinder.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Matter does produce consciousness somehow as that's what evidently is the case.

That's based on the assumption that only matter and energy exist. I don't accept that.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting quarks might be self aware...? Is this something people claim?

It was vague speculation on the materialistic explanation for consciousness, not any theory that I heard of.

There is no evidence or logic to show or suggest that consciousness is in anyway supernatural or spiritual (or magic).

I think it's a far more plausible explanation. If you posit that consciousness emerges from matter, then you have a big problem explaining the particular part of matter the produces consciousness. Is it the quarks, protons, electrons or all of them? Do the work together as a system? And how big is that system? Just the brain? All of the body? The entire universe?

Things like the scientific method are designed to reduce and exclude our brain's biases and foibles.

But according to the naturalistic view, there can be no actual/real method, only the illusion of one? Hence we can't really trust the scientific method.

If reason and rational thoughts are not real, then how do you personally explain scientific progress?

I should be asking you this question, I don't hold a naturalistic worldview!

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

This is an impossible question to answer without a solid definition of free wiil. So good luck with that.

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

Blowfish

Peregrinus wrote: »

I entirely take the point that causal chains may be so long and complex that it is beyond us to study them and see how things are determined, to the point where we can predict future events. But that's irrelevant to the moral issue raised by Mr P; if it was predestined that I would steal that chocolate bar, even though neither you nor I could predict it, I had no choice about stealing the chocolate bar, and therefore in what sense can I be morally accountable for the theft, and on what basis can it be right to punish me? You'd accept that if I were forced at gunpoint to steal the chocolate bar I couldn't be punished, wouldn't you? But, if you grant that, why would some forms of compulsion excuse my actions, but other forms not?

Have you never wondered why humans evolved a system of 'morals' and what they represent? They are essentially behaviours that in general (as it's a far from perfect system) directs human behaviours to maximise the benefit and/or minimise the loss of society as a whole.

We've evolved to see minor theft is seen as a minor loss to society, but the loss of a human life is seen as a much larger loss (though there are lots of exceptions). The percieved 'moral acceptability' of theft with a gun to your head recognises that in that situation, attempting to mimimise the loss to society by complying in an attempt to prevent the loss of a human life is seen as an acceptable action.

LionelNashe

kelly1 wrote: »

If our thoughts (reasoning, logic, theories etc) are produced by physical forces (chemical reactions, flow of electrons, heat transfer etc) then we have no reason to assume that our thoughts are truly meaningful or rational.

This is a reductionist approach which says that we're nothing more than complex machines. And as we know, machines (e.g computers) do only what they're made/programmed to do, they behave deterministically. Inputs are received, processed and outputs are produced in a complex but determined manner.

I agree with most of the above, except the 'not rational' bit, but we've already been back and forth on that. As for meaning, there is no such thing as 'true meaning'. There can only be the meaning that we give to things. That's the basis of all meaning, beauty and art that there is.

kelly1 wrote: »

How is this any basis for the human faculties of reason, intellect, will etc?

Reason & intellect, well, you have my take on it. And will, as I said, I don't believe in. Free will, to borrow one of your phrases, is a square circle. Strictly speaking, (as opposed to practically/pragmatically speaking), it just doesn't mean anything in a deterministic universe.

kelly1 wrote: »

Then the illusion is an incredibly convincing one. We all make decisions every day. Take a moral decision for example. I see money left lying on a table and I can choose to take it or not take it. I know I want to take it but my conscience tells me it's wrong. I also know it will harm the person from whom I would steal. Do I *really* have no control over the decision to take the money? Is the person who takes the money really not guilty of any crime? Is the rapist innocent because he has no control over his actions?

Crime, guilt, right, wrong, even 'transcendent meaning' as another poster called it in the Christianity forum a month or so back - all of that has to go out the window if the universe is deterministic. But, as I said in one of my posts above, if nothing matters then it doesn't matter that nothing matters, which is liberating. We can just forget about it and get on with life. If I was a character in the Big Lebowski, I'd be at the bowling alley, not running around threatening to cut of somebody's johnson.

kelly1 wrote: »

This is where I completely disagree. As a Christian (to put my cards on the table), I believe that God has created in us a soul with the faculties of intellect and will. We are created "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1). But atheism strips all of this away leaving only a mechanistic and degrading view of the human person. It reduces us to "wet machines". I find this view very sad, tbh.

I've been thinking lately that I need to dig out some reading on skepticism. Skepticism, and empiricism, is at the root of the way I see things, but it's so long since I thought about this aspect of it that I'm rusty. In regards to empiricism, I read the free preview of the book you linked to, on Amazon, and I was reminded that the bible is full of examples of miracles being performed so that people could believe. I remember as a kid wondering why all the miracles had to happen so long ago and why couldn't they happen nowadays. Now they are so far removed that I can't place any trust in them. Consciousness and life and meaning emerging (to use a phrase from somebody's post above) from matter is amazing. I don't see anything degrading about it, but it took me a long time to get to this point. Atheism struck me like a thunderbolt, and it was traumatic at the time.

kelly1

Here's an interesting article on this subject.

"The woman on the operating table who was talking to me while I removed her frontal lobe had both material and immaterial powers of mind. Our higher brain functions defy precise mapping onto brain tissue, because they are not generated by tissue, as our lower brain functions are."

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

If you posit that consciousness emerges from matter, then you have a big problem explaining the particular part of matter the produces consciousness.

Hardly. That's a bit like asking which chemical property of the paint make the Mona Lisa such an evocative painting.

Is it the quarks, protons, electrons or all of them?

All of them

Do the work together as a system?

Clearly

And how big is that system?

Huge.

Just the brain? All of the body? The entire universe?

Mostly the brain, to a lesser extent the extended nervous system and the gut. A pantheist would consider the entire universe is also connected, but they'd be exceptional in that regard. The environment that a person is raised in provides part of the context and stimulus in which the mind grows, so it does play some part.

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

Where's you're evidence. Science is full of hard problems that remain unanswered. Religion amounts to substituting a fantasy of your preferred truth in such situations, which is neither rational nor helpful.

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

Yet we never make decisions in a vacuum, there is always context which always includes elements of coercion and influence. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have such glorious things as advertising and focused marketing.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

the 'i don't know, therefore god' approach to understanding natural phenomena has led us, well, nowhere, in understanding those phenomena.
history is not on your side with the conclusion that if it can't be explained, it must be unexplainable.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

That's based on the assumption that only matter and energy exist. I don't accept that.

This is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on observation and evidence.
There is nothing at all to suggest that there is something beyond materialistic things. This is why you will most likely begin using special pleading to explain this.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it's a far more plausible explanation.

Well it's not really plausible nor an explanation.

kelly1 wrote: »

If you posit that consciousness emerges from matter, then you have a big problem explaining the particular part of matter the produces consciousness. Is it the quarks, protons, electrons or all of them? Do the work together as a system? And how big is that system? Just the brain? All of the body?

Seems about the jist of it.
Please explain what is impossible about this explanation?

kelly1 wrote: »

But according to the naturalistic view, there can be no actual/real method, only the illusion of one? Hence we can't really trust the scientific method.

The scientific method is only trusted and absolute is so far as it can produce accurate and replicatable results.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

Just saying that it's supernatural without offering anything to show how it's a better understanding of what we observe is not very enlightening or useful.
It's the equivalent of saying "ooooh it's magic."

Centuries ago people said that things like lightning and disease could only be explained by supernatural means...

kelly1 wrote: »

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

Then with material explanations, free will is probably probably not a thing.
With your version of god: Definitely absolutely not.

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

I think genuine intellect and will can only be explained supernaturally. Consciousness has been described as the "hard problem" of neuroscience and for good reason!

I wonder have you really looked at the fact that you wrote these two sentences beside eachother?

"I acknowledge this is a difficult problem, so I choose to believe in an easy answer"

Blowfish

kelly1 wrote: »

"The woman on the operating table who was talking to me while I removed her frontal lobe had both material and immaterial powers of mind. Our higher brain functions defy precise mapping onto brain tissue, because they are not generated by tissue, as our lower brain functions are."

There's a lot of incredibly poor arguments in that article. They even manage to completely invert what the results of the split brain experiments mean. Here's a really quick overview of what actually happened:

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

... All of them ... Clearly ... Huge.

That's just pure speculation on your part, isn't it?

Where's you're evidence. Science is full of hard problems that remain unanswered. Religion amounts to substituting a fantasy of your preferred truth in such situations, which is neither rational nor helpful.

I don't have scientific evidence, of course. I'm talking about "general divine revelation". My experience in this world tells me that my mind is something other than my physical brain. I have a very strong concept of "self". I am aware of my surrounding, I am aware of myself and my own thoughts and I am aware of my awareness and self-awareness.

My intuition tells me that matter cannot produce consciousness. I think everyone accepts that non-living matter has no consciousness but somehow a complex arrangement of molecules becomes aware and self-aware? It makes no sense whatever.

Yet we never make decisions in a vacuum, there is always context which always includes elements of coercion and influence. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have such glorious things as advertising and focused marketing.

I still have the choice to buy or not buy. I might feel pressured but I can still say no.

RichieO

I get a feeling kelly is really looking for gods hiding place... I don't think it's in the quantum area as he never popped out of the LHC at any stage so far, however he is probably correct in looking in the mind of humans as that is the birthplace and only hiding place of ALL gods....

seamus

I think everyone accepts that non-living matter has no consciousness but somehow a complex arrangement of molecules becomes aware and self-aware? It makes no sense whatever.

I think everyone accepts that a pile of metal can't play angry birds. But somehow a complex arrangement of molecules becomes a smartphone? It makes no sense whatsoever.

kelly1 wrote: »

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is something other than my physical brain.

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is nothing except my physical brain. My mind goes everywhere my brain goes. When I take chemicals which affect my brain, it affects my mind. When my brain goes into an altered state, I go unconscious.

I have so far experienced no situation which would lead me to conclude that my mind and my physical brain are or can be in any way separated.

We can't both be right.

Blowfish

seamus wrote: »

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is nothing except my physical brain. My mind goes everywhere my brain goes. When I take chemicals which affect my brain, it affects my mind. When my brain goes into an altered state, I go unconscious.

Indeed. If consciousness is external to your physical state, then why does it, along with the sense of 'self', surroundings, thoughts etc. only work approximately 2/3 of the time? Why does it just so happen to disappear at exactly the time when the physical body is taking time to recover? Surely if the sense of 'self' is not a physical manifestation, then it wouldn't need to recover when the body does?

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

I get a feeling kelly is really looking for gods hiding place...

What I'm trying to do RichieO, is to point out the absurd, self-defeating nature of an atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic worldview. It's reductionistic and degrading.

I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a complex arrangement of particles. I refuse to reduce myself to a machine. I completely deny that free-will is an illusion. I *know* I have free will.

Atheists are noted for bragging about their intelligence and rationality etc but then go on to shoot themselves in the foot by saying that we're all just deterministic machines. The implication is that reason, logic and free will are illusions and are therefore, not real.

If you are a machine, you have no reason to believe that your thoughts are rational or logical or true. How can we know anything is true if it's the product of material processes. What we believe to be true could just as easily be false.

You can't have it both ways guys!

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

That's just pure speculation on your part, isn't it?

Nope. All matter will include 'quarks, electrons and protons' as you put it. The brain that houses the mind is made up of a hugely complex systematically organised arrangement of matter.

My intuition tells me that matter cannot produce consciousness.

Just because something is intuitive to you doesn't make it fact. You need supporting evidence. There's also a distinct possibility we'll invent general artificial intelligence in the near future, what do you suppose it will be made of?