Naturalism and human faculties...

kelly1 · 21-08-2017 6:21pm #1

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 · 21-08-2017 6:59pm

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 · 21-08-2017 7:56pm

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 · 21-08-2017 8:10pm

Er, no thanks.

kelly1 · 21-08-2017 8:58pm

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 · 21-08-2017 9:02pm

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 · 21-08-2017 9:18pm

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 · 21-08-2017 9:27pm

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 · 21-08-2017 9:44pm

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 · 21-08-2017 10:20pm

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 · 21-08-2017 10:46pm

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 · 21-08-2017 10:51pm

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 · 21-08-2017 11:22pm

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)

King Mob · 22-08-2017 1:15am

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 · 22-08-2017 6:02am

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 · 22-08-2017 6:19am

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 · 22-08-2017 6:49am

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 · 22-08-2017 6:52am

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 · 22-08-2017 7:03am

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 · 22-08-2017 7:32am

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 · 22-08-2017 8:11am

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 · 22-08-2017 8:41am

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 · 22-08-2017 8:47am

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 · 22-08-2017 8:49am

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you guys deal with these questions?

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

Peregrinus · 22-08-2017 9:00am

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 · 22-08-2017 9:05am

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 · 22-08-2017 9:07am

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

smacl · 22-08-2017 10:10am

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 · 22-08-2017 10:56am

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 · 22-08-2017 11:12am

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 · 22-08-2017 11:22am

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

Naturalism and human faculties...

Comments