Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-11-2002, 10:11 AM

Quote:

So, are you saying that material gives rise to non-material? Even granting the evolution of "self-aware consciousness and "overseer" neural cognitive circuits" you are allowing here for some"thing" which can govern the behavior of these biochemical activities - what is that "thing"?

The point of materialistic explanation is that there is no additional magical "thing".

DRFseven · 06-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Quote:

sotzo: I agree that determinism cannot answer the question. What I am asking is if materialism is able to account for any other conclusion.

I'm curious as to why you would agree that determinism doesn't answer that question. Look at what happens when we sleep. We turn over and adjust ourselves to become more comfortable over and over and we have no conscious knowledge of most of this activity or of any decision to undertake any of this activity. We KNOW we generate thoughts while we are not conscious (because of sleep studies), we know these thoughts trigger associated memories. In fact, this might even be one of the tasks of sleep; we may reorganize our files in accordance with whatever circuitry happens to be active (which often has to do with current unsettled deliberations), and come up with new thoughts.

Quote:

What I am asking is if materialism is able to account for any other conclusion

I don't think it is able to.

tergiversant · 06-11-2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sotzo:
Greetings tergiversant!

P) All the "stuff" in the universe follows deterministic natural laws.

I happen to think (P) is true, but not by virtue of the truth of materialism, but rather due to consistent empirical verification.

If I have understood you correctly, I think you are confusing why P is true versus how we know P is true.

My initial question is not concerned with how we know P is true, but rather if materialism necessarily results in P. My follow-up question is that if P results necessarily, how do we justifiably call one belief "true" and another "false".

cheers
jkb

My answer to your initial question, which I thought I had made plain enough, is "no."

As far as I know there is no way to derive P from materialism.
Perhaps I am mistaken. If so, I would like to see the derivation.

Liquidrage · 06-11-2002, 11:28 AM

I will answer the initial question with a "no".

One could be a materialist and believe (for example) that it would be possible to cunstruct a machine capable of "free-will".

Just because science can't saw how "now", does not mean one is not free to believe the mechansm of freewill is natural.

Myself, I am a determinist and not a materialist (by strict definition).

as for this gem by Gurdur:
Determinist appeals to neurology do not succeed, since evidence, for example, showing initiation of motor acts before awareness of the putative volitional nature of those motor acts only pushes back the question of free will into the so-called unconscious part of the mind, i.e. the non-ego part of consciousness, and moreover does not disprove or obviate whatsoever the fact of being able to change over time behavioural patterns (often without a change in external enviroment).

That is in your opinion.
I believe it succeeds just fine.

However, if one presupposes free-will then no matter where we don't find it, it's true hiding place must be somewhere else.
Maybe one day you can come and tell me why finding that the human body is 100% deterministic doesn't succeed in removing free-will, it just pushes it back into the fabric of space.

Free-will has never been shown to exist. So why does any philosophy or science need to succeed in showing it doesn't exist?
Sounds more like a god that can't be disproved then science to me.

sotzo · 06-11-2002, 11:34 AM

The point of materialistic explanation is that there is no additional magical "thing".

I realize that, hence my question - in a materialistic world, how does one account for a belief being true versus false.

AtlanticCitySlave · 06-11-2002, 11:41 AM

"Free-will has never been shown to exist. So why does any philosophy or science need to succeed in showing it doesn't exist?"

It needs to be shown it doesn't exist because it seems so obvious it does. Even determinists go through their lives as if they are freely choosing their own destinies, and it is a perfectly rational stance to believe something that seems obvious until shown otherwise. While I cannot prove "free-will" exists or give a definition that would make everyone happy (or where it may be located in the mind/brain or what not), I will gladly go through life believing I have a choice about things until it is shown, to a high degree, otherwise. Many of the theories of science are certainly in question in modern life, and the understanding of the brain/mind at this point is like poking with sticks.

Gurdur · 06-11-2002, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
.....

as for this gem by Gurdur:
Determinist appeals to neurology do not succeed, .......

That is in your opinion.
I believe it succeeds just fine.

Evidence ?

Quote:

However, if one presupposes free-will then no matter where we don't find it, it's true hiding place must be somewhere else.

Ditto for determinism.

Quote:

Maybe one day you can come and tell me why finding that the human body is 100% deterministic

Maybe one day you can come back and tell me why you have such a simplistic idea about the human body - especially the brain.

Quote:

doesn't succeed in removing free-will, it just pushes it back into the fabric of space.

Empty rhetoric don't butter no spuds.

Quote:

Free-will has never been shown to exist.

Neither has determinism for humans.

Quote:

So why does any philosophy or science need to succeed in showing it doesn't exist?

So why should we assume determinism unless it can be proven to exist ?

Quote:

Sounds more like a god that can't be disproved then science to me.

Oddly, your simplistic idea on the supposedly determinist nature of the human brain seems like bad theology to me.

Gurdur · 06-11-2002, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:

Yes, you are so right that initiation before action only pushes the "free will mechanism" back into the unconscious, and ignores the fact that there must be a neural correlate for THAT,

A neural correlate does not necessitate determinism.

Quote:

unless one assumes a spooky force,

Nonsense.
One can also assume the evidential existence of massive parallel processing, swapping of functions between "overseer" circuits, the choice of concentration on any particular emotive aspect, thereby strengthening it, the building of contradicting mental perspectives around feelings - which include many beliefs - till the emotive force of that feeling is obviated;

one can assume all of the above and more, till we have a limited degree of free will.

Quote:

which is a weak argument, indeed.

What is a weak argument is to continually describe the soft free will position in strawmen.

Quote:

The business about "change without change in external environments" is a baloney sandwich (possibly with some herring) because the change is in mental mediating events, not external environment.

And all you've done there is introduce mental mediation, along with rhetoric, without managing to explain where the mental mediation came from.

Needlessly dragging in yet more side-alleys.

Ever wonder why B.F. Skinner, King Of The Determinists, copped out with his Black Box model ?

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]

Liquidrage · 06-11-2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:

Oddly, your simplistic idea on the supposedly determinist nature of the human brain seems like bad theology to me.

This isn't about my belief that the universe is deterministic.

This is about you're statement that determinism doesn't disprove free-will because you can move the location of free-will to wherever you nilly-willy feel like.

My statement was formulated around the factual statement that free-will has never been proven.
I therefor see no need for any branch of science to disprove something that has never been proven.

And thanks for calling my belief in determinism simplistic.
It's actually a great compliment rather you realized it or not. Expecially since all the evidence points to it.

Liquidrage · 06-11-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AtlanticCitySlave:
"Free-will has never been shown to exist. So why does any philosophy or science need to succeed in showing it doesn't exist?"

It needs to be shown it doesn't exist because it seems so obvious it does. Even determinists go through their lives as if they are freely choosing their own destinies, and it is a perfectly rational stance to believe something that seems obvious until shown otherwise. While I cannot prove "free-will" exists or give a definition that would make everyone happy (or where it may be located in the mind/brain or what not), I will gladly go through life believing I have a choice about things until it is shown, to a high degree, otherwise. Many of the theories of science are certainly in question in modern life, and the understanding of the brain/mind at this point is like poking with sticks.

It seems so obvious that we don't have free-will to me.

Who goes around making free choices?
Certainly not I.
Maybe you're different but with me the addition of chemicals into my blood stream that eventually end up in my brain can greatly effect what choices I do make.
Sad? Here take a pill.
Too happy? Here's a downer.
Can't focus? Here's this little chemical compund helps.

How free are our choices really when chemicals can alter them?

One could state with little arguement from me that they believe that the human mind (the physical matter) is a machine in perfect balance to create free-will and when that balance gets thrown off the free-will is effected. I don't believe it but it's valid.

I also applaud those that say, "what difference does it make if we have free-will or not? It feels like I do and thats good enough for me".

Really, what is obvious is that humans are able to make choices. Works for me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2002, 11:28 AM	#14
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	I will answer the initial question with a "no". One could be a materialist and believe (for example) that it would be possible to cunstruct a machine capable of "free-will". Just because science can't saw how "now", does not mean one is not free to believe the mechansm of freewill is natural. Myself, I am a determinist and not a materialist (by strict definition). as for this gem by Gurdur: Determinist appeals to neurology do not succeed, since evidence, for example, showing initiation of motor acts before awareness of the putative volitional nature of those motor acts only pushes back the question of free will into the so-called unconscious part of the mind, i.e. the non-ego part of consciousness, and moreover does not disprove or obviate whatsoever the fact of being able to change over time behavioural patterns (often without a change in external enviroment). That is in your opinion. I believe it succeeds just fine. However, if one presupposes free-will then no matter where we don't find it, it's true hiding place must be somewhere else. Maybe one day you can come and tell me why finding that the human body is 100% deterministic doesn't succeed in removing free-will, it just pushes it back into the fabric of space. Free-will has never been shown to exist. So why does any philosophy or science need to succeed in showing it doesn't exist? Sounds more like a god that can't be disproved then science to me.

06-11-2002, 11:34 AM	#15
sotzo Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lakeland, FL, USA Posts: 102	The point of materialistic explanation is that there is no additional magical "thing". I realize that, hence my question - in a materialistic world, how does one account for a belief being true versus false.

06-11-2002, 11:41 AM	#16
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	"Free-will has never been shown to exist. So why does any philosophy or science need to succeed in showing it doesn't exist?" It needs to be shown it doesn't exist because it seems so obvious it does. Even determinists go through their lives as if they are freely choosing their own destinies, and it is a perfectly rational stance to believe something that seems obvious until shown otherwise. While I cannot prove "free-will" exists or give a definition that would make everyone happy (or where it may be located in the mind/brain or what not), I will gladly go through life believing I have a choice about things until it is shown, to a high degree, otherwise. Many of the theories of science are certainly in question in modern life, and the understanding of the brain/mind at this point is like poking with sticks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.