Freewill compatible with materialism

[Nick Soapdish]

She also requested I register here to discuss the topic with you! And she's not easy to refuse....

I had exactly the same view until recently - in fact my justification for remaining a theist was that without some kind of dualism, there is no ultimate moral responsibility (which is NOT the same as saying that without believing in dualism one cannot behave morally). So I chose to assume dualism (i.e. the notion that the thing I refer to as "I" is an autonomous moral agent), and embedded that in a theistic framework (if people can be dual, I thought I might as well get a dualistic universe for free).

A poster on another forum suggested that I read Dennett's "Freedom Evolves", and I did. It probably wouldn't have had the impact it did had it not been for some hints in the same direction from elsewhere, but the fact is that it had an enormous impact on the way I think about the relationship between myself (that autonomous "I") and the rest of the universe, i.e. about religion (because I think that is what religion is - the way we think about the relationship between ourselves and the rest of the universe, including other people, of course).

Dennett's trick/insight is to regard the actual drawing of the boundaries of the self as a Self-Forming Act (SFA). In other words, the accepting of moral responsibility is the process by which we define ourselves as moral agents. Thus, if we assing the causes of our actions to genes, environment, or bad luck, we are also defining ourselves out of existence. However, if we define ourselves to include parts of those causal chains then we both accept moral responsibility AND acquire an existence.

I'm trying to summarise an entire book here, of course, and in the process missing out key logical steps and also imposing my own interpretation. But I found it deeply inspiring. I don't know whether I can legitimately call myself a theist still, although I still have a profound God-concept. But instead of resting it on what was, in effect, a kludge (an assumption of dualism not supported, although not falsified, by evidence), I now have a God-concept that is entirely natural. I don't know whether a natural God counts as a God, but mine does the same job as my old one used to, actually rather better, so, practically speaking, nothing has changed. Hence, I still call myself a theist.

Cheers

Lizzie

....and hi to autodidact! (hey, there's no hi smiley here....)

Hi Lizzie, it is very nice to meet you.

My contention is that if our internal self shouts that we have freewill, we have an atomic identify, etc. that we should assume we do, if there is not compelling evidence otherwise. Naturalism implies we are determined by nature and our identity is molded into the rest of nature's activity.

I find that naturalists often pretend they have things like freewill, an atomic identity and a personal-self, when their ideological framework says we don't. It's like they ignore the implications of naturalism and just assume they have freewill, etc, because they feel like they do. To me (5-6 years ago), instead of pretending, we should either question the validity of the worldview, or accept that freewill is an illusion.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick,
It is also worth pointing out that whilst a determined will is not free, an undetermined will is similarly so (anticipating an argument from quantum physics).

Can you elaborate?

I believe freewill is determined, but the difference is it is based on a free agent (soul), not the nature of the physical world.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I think it is Cicero who says somewhere in De Fato basically: What difference does it make? That is, if you knew that everything that was ever going to happen was predetermined by an endless chain of causation from the beginning of time, what effect would it have on your actual life.

It doesn't matter in many aspects of life, except the most important one, and that is what your worldview is. I believe we have to be diligent in investigating the world around us, our internal revelations, intuition and heart to determine what we believe. Investigating whether freewill exists is part of that process.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Hardly.

If we accept your premise ("nature determines all things"), then any concepts of "free will" are tossed out the door. "Nature" doesn't "determine" (or control) freedoms of human choice and discretion/discernment in personal choices...it (nature) only reflects any influential choices that man directly manifests upon nature itself. Mankind may choose to pollute the waters, air, and land it inhabits and depends upon for survival. "Nature" has no opinion nor vote in the resultant outcomes of such choices. "Nature" can only "act" unconsciously...or "naturally"...to the effects perpetrated by mankind's choices of "free will".

Mountains don't "care" if they are scaled by climbers to their peaks.

Oceans don't "care" whether or not sailors successfully traverse their distant shores.

Hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, floods, and tornadoes don't "care" about the human condition, or the impact such phenomena may exact upon human "victims".

"Nature" is not a sentient entity unto itself (unless you superstitiously believe that "Nature" is itself some sort of extension of a "god", "spirit", or "force" with a conscious and purpose-driven mind).

Try this premise instead:

"The universe presents neither rewards nor punishments...only consequences."

How does that fit within popular concepts of freewill or materialism?

See s2a, here you are pretending you have freewill when your worldview dictates otherwise.

If naturalism is true, then nature determines everything. There are no spirits or souls or any other entity that are not subject by nature. Nature herself is certainly sentient through you and any other sentient beings. Your brain activity can be reduced to neural activities which are describable by chemistry, and in turn physics. And what do they describe? Nature! Under naturalism, you are a very complex stimulous-response machine, programmed by your genes and environment.

 

[Quiddity]

Where does my ability to say "yes" or "no" to everything play into this?

 

[Febble]

Hi Lizzie, it is very nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you too.

My contention is that if our internal self shouts that we have freewill, we have an atomic identify, etc. that we should assume we do, if there is not compelling evidence otherwise.

Well, I agree. I do think that we have free will, in the sense that I am a chooser. The more difficult question is: what is this thing I call "I"? But because my "internal self shouts" that it exist, then I assume that it does, as I do with all other things that shout that they exist.

Naturalism implies we are determined by nature and our identity is molded into the rest of nature's activity.

I think that sentence needs a bit of unpacking. Who or what is "nature" in that sentence? What do you mean by "identity"? Who, or what is doing the molding? What is this thing called "nature" that you imply has "activity"?

I find that naturalists often pretend they have things like freewill, an atomic identity and a personal-self, when their ideological framework says we don't. It's like they ignore the implications of naturalism and just assume they have freewill, etc, because they feel like they do. To me (5-6 years ago), instead of pretending, we should either question the validity of the worldview, or accept that freewill is an illusion.

I shared this view completely until recently, when I came to see alternative way of viewing "free will", which entailed not a different view of freedom but a different view of agency. You might say that I consider free will an illusion, but I don't, any more than I consider any percept an illusion (we do not have direct access to any reality - we construct models of reality from incoming data). But I think the relevant question is not whether will is free (will? who is will?) but whether I am free, and the way to address that that question is to ask: who am I?

 

[Fluffy]

Can you elaborate?

I believe freewill is determined, but the difference is it is based on a free agent (soul), not the nature of the physical world.

There are two possibilities. Either the will is determined or it is undetermined.

In order for us to have free will, we need to control our will. Therefore, it can't be undetermined since, if it were, it would be random. I mention this because many people think that denying that the will is determined is a defence of free will when it isn't.

In the case that the freewill is determined, what does it mean to be "based on a free agent"? Do you mean "determined by a free agent"?

If that is the case then the free agent is either determined or undetermined. If it is determined then our free agent is not free but controlled by whatever is determining it. If it is undetermined then our free agent is random and so, again, we lack control.

 

[kmkemp]

Free will is nothing more than an illusion. Another good point that was made, however, is that the actuality of our position has no practical effect on our day to day living.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

There are two possibilities. Either the will is determined or it is undetermined.

In order for us to have free will, we need to control our will. Therefore, it can't be undetermined since, if it were, it would be random. I mention this because many people think that denying that the will is determined is a defence of free will when it isn't.

In the case that the freewill is determined, what does it mean to be "based on a free agent"? Do you mean "determined by a free agent"?

If that is the case then the free agent is either determined or undetermined. If it is determined then our free agent is not free but controlled by whatever is determining it. If it is undetermined then our free agent is random and so, again, we lack control.

I believe I agree with everything you said.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I think that sentence needs a bit of unpacking. Who or what is "nature" in that sentence? What do you mean by "identity"? Who, or what is doing the molding? What is this thing called "nature" that you imply has "activity"?

Nature is what we seek to describe in science. Gravity is part of nature. Magnetism is part of nature. And according to materialism, our brains/minds are part of nature.

I shared this view completely until recently, when I came to see alternative way of viewing "free will", which entailed not a different view of freedom but a different view of agency. You might say that I consider free will an illusion, but I don't, any more than I consider any percept an illusion (we do not have direct access to any reality - we construct models of reality from incoming data). But I think the relevant question is not whether will is free (will? who is will?) but whether I am free, and the way to address that that question is to ask: who am I?

If you are a materialist, then you are a conglomeration of neurons that interact in very complex ways. Each of your neurons also interacts with the "outside" world in very subtle ways. And each neuron acts according to the way nature tells it. To me it is an odd theory--your self, the "I" inside you, is 100% reducible to unthinking, indifferent molecules.

The thing is, as a materialist, there is not a part of you that can't be touched by the outside world. Whether it is propaganda, torture, or some kind of manipulation, the entire "you" is vulnerable to be affected.

The final thing is, if materialism is true, then what you believe is based on what nature tells you to believe. You have no awareness outside the box of influences that nature has put you in. If what you believe is not based on genetic tendencies and environmental stimulus, what else is there that makes up you and what you believe?

 

[s2a]

See s2a, here you are pretending you have freewill when your worldview dictates otherwise.

What?

What?

My "freewill" is expressed only within my capacities to think and comprehend. Quite frankly, you have yet to accurately reflect even a scintilla of my "worldview".

If naturalism is true, then nature determines everything.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Seek confirmation of this assumption with an adherent of naturalism. There's more that a few resident within RF. I do not regard "nature" as some deterministic outcome or result of any conscious input or design. Nature IS...and in our tiny speck of the cosmos, humans can and do effect how our planetary "nature" (unconsciously) reacts to our presence (from diminishing the ozone layer, to overfishing, to water/air pollution, to deforestation, and so on and so forth...). There are certainly "consequences" that result from choices (of "freewill" that manifest actions (a certain species may be hunted to extinction; or the planet may globally heat up, drastically affecting the weather patterns, oceanic currents, and the pending survival/sustainability of many species--both known and unknown--not excluding our own), but "nature" doesn't "determine" those influential choices...it only incorporates them into "the mix" of an ever changing natural world.

There are no spirits or souls or any other entity that are not subject by nature.

This claim/assertion is nonsensical to me. Your claim presumes that that "spirits or souls" are existent entities...but are they "natural", or something else?

Nature herself is certainly sentient through you and any other sentient beings.

Interesting claim. I'd love to peruse the evidence you will no doubt provide as substantive support...that would be subject to further objective testing and experimentation.

Your brain activity can be reduced to neural activities which are describable by chemistry, and in turn physics.

It all seems so simple...

And what do they describe? Nature!

Cool! Wow!

Ummm, what?

Under naturalism, you are a very complex stimulous-response machine, programmed by your genes and environment.

So..."under naturalism" (your manufactured scarecrow, not mine), does any "complex stimulous-response machine, programmed by your genes and environment" have freewill, or not? Does this chemical-physical neural "activity" present any reliably predictible (and consistently repeatable) behaviors (or "responses") that would suggest why "nature (as an independent sentient entity)" would instill ANY notions or conclusions that suggest "unnatural or supernatural" entities would exist?

Can religious/faith-based "belief" (of either unnatural or supernatural "entities") be described as a "choice" that is merely "programmed by your genes and environment"...BY, ummm..."Nature"? If so, I'd love to peruse the contemporary scientific research and and testable evidences that support further investigation of such a fascinating hypothesis.

Your presented OP inquiry asks:
"If nature determines all things, doesn't that mean we are determined by nature? In a sense we all would be automatons, programmed by nature through our genes and environment, and in the end just stimulous-response machines."

Your inquiry is founded upon both a false and flawed assumption. It's conclusion doesn't follow, or present any logical/empirical support. The very fact that humans remain utterly unpredictable in their actions, reactions, motivations, and behaviors serves to demonstrate that human reason (as expressed by "free will") invalidates any conjecture or premise that, "we are determined by nature". "Nature" does not impact upon our capacity to think...it only influences the choices we make in our limited existence within "nature"

Your rebuttals have inserted further assumptions, none of which are either testable or experimentally repeatable. Your inquiry only serves to bolster a false and assumptive claim of some derivative rationale.

I counsel that you try again...in a new thread...

 

[Febble]

Naturalism implies we are determined by nature and our identity is molded into the rest of nature's activity.

I think that sentence needs a bit of unpacking. Who or what is "nature" in that sentence? What do you mean by "identity"? Who, or what is doing the molding? What is this thing called "nature" that you imply has "activity"?

Nature is what we seek to describe in science. Gravity is part of nature. Magnetism is part of nature. And according to materialism, our brains/minds are part of nature.

In that case, your sentence becomes rather circular:

"Naturalism implies we are determined by what we seek to describe in science, and our identity is molded into the rest of the activity of what we seek to describe in science".

On my calculations, the first clause therefore boils down to: "Naturalism implies that science seeks to describe what determines us", which seems both true and non-controversial. However, I am still unsure of what you might mean by the second part of the sentence - I am assuming that what you mean is that Naturalism implies that our identity a result of nothing other than what science seeks to describe. Which is probably true (about Naturalism). If so, a non-Naturalist, would, conversely, postulate a determinant of our identity that could not, in principle, be described by science.

Which seems fair enough, but must be solely a matter of faith, because, by definition, we cannot seek to identify it.

If you are a materialist, then you are a conglomeration of neurons that interact in very complex ways. Each of your neurons also interacts with the "outside" world in very subtle ways. And each neuron acts according to the way nature tells it. To me it is an odd theory--your self, the "I" inside you, is 100% reducible to unthinking, indifferent molecules.

Well, it depends what you mean by "reducible". We are certainly reducible, in one sense not merely to molecules, but to subatomic particles, which turn out to be something very strange and probabilistic. But just because an atom can be reduced to some kind of sum of probabilities doesn't mean that it isn't an atom, with properties not possessed by each of its components. Similarly molecules can be "reduced" to atoms, but have very different properties, as do crystals, life forms, galaxies, clusters etc. Just because something can be reduced to fundamental components (if, indeed, anything truly can be) doesn't mean that it is no more than the sum of its parts. Most interesting entities are made of parts, the properties of the entity itself is quite different from the properties of its parts. A brain has completely different properties to a neuron.

The thing is, as a materialist, there is not a part of you that can't be touched by the outside world. Whether it is propaganda, torture, or some kind of manipulation, the entire "you" is vulnerable to be affected.

Sure. Also by love, kindness, meditation, prayer. These also come from the "outside world" as part of what we learn. And they physically affect our brains.

The final thing is, if materialism is true, then what you believe is based on what nature tells you to believe.

Um.... you said that "nature" was "what we seek to describe in science". What I seek to describe in science tells me nothing. It isn't an agent.

You have no awareness outside the box of influences that nature has put you in.

I don't know what this means. How could one have "awareness outside" something? I am aware. I am aware because I evolved to be aware. Again, I think you need to unpack this.

If what you believe is not based on genetic tendencies and environmental stimulus, what else is there that makes up you and what you believe?

That is exactly what "makes up [me], and what believe". And it is HUGE. It is unique. It is a chooser. And it is constantly unfolding in ways that can be predicted by no-one. That what has made me a chooser is natural makes me no less of a chooser. And as a chooser I have moral responsibility.

 

[Random]

Compatibilism and Materialism are the antithesis of Freewill.

 

[Willamena]

Why is reductionism 100% wrong?

In support of Random's opinion, I would offer that classical Reductionism presents us with the idea that the mental state (mind) is a product of the physical state (body) without consideration that that opposite is also true.

 

[Febble]

In support of Random's opinion, I would offer that classical Reductionism presents us with the idea that the mental state (mind) is a product of the physical state (body) without consideration that that opposite is also true.

There are certainly feedback loops between "higher" and "lower" brain centres, the "higher" centres being what you might want to call conscious "mind", but probably better described as executive circuits as opposed to primary sensory circuits. But if you are characterising "mind" as some non-physical force, then we have no evidence for such a force, and no evidence that "mind" causes brain activity, while we have plenty of evidence that brain activity causes mental events.

To say there is "no consideration" for such a possibility is false, but there is certainly no evidence.

 

[rocketman]

But if you are characterising "mind" as some non-physical force, then we have no evidence for such a force,

How could we have evidence of a non-physical force? If you mean evidence of it's speculated effects then no we don't. But it's early days yet

and no evidence that "mind" causes brain activity,

But then we don't know the exact nature of executive decision making to be totally categorical.

Personally I think that the mind is real enough and is able to effect changes to the brain, after all, it's created by the brain. Why can't there be a loop at work, why does it have to be a one way street? I could see that indeterminate quantum states/potentials may possibly be subject to the minds influence.

Edit: oops, sorry, thought I was in the brain/soul thread.

 

[Febble]

How could we have evidence of a non-physical force? If you mean evidence of it's speculated effects then no we don't. But it's early days yet

Well, quite. I'm not sure what people mean by "mind" in the context of causing brain activity. ON the other hand we have good evidence that the brain causes mental activity, which mean that it makes sense to consider mind to be what the brain does.

But then we don't know the exact nature of executive decision making to be totally categorical.

Sure. But we don't have any reason to suppose its not what we think it is.

Personally I think that the mind is real enough and is able to effect changes to the brain, after all, it's created by the brain. Why can't there be a loop at work, why does it have to be a one way street? I could see that indeterminate quantum states/potentials may possibly be subject to the minds influence.

Edit: oops, sorry, thought I was in the brain/soul thread.

Of course there are loops - that's what I said. But there's no reason think that the loop doesn't start with the first neuron. How we process incoming sensory data is modulated by "top-down" executive attentional processes, but these in turn are generate by other causal cascades of brain activity.

Loops are what the brain is all about, but that doesn't mean that the mind isn't ultimately generated by the brain. The brain generates the loops.

 

[rocketman]

Of course there are loops - that's what I said.

I meant a loop between mind and brain, one that allows reversible influence, even if one relies on the other for it's existence.

Thanks for the input Lizzie. I'm heading back to the soul/brain thread before I drag this one off topic.

 

[Willamena]

...But if you are characterising "mind" as some non-physical force, then we have no evidence for such a force, and no evidence that "mind" causes brain activity, while we have plenty of evidence that brain activity causes mental events.

To say there is "no consideration" for such a possibility is false, but there is certainly no evidence.

I'm not characterising mind as a physically non-physical thing, no; more of a mystically symbol-idea thing that contains the physicality of the world.

I only said "no consideration" as I didn't see the possibility mentioned in the brief description I read of Reductionism on Wikipedia.

 

[s2a]

How could we have evidence of a non-physical force? If you mean evidence of it's speculated effects then no we don't. But it's early days yet

Thus, we find the limitless optimism borne of faith-based beliefs, vs. the "speculative" aspects derived from evidenced hypotheses and testable theories. How can "science" EVER hope to definitively disprove any claim of a non-physical entity (or "force"). It can't! Woot! Therefore...no one should doubt the initial faith-based claim...no matter that neither science nor reason may ever hope to falsify or invalidate such a claim as alleged "fact" (or "truth")!

Some "Flat-Earther's" may yet abide amongst such "early days" of vainglorious hopes....("Someday...someone will PROVE that the Earth is flat...given enough time...!). Good luck with that...

But then we don't know the exact nature of executive decision making to be totally categorical.

Jabberwocky. What?

Personally I think that the mind is real enough and is able to effect changes to the brain, after all, it's created by the brain. Why can't there be a loop at work, why does it have to be a one way street? I could see that indeterminate quantum states/potentials may possibly be subject to the minds influence.

Edit: oops, sorry, thought I was in the brain/soul thread.

Oops indeed.

Well then...nevermind...