Freewill compatible with materialism

[Nick Soapdish]

certainly, but our actions are not all determined by that fact, unless we are prepared to admit that nature determined the destruction of nature

It does so quite often.

 

[Willamena]

/me *waves*

 

[View from Here]

It does so quite often.

In that case I'm happy to agree. Nature will have determined its own self-eradication.

 

[Willamena]

In that case I'm happy to agree. Nature will have determined its own self-eradication.

Does that mean the end of all things?

 

[s2a]

Hiya Rolling Stone,

You said (I'm assuming you were addressing me when you said):

You are asserting that the interactions of unconscious matter-energy is the sufficient cause of consciousness, that consciousness can emerge from something in which it is entirely absent; in effect, you are saying that something can come from nothing.

Nope.

You are saying/claiming that consciousness can not arise from "unconscious matter-energy" (in the absence of some deity, or supernatural causation/intervention). That's the claim that you must substantiate...despite all of the evidence that suggests that it could...and did.

[Lest I need remind you that humans are not the only conscious, or self-aware species on the planet today?]

That's an extraordinary claim. I, on the hand, simply say that that consciousness is as it appears to be: innate in the nature of reality.

Innate...how? And...just what defines the "nature of reality"?

As you would say, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. That puts the onus on you. Deal with it or everyone in RF has to assume you are simply superstitious.

(Very) Poor projection on your part.

I dare say that few (if any) members within RF, that have ever read either my initial introductory post (as referenced and linked), or my numerous subsequent contributions within, would ever reasonably conclude that I was an adherent of superstitious beliefs/practices/devotions.

And, NO Rolling Stone...the "reality" is that human consciousness (amongst other types/forms) "exist" with no available or testable evidences of any kind that suggest or confirm the claim that any deity/god/force "bestowed", or "granted", or "infused", any especial/discrete influence or instigation of/upon that "consciousness".
NONE.
Science may not yet define/explain/detail the origins of "consciousness" to your satisfaction...but supernaturalistic attributions (of human behavior and emotions) have been around since the dawn of our species...and most have been eventually explained/detailed by quite mundane naturalistic causes/outcomes.

There's your reality to consume and digest...at your leisure...

 

[s2a]

Hiya Nick Soapdish,

When I said:
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".

I have. From my very first post to RF, which you may read, here.

I'll be pleased enough to reference other posts of mine, if you earnestly promise and swear that you'll read them all, to their bitterly unambiguous ends...;-)

You replied:

Then it seems you have no worldview and no ground to stand on to defend.

Such is the luxury afforded a skeptical perspective...I suppose. ;-)

I advocate reason, and rational free-thinking beyond any constraints of imposed or accepted dogma or religious idealism/fundamentalism. I stand guilty of such a crime...as charged.

It also appears that you are simply one that enjoys tearing down other people's philosophies and religions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

OK.

You're wrong. Feel better now?

Recall that i said...
I offer you no pretense, nor any ordered adherence to any particular philosophy/religion/spirituality.

I am, therefore I think.

Compartmentalize that espoused "worldview" into one that suits your own sensibilities...or not.

It is clear that you are arguing against naturalism, and not my argument. My argument assumes naturalism, and if you wish to attack naturalism, that is not addressing my argument.

OK. Instead of my attempting to qualify your position, I'll introduce the possibility that (perhaps) I am in error here. Please present your argument once more; the one that does not involve or engage the tenants of naturalism.

You said that this statement is erroneous:

"We" (as humans) are inextricably both part and parcel within Nature; neither "above" it, nor "outside" of it.

Well, then we both agree that naturalism is erroneous.

Nope. I would submit that Naturalism generally embraces that statement as true.

Let's not stray too afar from your OP inquiry, which posed:
"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."

I have argued that from my perspective, and (from my understanding) that of a Naturalist's own perspective, your premised conclusion is erroneous. Again, I invite you to engage a self-acknowledged Naturalist for clarification upon both your insinuation, and my proffered commentary...to gain a more illuminating understanding of what a Naturalist may choose to claim or "believe"..

 

[Nick Soapdish]

OK.

You're wrong. Feel better now?

Recall that i said...
I offer you no pretense, nor any ordered adherence to any particular philosophy/religion/spirituality.

I am, therefore I think.

Compartmentalize that espoused "worldview" into one that suits your own sensibilities...or not.

My objection to skepticism is that it stalls intellectual progress. Many ideas that are fruitful to progress and science are not absolutely evident. Western civilization was largely built on the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus, all of which were opposed by the skeptics.

OK. Instead of my attempting to qualify your position, I'll introduce the possibility that (perhaps) I am in error here. Please present your argument once more; the one that does not involve or engage the tenants of naturalism.

Nope. I would submit that Naturalism generally embraces that statement as true.

Let's not stray too afar from your OP inquiry, which posed:
"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."

I have argued that from my perspective, and (from my understanding) that of a Naturalist's own perspective, your premised conclusion is erroneous. Again, I invite you to engage a self-acknowledged Naturalist for clarification upon both your insinuation, and my proffered commentary...to gain a more illuminating understanding of what a Naturalist may choose to claim or "believe"..

To be clear, are you suggesting that naturalism does not demand that nature determines all things, including us?

 

[s2a]

Hiya NickSoapdish,

When I said:
"I offer you no pretense, nor any ordered adherence to any particular philosophy/religion/spirituality.

I am, therefore I think.

Compartmentalize that espoused "worldview" into one that suits your own sensibilities...or not."

You replied:

My objection to skepticism is that it stalls intellectual progress.

Interesting...

I challenge you to present specified examples to substantiate this most interesting claim.

Please provide unequivocal demonstrations of skepticism either impeding or slowing intellectual investigations, or "progress". Three compelling (and specified) historical examples should suffice as worthy (at least) of pointed rebuttal...

[If you are unsure as to what "skepticism" actually entails or describes, see here first.]

Many ideas that are fruitful to progress and science are not absolutely evident.

Well...DUH.

Many "revelations" (of science, technology, or "progress") SEEM extraordinary and (otherwise) inevident in their subsequent unveiling/discovery...but that's why science-based theories are worthy of testing and exploration--and demand objective evaluations.

Western civilization was largely built on the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus, all of which were opposed by the skeptics.

A VERY interesting, and extremely broad claim...

When I said:
OK. Instead of my attempting to qualify your position, I'll introduce the possibility that (perhaps) I am in error here. Please present your argument once more; the one that does not involve or engage the tenants of naturalism.

Nope. I would submit that Naturalism generally embraces that statement as true.

Let's not stray too afar from your OP inquiry, which posed:
"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."

I have argued that from my perspective, and (from my understanding) that of a Naturalist's own perspective, your premised conclusion is erroneous. Again, I invite you to engage a self-acknowledged Naturalist for clarification upon both your insinuation, and my proffered commentary...to gain a more illuminating understanding of what a Naturalist may choose to claim or "believe"..

You offered:

To be clear, are you suggesting that naturalism does not demand that nature determines all things, including us?

I'm not "suggesting" anything at this point. I simply directed you to seek clarification of "Naturalism" from a self-professed adherent of same. I am no more a qualified apologist of Naturalism than I am of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Scientology.

I only offered that my understanding of Naturalism leads me to conclude that your premised conclusion is (and yet remains) erroneous. I invite you (again) to seek confirmation/rejection of your claim amongst those most qualified to respond and lend the most/best informed rebuttal.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Interesting...

I challenge you to present specified examples to substantiate this most interesting claim.

Please provide unequivocal demonstrations of skepticism either impeding or slowing intellectual investigations, or "progress". Three compelling (and specified) historical examples should suffice as worthy (at least) of pointed rebuttal...

[If you are unsure as to what "skepticism" actually entails or describes, see here first.]

I am sorry to say that I do not have the time or energy to investigate this. I should retract my statement as my opinion.

Well...DUH.

Many "revelations" (of science, technology, or "progress") SEEM extraordinary and (otherwise) inevident in their subsequent unveiling/discovery...but that's why science-based theories are worthy of testing and exploration--and demand objective evaluations.

I agree that skepticism is a useful tool, however, I contend that it should not be used as an absolute barrier for acceptance of ideas that do not pass the independently verifiable evidence criteria.

A VERY interesting, and extremely broad claim...

I agree ....

When I said:
OK. Instead of my attempting to qualify your position, I'll introduce the possibility that (perhaps) I am in error here. Please present your argument once more; the one that does not involve or engage the tenants of naturalism.

Nope. I would submit that Naturalism generally embraces that statement as true.

Let's not stray too afar from your OP inquiry, which posed:
"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."

I have argued that from my perspective, and (from my understanding) that of a Naturalist's own perspective, your premised conclusion is erroneous. Again, I invite you to engage a self-acknowledged Naturalist for clarification upon both your insinuation, and my proffered commentary...to gain a more illuminating understanding of what a Naturalist may choose to claim or "believe"..

You offered:


I'm not "suggesting" anything at this point. I simply directed you to seek clarification of "Naturalism" from a self-professed adherent of same. I am no more a qualified apologist of Naturalism than I am of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Scientology.

I only offered that my understanding of Naturalism leads me to conclude that your premised conclusion is (and yet remains) erroneous. I invite you (again) to seek confirmation/rejection of your claim amongst those most qualified to respond and lend the most/best informed rebuttal.

I think it would be much more productive for you to explain why you think the assertion I made is erroneous. Here is what dictionary.com says about philosophical naturalism:

4.Philosophy.
a.the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b.the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

I do not see how my statement disagrees with this definition.