Activity
-
Davis posted an update 7 years, 11 months ago
We are all aware, directly aware, that we make choices. We make choices every day. No…make that every second we aren’t sleeping. Ranging from unimportant, involuntary automatic decisions to anguished vacillating well thought out desperate decisions. The question is…are those decisions totally in the control of the cold universe where what determines what we do is from the cold external universe as meaningless as what happens to a rock…or has the complex evolution of life allowed a modicum of self organization of biological matter and a larger degree of self-control (both internally and externally) that we have more freedom (and no one ever says total freedom) than do, say, rocks. Do humans have more freedom over the conditions within and around them, than say, a mouse.
The free will debate used to be brought down into terms of do human brains somehow allow a break in the realm of physics or add some sort of supernatural in the otherwise absolute. The answer according to just about anyone who isn’t a christian theologian or a “alternative spiritualist” is no. No one thinks that the human mind or consciousness creates some exceptional quality that we defy the laws of nature.
Most modern theories describe the question of:
a higher amount of freedom in decisions making or at the very least decisions to be made and the sophistication of the decision making process
or
A higher degree of internal/external control
or
A higher degree of recursive organization
or
An advanced level of internal control or mechanics that allow a more sophisticated control of the environment around an agentWhen someone says “I cannot imagine how our mind could possibly escape the laws of nature” they are basically stuck in an old conversation which ended long ago and only they talk about. Few people engaged with this question (scientists and philosophers) say something other than no. Most, though not all modern theories, deal with the questions of “degrees of freedom”, “greater control of environment”, “internal organization including strange loops and recursive organization” and other theories.
It absolutely boggles my mind how someone can stare at this incredibly exciting ground breaking new opportunity of facing a question that needs to be cracked, being able to be there when theories to important questions actually emerge…and go meh…tell me how the laws of physics could be broken first before I bother. Zheesh. What a loss.
Your account of the development of the issue(s) reminds me of how theists rationalize. The Earles, Doctor Bobs, Jordan Petersons are conflicted. On one hand they are repelled by the absence of reason in support of their darling, on other they emotionally need their belief. So they rationalize to reconcile the conflict.
Without their personal stake/emotional need they would never spin such constructs. So i wonder is the same dynamic operating here? Being without free will is uncomfortable in many ways. We needn’t come at the issue of free will exclusively from vantage of determinism. On other hand if strict determinism prevails it is game over. If everything in every aspect of our lives was always going to happen and will happen then free will is an illusion. A little bit of control? Is that like a little bit pregnant?
Well Jake, first of all, its all theorhetic and no one is making any strong claims. Christians do. SEcondly, none of these people are making supernatural claims but trying to understand how individual choice is meaningful in a clockwork universe…which isn’t even remotely like Christians arguing out of negatives and arguments from ignorance nor “wel can never know”. Thirdly, in the case of theory of consciousness we really are extremely ignorant of most of everything which is not the case with the general theory of universe creation, what is hovering there in the sky, how human reproduction and evolution work nor endless debunking of christian claims. So no…not the same at all Jake. Furthermore discussions of free will aren’t part of an organisation with dogmatic rules and proclamations nor do they inform people how to live their lives nor try to opress other standing behind dubious science. So again, not at all. What may have changed with some Christian theologists is their ability to incorporate some modern science and rephrase questions in a way that tries to stop discussion while arguing from ignorance or impossibility of knowing, that would be a gross misrepresentation of current theory and research being done by thousands of respected scientists and analytical philosophers. The question is being rephrased to make answers more useful as almost everyone has given up on the “avoiding the laws of nature” or “supernatural” argument. It was conceded long ago by most.
The only thing that is conscientious s the claim “free will” is possible, mainly by old dinosaurs who insist that it is tautologically correct that free will can only mean disrupting the laws of nature or adding a supernatural component when this is not remotely tautologically correct and that the questions most people are asking today is “how many decision making or a great amount of freedom be meaningful in a materialist world”.
You’re the guys losing out. Repeating Searl’s argument which is something just about no one denies just illustrates how much more you’re losing out on. Picking up a book and reading it is not just fun (most of the time) but intellectually nourishing whether you believe what’s being said or not. At the very least you can at least go over what some of the most well regarded authors have said and then still go “I still think it is impossible”. Who wouldn’t respect that?
Or one can stand on a Soap box and keep proclaiming that the sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth and when people conceded this and ask if the Earth can be centric in any sense, well, stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-I’m-not-listening-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-you-have-nothing-of-worth-to-say-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
Meanwhile the Moon keeps going around the Earth as well as all sorts of Satellites and space junk.
So Davis you misunderstand me. I am not calling philosophers who work on issues related to free will theists. It is not an analogy i am drawing. (It is a dynamic. )Instead i am questioning whether their objectivity is compromised because of their discomfort in a life without any vestige of free will. Theists who have an intellectual bent are not comfortable without their mythology and so they torture logic and reason to rationalize their way into belief. Are the free will philosophers doing the same thing?
I don’t know see how a universe in which strict determinism is present is compatible with any degree of free will. I don’t know whether it is so that strict determinism is present. But if it is then it is game over. If that is one’s conclusion then the inquiry into levels or degrees of freedom ought to cease. If i am missing something i am willing to consider it. No intransigence here.
By the way, I should point out that two other members here have read through Freedom Evolves, our resident Fronkey Farmer and Simon Matthews (I wish he was still around). He offered a nice summary of the book on Thinkatheist, though you’ll forgive me if I don’t root through 800 comments of his on the old site to find it.
Thank you Davis for the many references. If i get sufficiently curious and ambitious i shall procure one of those. Lately i just go to library and buy used books cheap cheap.