Friday, January 17, 2014

Coming To Grips With Determinism


Relatively recently, I accepted determinism as the way the universe works. It took me several years and I fought tooth and nail to hold onto some notion of free will, but in the end I've had to accept that we are all determined beings and that free will is an illusion. If one accepts a purely materialist universe, which is essentially what atheism is, then one pretty much has to accept the notion that there is no free will. This is an implication of atheism that even many atheists do not even consider.

But consider this:

(1) If the universe is fundamentally material and all material obeys the laws of physics, and
(2) If human beings are fundamentally material, then
(3) Human beings obey the laws of physics, and
(4) Therefore there is no free will

There is no way to squeeze free will into this picture if one accepts materialism. But how then can we reconcile this with our experiences and how can we call ourselves "freethinkers" if we really are just determined organic machines? I've recently been thinking about this after getting into an online debate with a dualist over the data we have from neuroscience and its interpretations.

The data from neuroscience is completely compatible with the idea of determinism. In fact, it is from the data of neuroscience that one can reasonably conclude that we are determined by the laws of physics. Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience in London says, "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'. It's richness of the action that you do make, acting smart rather than acting dumb, which is free will."

The fields of neuroscience and physics are filled with materialists. Given the data we have about how our consciousness is the last thing to show up on a list of brain functionality, I find it hard to see how anyone can still be a dualist, especially since both Cartesian dualism and interactionist dualism do not correspond with the data and have failed to yield any predictive power.

Hard Determinism vs. Compatiblism

That said, if we are just determined biological machines, which is what the data shows, then how do we reconcile this with our intuitive perception that we have free will? Well, there are generally two paths that you can take within determinism. There is hard determinism and compatiblism. Hard determinists say that determinism is true and it is totally incompatible with free will. Compatiblists say that determinism is true but that it can be compatible with some notions of free will.

Here's my take on this issue. I would agree with the hard determinists that determinism is incompatible with free will, especially the traditional libertarian notion of free will. But I am sympathetic to the compatiblists who view our behavior as the result of our own motivation. And by that I simply mean that this motivation is not due to other influencing beings. I do not believe that our will, or our desires are something of our choosing, rather they are the result of previous determined brain states. But if those brain states have not been directly controlled or influenced by other people, diseases or other natural physiological conditions, then I think we can reasonably assess the person as doing what is natural to them - in a sense, their own volition. So I call myself a compatiblist even though I fully recognize that determinism is not compatible with libertarian free will.

I still struggle with notions of justice, criminal responsibility, and personally, the notion of revenge, which I have always felt strongly about. The person who wrongs me is no more in control of themselves than the animal that attacks me, or the natural disaster that harms me. I look at criminal justice as more like removing a faulty product from the assembly line at a factory: Some of us are simply born hardwired for violence. They have to be removed from society because they cause harm, just as a car with machinery problems must be taken off the assembly line.

What is the 'Will'?

I use the term "will" differently from how it is commonly used by many dualists. The will to me is simply our conscious desire states that are determined by previous brain states that we have no control over. This essentially means that "we" have no control over our thoughts and actions. What "we" are is not some immaterial soul controlling the physical body behind the scenes. "We" are essentially the collection of atoms that are determined by the laws of physics. "I" am a particular combination of those atoms, and "you" are a different combination. The "will" as a kind of soul that drives our decisions is not something I believe in.

How can a "freethinker" be a determinist?

It might seem like a contradiction for materialists and atheists to be waving banners and making pronouncements that we are the "freethinkers" when our worldview logically implies that we are all determined biological machines with no free will. I don't see a contradiction. To me "freethinker" does not mean I have free will, it means that I am not going to let other faith-based and religious-based thinking determine me and my way of thinking. That is, I'm going to search where the evidence leads and let that be my determining factor. Of course, this too is fully determined.

Determinism does not also mean that we can never assess the truth of one's claim. Many dualists like to say that if we are determined beings, then all of our beliefs were also determined and that makes it impossible to determine who is right. Not at all. In a determined universe, some of us may be determined to be right and others to be wrong. The way we figure out who's right and who's wrong, is to test the belief up against the evidence using logic and science. If my belief matches the data and has better predictive power, then mine is likely right. If for example, someone is determined to believe something that is wrong, the best we can do is show them how they're wrong and hope that they may change their mind. All of this can be fully determined without any contradiction.

There are additional challenges that I will address in a future post. For now, coming to grips with determinism, although challenging, is not a challenge that one cannot address into a positive worldview. One thing to keep in mind is this: We don't know what we're going to be determined to do in the future, we will find out in real-time. So we can act as if the future is in a way, unwritten, even though it isn't. We don't have access to the script, and so epistemically, it might as well be unwritten.


Update: Although in this post I logically argue against free will from materialism, there is no need to assume materialism to refute free will. For a purely logical argument that is neutral on materialism see here: Logical argument against free will 

15 comments:

  1. (1) If the universe is fundamentally material and all material obeys the laws of physics, and
    (2) If human beings are fundamentally material, then
    (3) Human beings obey the laws of physics, and
    (4) Therefore there is no free will

    There is no way to squeeze free will into this picture if one accepts materialism.


    The first premise seems to depend on a full understanding of what the laws of physics are and a particular conception of matter. Even from a materialist perspective, it is possible that free will somehow inheres in matter and obeys the laws of physics.

    The fields of neuroscience and physics are filled with materialists.

    So what? I doubt the average scientist could even defend materialism.

    I find it hard to see how anyone can still be a dualist, especially since both Cartesian dualism and interactionist dualism do not correspond with the data and have failed to yield any predictive power.

    What specific experiment would disprove dualism?

    I still struggle with notions of justice, criminal responsibility, and personally, the notion of revenge, which I have always felt strongly about.

    How about morality? If ought implies can, the murderer cannot avoid committing murder and thus it cannot be said he ought to not commit murder.

    To me "freethinker" does not mean I have free will, it means that I am not going to let other faith-based and religious-based thinking determine me and my way of thinking. That is, I'm going to search where the evidence leads and let that be my determining factor. Of course, this too is fully determined.

    The problem is that, on determinism, you aren't actually thinking at all. You aren't following laws of logic. You aren't weighing pieces of evidence. Your brain is just spitting out determined answers. Your brain is analogous to a computer and computers don't think. Thinking is an illusion. Time to change the username.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even from a materialist perspective, it is possible that free will somehow inheres in matter and obeys the laws of physics.

    Where? How? If matter is determined by the laws of physics then it is determined, no other option can be made.

    So what? I doubt the average scientist could even defend materialism.

    Most scientists do not exist to defend materialism. The average Christian sure as hell cannot defend Christianity.

    What specific experiment would disprove dualism?


    You'd first have to find me a coherent definition and explanation of dualism and then from that make a prediction of how we'd think the mind should work. From the two we have Cartesianism and interactionism, both fail to make sense with the evidence.

    If ought implies can, the murderer cannot avoid committing murder and thus it cannot be said he ought to not commit murder.

    There are a lot of moral concerns with determinism. We can say one ought not to murder because of the harm it produces. But we cannot predict who will and will not murder (yet). This is no different from the psychopath who murders because he has a physiological condition. There simply is no room for anyone to say we all have free will.

    The problem is that, on determinism, you aren't actually thinking at all. You aren't following laws of logic. You aren't weighing pieces of evidence. Your brain is just spitting out determined answers. Your brain is analogous to a computer and computers don't think.

    Depends on how you define "you". I gave my definition in my post. A person can behave perfectly logical and rational given determinism.

    Thinking is an illusion. Time to change the username.

    Not at all. Thinking exists it's just that we are not in control of what thoughts we have or what we do. Thinking is simply just a cognitive process that is determined by prior brain states.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where? How? If matter is determined by the laws of physics then it is determined, no other option can be made.

      Logically speaking, the laws of physics need not be deterministic. You're baking your determinism into your law of physics.

      Most scientists do not exist to defend materialism.

      So their opinion on the matter as scientists is irrelevant.

      You'd first have to find me a coherent definition and explanation of dualism and then from that make a prediction of how we'd think the mind should work. From the two we have Cartesianism and interactionism, both fail to make sense with the evidence.

      If both Cartesianism and interactionism fail to make sense of the evidence then you should be able to provide an example of such evidence. That's all I'm asking for.

      There are a lot of moral concerns with determinism.

      I'm suggesting morality may not exist if determinism is true. There are no moral concerns if there is no morality.

      A person can behave perfectly logical and rational given determinism.

      In the same way a robot vacuum could behave logically and rationally. But on the inside it's as logical and rational as a wristwatch.

      Thinking exists it's just that we are not in control of what thoughts we have or what we do. Thinking is simply just a cognitive process that is determined by prior brain states.

      Thinking is more than that. It's grasping abstract concepts. It's following logic because it is logical. You're proposing a watered-down version of thinking. Does a computer think?

      Delete
    2. Logically speaking, the laws of physics need not be deterministic.

      Never said they have to be, i said it turns out they are.

      So their opinion on the matter as scientists is irrelevant.


      No it does, since they are experts in a relevant field. I'm just saying their job is to do science, not spend every waking hour defending materialism. Unlike apologists, scientists have actual jobs to do.

      If both Cartesianism and interactionism fail to make sense of the evidence then you should be able to provide an example of such evidence.

      Easy. They each predict that mental events would cause physical brain events. All the data from neuroscience shows the opposite is true.

      I'm suggesting morality may not exist if determinism is true. There are no moral concerns if there is no morality.

      Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. We don't know what we're determined to do, so we can apply ethical theories to our behavior in the hopes that it influences the way we behave.

      In the same way a robot vacuum could behave logically and rationally. But on the inside it's as logical and rational as a wristwatch.

      A computer might even be more logical than a human being. It makes no significant difference to me what is going on inside as the human body itself is not really logical, given our negatives and bad designs.

      Thinking is more than that. It's grasping abstract concepts. It's following logic because it is logical. You're proposing a watered-down version of thinking. Does a computer think?


      Why couldn't cognitive brain states determine abstract thoughts and give rise to logical thoughts? It certainly aides in our survival. Thinking about dualism opens up problems. For one thing, how does the mind think? How does one choose what thoughts pop into their mind? What determines this? If it is somehow random, then your thoughts might as well be chosen by flipping a coin. Is there anything that causes it? And what relationship does the brain/soul have? If a brain is damaged, does it affect the soul? These kind of questions make me think dualism is not plausible. But if you can answer them, go ahead. Right now computers do not think as far as I can tell, but they do behave according to programmed logic.

      Delete
    3. Never said they have to be, i said it turns out they are.

      Quantum phenomena does not appear to be deterministic. Considering our ignorance about the brain/mind and the history of science, in which surprising discoveries are made, it would be rash to claim the laws of physics require determinism. At best, assuming materialism, they favor determinism over libertarian free will.

      Easy. They each predict that mental events would cause physical brain events. All the data from neuroscience shows the opposite is true.

      Can you point to just one, specific experiment and briefly explain how it is incompatible with dualism?

      Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. We don't know what we're determined to do, so we can apply ethical theories to our behavior in the hopes that it influences the way we behave.

      Morality is also about what you ought to do. If ought implies can, then determinism removes ought-ness from reality. The fact that we don't know the future is irrelevant.

      A computer might even be more logical than a human being. It makes no significant difference to me what is going on inside as the human body itself is not really logical, given our negatives and bad designs.

      As a computer programmer I can assure you the computer doesn't even know what logic is. And if the human body, which includes the brain, is not "really logical" then there's little point in trying to provide logical arguments for your beliefs.

      Why couldn't cognitive brain states determine abstract thoughts and give rise to logical thoughts?

      Because abstract concepts are not made of matter. The consistent materialist should take the eliminative approach and deny that the brain grasps abstract concepts.

      These kind of questions make me think dualism is not plausible.

      These are arguments from ignorance. "I don't know how a soul would interact with a brain therefore the soul probably does not interact with the brain" is a poor argument.

      Right now computers do not think as far as I can tell, but they do behave according to programmed logic.

      As far as a third-person materialist can tell you don't think either in a robust sense of "think". Once you reduce your mind to matter you are no more a thinker than the computer you are typing at.

      Delete
    4. Quantum phenomena does not appear to be deterministic.

      This is arguable. Quantum mechanics is second order differential equations with boundary conditions and once you know the initial conditions of the wave function of a particle after some time it is completely determined, so there’s no indeterminacy. Thing is when you measure the properties of that particle based on its wave function, that’s probabilistic. And even if it was indeterministic, as physicist Sean Carroll wrote on the subject, "The fact that quantum mechanics introduces a stochastic component into physical predictions doesn’t open the door for true libertarian free will." Free will would be a random quantum probability like spinning a roulette wheel. That's not free to me.

      Can you point to just one, specific experiment and briefly explain how it is incompatible with dualism?

      Here you go: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021612

      All theories of dualism predict that it is possible for mind to affect brain states. Cartesianism says it is always that way (which is why we know it's false) and interactionism says it is a two way street. All the data, as is shown in the link above, shows a one way street from brain to mind. Thus conscious states are the direct results of physical brain states. No dualist would predict this one way street that the data shows.

      Morality is also about what you ought to do. If ought implies can, then determinism removes ought-ness from reality. The fact that we don't know the future is irrelevant.

      I disagree that our ignorance of the future is irrelevant. We simply do not know what we will do or can do in the future and so we can act as if the future is unwritten.

      As a computer programmer I can assure you the computer doesn't even know what logic is. And if the human body, which includes the brain, is not "really logical" then there's little point in trying to provide logical arguments for your beliefs.

      That's today. Computers today are no where near as complex as a human brain, which as far as we can tell is the most complex thing in the universe. The brain or body itself is not logical, logic is simply the process of making valid inferences which we can do consciously as determined by certain brain states.

      Because abstract concepts are not made of matter. The consistent materialist should take the eliminative approach and deny that the brain grasps abstract concepts.


      When we think of a physical object we do not get that physical object in our minds. What we get are certain neuro-chemical/electrical impulses that correspond to it. The same thing would be true of abstract concepts. Take for example the ability scientists have to see what we're seeing just by analyzing our brain states.

      http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

      These are arguments from ignorance. "I don't know how a soul would interact with a brain therefore the soul probably does not interact with the brain" is a poor argument.

      My point really, is to say that there are no coherent explanations of these questions that make any real plausible or logical sense. How about this. Try answering each of them and perhaps we can debate your answers to see what I mean.

      As far as a third-person materialist can tell you don't think either in a robust sense of "think". Once you reduce your mind to matter you are no more a thinker than the computer you are typing at.


      If a computer existed that was about as complex as my brain and could do what my brain can do, then I would say that computer was a thinker.


      Delete
    5. That's today. Computers today are no where near as complex as a human brain, which as far as we can tell is the most complex thing in the universe.

      I'm not sure how you can measure complexity. There is no reason to expect that arranging matter in a more complex manner (whatever that means) would lead to an ability for that matter to think.

      When we think of a physical object we do not get that physical object in our minds. What we get are certain neuro-chemical/electrical impulses that correspond to it. The same thing would be true of abstract concepts.

      Neuro-chemical and electrical impulses are not inherently about anything. They are analogous to the bits on a hard drive. The bits on a hard drive might correspond to something but they are not inherently about that something. The binary number 1000001 corresponds both to the decimal number 65 and to the letter A. The physical state of the hard drive does not determine the meaning of what is on it. Likewise, the physical state of the brain does not determine what abstract concepts it is thinking about. The eliminative materialist concludes that intentionality, as it's called in the philosophy of mind, does not exist because matter cannot display intentionality and dualism is false.

      Delete
    6. There is no reason to expect that arranging matter in a more complex manner (whatever that means) would lead to an ability for that matter to think.

      I'm not sure if we will ever have true AI. We might, we might not. Given the pace of our technology, and the possibilities of nanotechnology and quantum computing in the future, it may be possible for us to one day design a machine that can think for itself.

      Neuro-chemical and electrical impulses are not inherently about anything.

      This is arguable. If the mind is a product of the brain, as the data seems to show, then there may be a time in which our minds can be read and memories, thoughts and knowledge can literally be uploaded to our brains. Scientists have already done something like this with mice. As our technology grows, it may be possible one day for some electrodes to be placed into our heads and we can learn complex things instantly.

      The bits on a hard drive might correspond to something but they are not inherently about that something.

      This is a great analogy. I think the mind works is a similar fashion, albeit, much more complex. Given that we already have the ability to "read" people's brains by examining their brain states, I see the internal workings of our brains as a kind of representation of what we're seeing and thinking. I do think certain brain states can be about certain things in the same way bits and bytes on a computer are about certain things. I disagree with someone like Alex Rosenberg who says there is no intentionality. When the brain state pops in your head to chose A or B before you are conscious of it, that is intentionality, even if "you" technically are not in control of it.

      Delete
  3. QM is based on probability, not determinism. Considering the wave of a particle doesn’t collapse until observation and nothing prior to observation predicts where the particle will appear, I don’t know how anyone can claim we have any definitive scientific proof for determinism.

    “Determinism does not also mean that we can never assess the truth of one's claim. Many dualists like to say that if we are determined beings, then all of our beliefs were also determined and that makes it impossible to determine who is right. Not at all. In a determined universe, some of us may be determined to be right and others to be wrong. The way we figure out who's right and who's wrong, is to test the belief up against the evidence using logic and science. If my belief matches the data and has better predictive power, then mine is likely right. If for example, someone is determined to believe something that is wrong, the best we can do is show them how they're wrong and hope that they may change their mind. All of this can be fully determined without any contradiction.”

    They are determined to change their minds? Where did the wrong belief come from? If they are right and you are wrong, this exact same logic flips on its head. If you truly are determined, you will see the result of the experiment and apply your determined perspective to the answer which may or may not be based on truth. Determinism and identifying truth are not compatible. If one is determined to believe a lie, there is no getting around it. Who is to say who is correctly determined? If the entire human race is determined to hold a particular belief, the scientific data will fit that belief. You are giving yourself the freedom to choose the truth while saying there is no freedom to choose.

    Also, if you really believe this then why are you on a quest for atheism? I am determined to be a Christian and have no choice in the matter. How do you find meaning in that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. QM is based on probability, not determinism.

      This is arguable. Quantum mechanics is second order differential equations with boundary conditions and once you know the initial conditions of the wave function of a particle after some time it is completely determined, so there’s no indeterminacy. Thing is when you measure the properties of that particle based on its wave function, that’s probabilistic. And even if it was indeterministic, as physicist Sean Carroll wrote on the subject, "The fact that quantum mechanics introduces a stochastic component into physical predictions doesn’t open the door for true libertarian free will." Free will would be a random quantum probability like spinning a roulette wheel. That's not free to me.

      They are determined to change their minds?

      EVERYTHING is determined. That includes me writing this and you writing what you wrote. The wrong belief came from a combination of electro/chemical states in their brain. That goes for all of us when we think.

      If you truly are determined, you will see the result of the experiment and apply your determined perspective to the answer which may or may not be based on truth.

      I don't see how this is a huge problem when you think about it. A fundamentalists Christian's indoctrinated upbringing will determine that they reject the evidence of evolution when you literally plop it down right in front of them. Free will does not mean any of us will "see" the truth passed the socio-biological determining factors that hinder us. It's the same thing.

      Determinism and identifying truth are not compatible.

      Then how is it under your free will hypothesis so many people are so utterly wrong about things even when they see indisputable evidence to the contrary? I don't see how free will even operates. For one thing, how does the mind think? How does one choose what thoughts pop into their mind? What determines this? If it is somehow random, then your thoughts might as well be chosen by flipping a coin. Is there anything that causes it? And what relationship does the brain/soul have? If a brain is damaged, does it affect the soul? The failure of dualists to answer these kinds of questions make me think dualism is not plausible.

      Also, if you really believe this then why are you on a quest for atheism? I am determined to be a Christian and have no choice in the matter. How do you find meaning in that?

      This is a common misconception of determinism that I addressed in this post. I don't know the future, so perhaps my criticism of religion will cause you, or maybe someone else who is religious to jettison their religious faith. We can already see from the statistics that this is working. And so when I promote atheism, I'm hoping that my actions will determine the beliefs and actions of other people and that I will be the means by which this happens.

      Delete
    2. “QM is based on probability, not determinism.”
      “This is arguable…. there’s no indeterminacy. “

      You are the first person I’ve ever seen say this about QM.

      "The fact that quantum mechanics introduces a stochastic component into physical predictions doesn’t open the door for true libertarian free will."

      Nice opinion, but how can he claim certainty with “a stochastic component” without presupposing materialism? His chosen worldview, not brain chemistry, has determined his conclusion.

      “A fundamentalists Christian's indoctrinated upbringing will determine that they reject the evidence of evolution when you literally plop it down right in front of them.”

      True for some, not true for all. You are saying that anyone who is indoctrinated can’t change their mind based on evidence. This would also apply to those raised in a non-religious home. I disagree. I guess you’ve never encountered a Christian turned atheist or any other conversion. If what you are saying is true, only biochemistry can change one’s mind, not evidence. Based on that, the truthfulness of atheism and/or Christianity is equally illegitimate and unknown. Skepticism is all that remains; the only truth that we can know is that we cannot know the truth.

      “Then how is it under your free will hypothesis so many people are so utterly wrong about things even when they see indisputable evidence to the contrary? “

      Sometimes choice overrides evidence. Sometimes there is a lack of trust of the evidence based on previous errors or misrepresentations, especially when one sees the 'evidence' change over time.

      “How does one choose what thoughts pop into their mind? What determines this?”

      I do.

      “The failure of dualists to answer these kinds of questions make me think dualism is not plausible.”

      First off, this fails basic logic 101, which I’ve never taken. Second, I haven’t studied dualism, so I don’t know what their answers are. Third, consciousness is something we still know very little about, so it’s not just the dualists that may struggle to answer. Determinism is nowhere close to being settled science, and considering QM, I doubt it will be settled.

      “This is a common misconception of determinism”

      I see this as a common inconsistency of determinism. Again, you are assuming someone has a choice in deciphering the truth based on evidence rather than their pre-determined interpretation of the evidence, a luxury you seem to afford yourself, but not fundamentalist Christians.

      “I'm hoping that my actions will determine the beliefs and actions of other people and that I will be the means by which this happens.”

      You are contradicting yourself by allowing for a choice you have taken away. Your actions cannot change someone else’s brain chemistry. If someone is determined to be an atheist, NOTHING you do will cause this.

      Delete
    3. You are the first person I’ve ever seen say this about QM.


      i suggest you read more about QM.

      His chosen worldview, not brain chemistry, has determined his conclusion.

      Religions seek to indoctrinate the young and vulnerable - those who are ill equipped to "choose" their worldview. The stochastic component is well understood in quantum probability theory regardless of whether one is a materialist or not.

      . If what you are saying is true, only biochemistry can change one’s mind, not evidence. Based on that, the truthfulness of atheism and/or Christianity is equally illegitimate and unknown.

      What I meant was that your free will defense does not mean everyone's mind is a blank slate who will be open to the evidence equally. Indoctrination often, but not always, prevents one from seeing the evidence rationally. The thing about determinism is that the biochemistry that changes one's mind can be determined by the evidence. But those who've been heavily indoctrinated will have brains that prevent this.

      Sometimes choice overrides evidence.

      I would ask then, how can you be sure your choices are actually yours and not caused/determined by other things?

      I do

      There is no evidence that shows this to be true, Besides, how can you choose what thoughts you have? You cannot have a thought about a thought before you have the thought.

      First off, this fails basic logic 101, which I’ve never taken. Second, I haven’t studied dualism, so I don’t know what their answers are. Third, consciousness is something we still know very little about, so it’s not just the dualists that may struggle to answer. Determinism is nowhere close to being settled science, and considering QM, I doubt it will be settled.


      I do not have a PhD in any of these subjects and I don't claim expertise either but I've done research and have tried to listen to theologians explain the way the soul works, and to me it opens up more problems than it solves. I have a post about one of the problems with a certain kind of dualism called Thoughts On The Soul. Perhaps you can read it and take a shot at trying to answer it. Bottom line for me is this. The idea of the dualism not only has failed to make any predictions science could measure, the science we do have supports determinism. And QM further supports this.

      I see this as a common inconsistency of determinism.

      No, like I said, everything is determined, including of course our interpretations of evidence. However, some of us may be right and some may be wrong depending on whether that evidence conforms to experiment and logic. The fundie Christian is determined to be wrong because of the upbringing they had (that was also determined). My hope is that people like me will one day be a causal influence on them changing their mind.

      You are contradicting yourself by allowing for a choice you have taken away. Your actions cannot change someone else’s brain chemistry. If someone is determined to be an atheist, NOTHING you do will cause this.

      You've failed to understand my post. As I said, no one knows what we will be determined to do. So when I spread my ideas I am hoping they will be the causal influence that determines others to adopt them. If someone is determined to be a Christian forever, then so be it - they will never change. But due to my epistemic limitations, I will never know if they are or are not. And you're wrong. All of our actions can change each other's brain chemistry. That's what falling in love is. If someone is determined to be an atheist, something has to have determined them. That cause will likely be a person in their lives, That person could be me. It could also be the evidence supporting atheism. It could be many things that determines this, including people.

      Delete
    4. “i suggest you read more about QM.”

      I’d love to. Any suggestions for what I should read?

      “The stochastic component is well understood in quantum probability theory regardless of whether one is a materialist or not. “

      Hmmm….I wonder why don’t we know if Schrodinger’s cat is dead or alive before looking in the box.

      “What I meant was that your free will defense does not mean everyone's mind is a blank slate who will be open to the evidence equally. Indoctrination often, but not always, prevents one from seeing the evidence rationally.”

      I agree with both of these statements. I’ve never claimed the mind is a blank slate or that free will automatically removes one’s bias. I also agree that biochemistry does play a significant role. Where I disagree is:

      1). Our biochemistry alone pre-determines our conclusions.
      2). Biochemistry is capable of deciding between a true or false proposition.
      3). Determinism and the knowledge of truth are compatible.

      “I would ask then, how can you be sure your choices are actually yours and not caused/determined by other things?”

      No one is immune from their biases. I am very familiar with indoctrination. By recognizing those biases, I can try to evaluate evidence with an open mind while realizing I am not a blank slate and do have other factors influencing me (biochemistry, indoctrination, lack of sleep, etc). I may or may not succeed, but I continuously evaluate my positions to see if they hold up. A common error of atheists is to assume their worldview makes them objective.

      “There is no evidence that shows this to be true”

      Again, we know too little about consciousness to say this on a scientific level. For your criminal musings, “his brain made him do it”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seg8kjc6Z84 Quotes from the clip - “Observations of the brain activity in the laboratory can explain very few things about us…..Our knowledge of the relationship of brain and consciousness, brain and self, brain and agency is so empirically weak and so conceptually confused that the appeal to neuroscience in the law of courts, the police station or anywhere else is to say the least, premature and inappropriate.”

      “I have a post about one of the problems with a certain kind of dualism called Thoughts On The Soul.”

      There are people that have mental disorders and feel compelled to do things that harm themselves or others, yet hate themselves for what they are doing, do not wish to do this, and want to stop but can’t. They are unable to control themselves, yet their minds recognize the disconnect. How does determinism account for the separation of the sense of self and body? It reminds me of this verse “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.” – Deut 22:26 Their physical bodies are overcoming their will to do what they want to do and what they know to be right. In the end, I leave the judging up to God. Anyone who says otherwise with certainty is speculating in ways they shouldn’t.

      From your other post, “there are too many unanswered questions….that make it highly implausible to me.”

      I hear many Christians say this about common descent. What would you say to them?

      “everything is determined, including of course our interpretations of evidence..... The fundie Christian is determined to be wrong”

      Your inability to see the contradiction in this statement almost makes me agree with determinism!!!

      Delete
    5. I’d love to. Any suggestions for what I should read?


      I've found Brian Greene's books to be a great source on explaining relativity and quantum mechanics to a lay audience. Also Lisa Randal and Lawrence Krauss' books are great as well.

      I’ve never claimed the mind is a blank slate or that free will automatically removes one’s bias. I also agree that biochemistry does play a significant role. Where I disagree is:

      Maybe you didn't exactly, but I never said our biochemistry alone pre-determines our conclusions, it is a determining factor, but not the only one. I disagree that biochemistry is incapable of deciding between a true or false proposition. Knowing the truth has survival advantages, thus having a brain that can make accurate sense of the world around us in solving our problems can be selected by the evolutionary process. But there is a lot to this that I don't have time to mention here, like our tendency for false positives. As I said before, there is nothing illogical about being determined to know the truth.

      Again, we know too little about consciousness to say this on a scientific level.

      The clip you linked to is a bit old (2007) and neuroscientists say we've learned more about the brain in the past 5 years than in the previous 5,000. Now i'm not sure that is 100% true but we have learned a lot recently. The fact remains however that consciousness is the last thing to happen when the brain does what it does, and brain states always determine mental states. I'm not aware of any evidence that shows the opposite.

      There are people that have mental disorders and feel compelled to do things that harm themselves or others, yet hate themselves for what they are doing, do not wish to do this, and want to stop but can’t.

      And there are people who don't. And there are people so mentally ill, they cannot even think in this way. Just like you shouldn't be held criminally responsible for an accident if you had a damaged car, how can god judge a soul who had no choice but to receive a damaged body? It seems to be you don't know and will "leave the judging up to God." OK, that's honest on your part, but I don't think there is a logical answer to this.

      I hear many Christians say this about common descent. What would you say to them?


      Google it. There is widespread ignorance about evolution and most questions can be answered with a few minutes of internet research. When it comes to the really tough questions that we don't yet know, I would encourage them to pursue a degree in biology to actually go try and find the answer. That's what makes science so beautiful. There may even be a Nobel prize waiting for them. What I would certainly not do is appeal to god to provide an answer. That's just intellectually lazy.

      Your inability to see the contradiction in this statement almost makes me agree with determinism!!!

      Please explain exactly how I contradicted myself.

      Delete
    6. “how can god judge a soul who had no choice but to receive a damaged body?”

      We have neither a reason nor scriptural basis to assume that someone who has a “damaged body” will be judged in the same way as those who have healthy minds. If anything, the Bible indicates the opposite so I’m not sure where you get this impression.

      “It seems to be you don't know and will "leave the judging up to God." OK, that's honest on your part, but I don't think there is a logical answer to this.”

      The answer is there is a good, loving, righteous judge who knows and understands all of the circumstances surrounding each individual including their DNA and cognitive malfunctions. Jesus was clear that we are not to condemn the soul of our fellow humans. God alone knows the hearts of man and can make a righteous judgment.

      “everything is determined, including of course our interpretations of evidence..... The fundie Christian is determined to be wrong”.....“Please explain exactly how I contradicted myself.”

      You are claiming that an individual’s interpretation of the evidence is determined. With a determined interpretation, the Christian is incapable of making an accurate judgment of the evidence for or against atheism. Those who are determined to remain Christians will do so and those who are determined to convert to atheism will do so. The same standard you apply to the Christian also applies to you. You are also incapable of making an accurate judgment of the evidence for or against Christianity. If you are determined to remain an atheist, an atheist you will remain. By saying the Christian is determined to be wrong, you are claiming an exemption since you are capable of assessing the truth when the Christian is not. If determinism is true, accurate judgment is the luck of the deterministic draw and radical skepticism is the only option. You may not legitimately call Christianity false or atheism true without contradicting determinism.

      Delete

Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...