Against Free-Will

[Bobber90]

But it’s arbitrary anyway, so it doesn’t really make your argument any stronger. Especially since you defined it as the physical causing a certain type of thought and not a specific thought.

My view is that the processes which normally stand for free will are themselves subject to causal influence. If the free will bit is confined in a non-physical realm, we have the problems of how the realm interacts with the physical realm as well as the question of is it really free of causal influence coming from the physical realm? To the last question, we can answer that it is still subject to causal influence, as mentioned.

The mind is supposed to be wholly in the non-physical realm(?) yet of course its objects of thought are in the physical realm too. They are not hermetically sealed, clearly. How would thinking happen devoid of outside influences?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

By the way, Perplexity, I went back and looked over that post. Somehow I missed the quotation of empther above it, and for some reason thought it had followed my last post. Not sure how it happened, but my mistake. I hope it is within the bounds of your indeterminate will to forgive me.

Indeterminacy is as much a problem as determinacy, since it only by chance that the object we call perplexity will forgive you. This brings up the problem of why human experience is so consistent if human choice is indeterminant. Our linguistic responses to one another and things of that nature is far too consistent, in so far as coherency is concerned, to arrive purely by chance. It seems to me that this discussion could never really take place coherently, since incoherence would more likely be a larger factor, if chance is the ground of any action. Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of indeterminacy.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Indeterminacy is as much a problem as determinacy, since it only by chance that the object we call perplexity will forgive you. This brings up the problem of why human experience is so consistent if human choice is indeterminant. Our linguistic responses to one another and things of that nature is far too consistent, in so far as coherency is concerned, to arrive purely by chance. It seems to me that this discussion could never really take place coherently, since incoherence would more likely be a larger factor, if chance is the ground of any action. Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of indeterminacy.

You and I both know it. Try explaining it to our resident indeterminists. Their understanding of it IS different, but in my opinion, the results are the same. Their systems of thought are internally consistent, but once applied to every day life, it becomes laughable. Intellectual weight lifting for the sake of it. Just see perplexity’s example of indeterminacy to me which I quoted and bolded a few posts above. It is beyond me how anyone can take this stuff seriously.

 

[prodigalson2011]

P.S.: MindOverMatter, I’ve seen your posts before and always loved your signature. Is it your own? If so, can I quote you on that?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

P.S.: MindOverMatter, I’ve seen your posts before and always loved your signature. Is it your own? If so, can I quote you on that?

Yes.

 

[karaleigh]

I’d like to outline a reason for doubting that free-will exists:…
Thoughts?

You have a mixed plane on your philosophy. I firmly believe Christianity is a philosophy so I will attempt to answer you. Also, I will not cite anything that I can not get a direct online link. So, please, remember this post is for information purposes not for you salvation.

There are different kinds of freedoms of the will.

There are many ways to understand freewill, but, biblically, there’s only one way to use it. The bible is based on a One God system; therefore, it is understood that biblical freewill is *only *for those who seek the One God, that is, ‘The Almighty’ for a salvation from the flesh. From, the flesh!

She’d deserve these moral predications solely in virtue of her performing the action.

If she was able to preform the actions of morality then there is no need for an example of freewill to be her directive on moral deeds. Vanity is the crux used if she needs public applause for her moralistic behaviors. Using God as a crux, inside the philosophy of Christianity, is considered a heresy. Thereby, inside of Christianity, her good intentions would be bad or called ‘karma’. That is, living inside the belief but as a non-believer. Revelations of John clearly say the souls and saints remained quiet during the deliberations of the Book of Seals. The needs to stand up and out as moralistic is the opposite of quiet. She has done nothing for her salvation.

But, what seems fairly uncontroversial (as much as can be in this field) is that an agent must be the appropriate source of the action in order to have been free with respect to performing it.

This statement is likely from the argument on the covenant children of the Great God ‘I Am’. As well as, the question of who are those children. Most people believe all inhabitants on earth are covenant children…this in incorrect. God Almighty chose HIS children at the beginning of creation. Only they are called to* rapture*. All others remain on earth with Jesus.

What I want to suggest is that the free-will required for moral responsibility is incompatible with us being determined, or indetermined. This is good reason to doubt we have it.

Here, with the understand of covenant children, you are correct!

I will not be providing my reason for thinking free-will is incompatible with determinism since I know of no determinists here.

It is the Holy Spirit from the conception of Christ that makes freewill have its determinists. It is through the Holy Spirit that the ‘promised’ messages are offered to those who are of the covenant. And, hence, the need for freewill.

 

[Bobber90]

Yes.

I can think of no system of thought that both asserts that you have an objective meaning and that your existence is that of a bundle of secretions. Materialism would not talk of objective meaning!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I can think of no system of thought that both asserts that you have an objective meaning and that your existence is that of a bundle of secretions. Materialism would not talk of objective meaning!

Perhaps that is a mistake on my part and far from calling you jealous I will just say thank you for pointing it out. However, I don’t really think its very important since you can take the reduction of objective meaning to chemical secretions as symbolising materialism’s attempt to rob the world of its meaning, rather than as an argument that assumes that materialism is true as one of its premises. I think that its right I point that out to you since you are quite fond of distributing straw-men as a substitute for knock-down arguments.

Its at least evident to my experience that there is objective meaning, and while materialism as a concept necessarily has the implication that there there is no objective meaning, many so called materialists sure tend to behave like their objective existence including what they say and do has meaning, value, and relevance. They are mysteriously insulted when they are treated like the meaningless objects they truly are according to their world-view. They also tend to demand that other people should recognise their imaginary meaning and value and also judge people according to this fantasy, while at the same time ridiculing those who have faith in their objective value as living persons.

Its like a fantasist telling a religious person we can create our own magical meaning, we don’t need faith!!

Wait a minute…that’s exactly what it is!!!

Yes its all very…what’s the word…ridiculous

 

[Bobber90]

Perhaps that is a mistake on my part and far from calling you jealous I will just say thank you for pointing it out. However, I don’t really think its very important since you can take the reduction of objective meaning to chemical secretions as symbolising materialism’s attempt to rob the world of its meaning, rather than as an argument that assumes that materialism is true as one of its premises. I think that its right I point that out to you since you are quite fond of distributing straw-men as a substitute for knock-down arguments.

Its at least evident to my experience that there is objective meaning, and while materialism as a concept necessarily has the implication that there there is no objective meaning, many so called materialists sure tend to behave like their objective existence including what they say and do has meaning, value, and relevance. They are mysteriously insulted when they are treated like the meaningless objects they truly are according to their world-view. They also tend to demand that other people should recognise their imaginary meaning and value and also judge people according to this fantasy, while at the same time ridiculing those who have faith in their objective value as living persons.

Its like a fantasist telling a religious person we can create our own magical meaning, we don’t need faith!!

Wait a minute…that’s exactly what it is!!!

Yes its all very…what’s the word…ridiculous

I couldn’t resist making the point, and I know it seems like an irritating point so for that I apologise. What I take the quote to mean is that the objective meaning granted to life and everything by theism is not granted by non-theistic materialism: fair point. However, if the latter perspective were true, then our feelings of significance/relevance/meaning would be genuine but constructed and subjective. If they disappeared when the appeal to objectivity was removed, they would be weaker than other beliefs whose justification does not rely upon such an appeal.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeterminacy is as much a problem as determinacy, since it only by chance that the object we call perplexity will forgive you. This brings up the problem of why human experience is so consistent if human choice is indeterminant. Our linguistic responses to one another and things of that nature is far too consistent, in so far as coherency is concerned, to arrive purely by chance. It seems to me that this discussion could never really take place coherently, since incoherence would more likely be a larger factor, if chance is the ground of any action. Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of indeterminacy.

The only coherent solution is self-determinacy…

 

[Bobber90]

The only coherent solution is self-determinacy…

Tell us more!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I can think of no system of thought that both asserts that you have an objective meaning and that your existence is that of a bundle of secretions. Materialism would not talk of objective meaning!

I would disagree. Perhaps meaning isn’t the most appropriate word, but materialism definitely attempts to deal in objective physical realities while excluding any metaphysical considerations. Therefore, the meaning of any materialist philosophy reduces to functionality. The object in question has meaning insofar as it has an observable pattern of behavior. So, for the materialist, the “objective meaning” of life is for these self replicating creatures to continuosly progenerate and survive over the competing variations of their particular genetic makeup, whether of the same or different species. There is a materialistic “meaning.” It’s terribly sad and horribly shortsighted, but there it is, in all its lack of glory.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Perhaps that is a mistake on my part and far from calling you jealous I will just say thank you for pointing it out. However, I don’t really think its very important since you can take the reduction of objective meaning to chemical secretions as symbolising materialism’s attempt to rob the world of its meaning, rather than as an argument that assumes that materialism is true as one of its premises. I think that its right I point that out to you since you are quite fond of distributing straw-men as a substitute for knock-down arguments.

Its at least evident to my experience that there is objective meaning, and while materialism as a concept necessarily has the implication that there there is no objective meaning, many so called materialists sure tend to behave like their objective existence including what they say and do has meaning, value, and relevance. They are mysteriously insulted when they are treated like the meaningless objects they truly are according to their world-view. They also tend to demand that other people should recognise their imaginary meaning and value and also judge people according to this fantasy, while at the same time ridiculing those who have faith in their objective value as living persons.

Its like a fantasist telling a religious person we can create our own magical meaning, we don’t need faith!!

Wait a minute…that’s exactly what it is!!!

Yes its all very…what’s the word…ridiculous

Amen!

 

[prodigalson2011]

My view is that the processes which normally stand for free will are themselves subject to causal influence. If the free will bit is confined in a non-physical realm, we have the problems of how the realm interacts with the physical realm as well as the question of is it really free of causal influence coming from the physical realm? To the last question, we can answer that it is still subject to causal influence, as mentioned.

The mind is supposed to be wholly in the non-physical realm(?) yet of course its objects of thought are in the physical realm too. They are not hermetically sealed, clearly. How would thinking happen devoid of outside influences?

I am curious. You seem to be stuck on the point of causal influence on free will. I am not aware of any philosophy of free will that denies an extent of external influence on one’s will. Catholic doctrine, the bastion of free will, even permits certain factors that may diminish one’s free will. My question to you is, assuming your stance to be correct, how can you even give your thoughts any serious consideration? As purposeful thought must be considered either an act of will or an electrochemical abberation, the materialist is forced to conclude that his own thoughts are essentially the latter, and, hence, completely random and without any intrinsic meaning. Philosophy presupposes meaning, and materialism attempts to discard it. It’s like cutting off your legs before a race.

 

[Bobber90]

I would disagree. Perhaps meaning isn’t the most appropriate word, but materialism definitely attempts to deal in objective physical realities while excluding any metaphysical considerations. Therefore, the meaning of any materialist philosophy reduces to functionality. The object in question has meaning insofar as it has an observable pattern of behavior. So, for the materialist, the “objective meaning” of life is for these self replicating creatures to continuosly progenerate and survive over the competing variations of their particular genetic makeup, whether of the same or different species. There is a materialistic “meaning.” It’s terribly sad and horribly shortsighted, but there it is, in all its lack of glory.

It’s this word ‘objective’ which seems problematic, given that in materialism there is only subjectivity - not that subjectivity is a small thing. If ‘objective’ is taken to have associations with the perspective of a deity, then it is not in materialism; if it means the universal judgments of subjective perspectives, then it has a place, though I think that is not the sense in which you use the term.

So there is no single ‘materialistic’ meaning.

 

[Bobber90]

I am curious. You seem to be stuck on the point of causal influence on free will. I am not aware of any philosophy of free will that denies an extent of external influence on one’s will. Catholic doctrine, the bastion of free will, even permits certain factors that may diminish one’s free will. My question to you is, assuming your stance to be correct, how can you even give your thoughts any serious consideration? As purposeful thought must be considered either an act of will or an electrochemical abberation, the materialist is forced to conclude that his own thoughts are essentially the latter, and, hence, completely random and without any intrinsic meaning. Philosophy presupposes meaning, and materialism attempts to discard it. It’s like cutting off your legs before a race.

Because something has caused my thoughts, if not a unitary ‘soul’, and if they correspond with reality, I am the lucky truth-bearer, just not the lucky author. I can fully accept limitations on free will, but when they all add up I cannot see the free will that I thought was there originally!

(btw, one can have materialist views of free will and consciousness consistently. Daniel Dennett takes this view. I just do not understand that notion in combination with a unitary self)

 

[prodigalson2011]

It’s this word ‘objective’ which seems problematic, given that in materialism there is only subjectivity - not that subjectivity is a small thing. If ‘objective’ is taken to have associations with the perspective of a deity, then it is not in materialism; if it means the universal judgments of subjective perspectives, then it has a place, though I think that is not the sense in which you use the term.

So there is no single ‘materialistic’ meaning.

I do mean it in the second sense. Science, for example, is a materialistic philosophy that attempts to obtain truth, in the most objective and demonstrable sense possible. However, in recent years, materialism, the domain of practical science, has been trying to cross over into the field of metaphysics (Stephen Jay Gould, as you probably know, used the term “non-overlapping Magisteria” to distinguish the necessary separation of these two systems.) I believe materialists are trying to have it both ways. They are attempting to draw metaphysical conclusions from a strictly physical philosophy. Certainly they would like to use their philosophy to reduce everything to “relativistic subjectivity,” but it seems to me, it actually destroys the very idea of a “subject,” in that consciousness is reduced to a physical (objective) phenomenon and is,really rendered obsolete as a means of arriving at any form of truth, objective or otherwise. In fact, the inherent contradictions in materialist philosophy are so glaring and irresolvable that any discussion of it must necessarily run in circles.

 

[Bobber90]

I do mean it in the second sense. Science, for example, is a materialistic philosophy that attempts to obtain truth, in the most objective and demonstrable sense possible. However, in recent years, materialism, the domain of practical science, has been trying to cross over into the field of metaphysics (Stephen Jay Gould, as you probably know, used the term “non-overlapping Magisteria” to distinguish the necessary separation of these two systems.) I believe materialists are trying to have it both ways. They are attempting to draw metaphysical conclusions from a strictly physical philosophy. Certainly they would like to use their philosophy to reduce everything to “relativistic subjectivity,” but it seems to me, it actually destroys the very idea of a “subject,” in that consciousness is reduced to a physical (objective) phenomenon and is,really rendered obsolete as a means of arriving at any form of truth, objective or otherwise. In fact, the inherent contradictions in materialist philosophy are so glaring and irresolvable that any discussion of it must necessarily run in circles.

I agree that materialism doesn’t support itself definitively as the one true way to gain knowledge, but I also think while it produces some knowledge, it does not produce values - and meaning is a value. I would say that it does permit subjective valuations (rather than objective) in spite of the notion that we are just chemical effects like anything else, because that ‘fact’ does not impel us to reduce the meaning of our lives correspondingly.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I agree that materialism doesn’t support itself definitively as the one true way to gain knowledge, but I also think while it produces some knowledge, it does not produce values - and meaning is a value. I would say that it does permit subjective valuations (rather than objective) in spite of the notion that we are just chemical effects like anything else, because that ‘fact’ does not impel us to reduce the meaning of our lives correspondingly.

As you rightly noted, materialism does not produce values. If it permits “subjective valuations”, it can only do so in a dismissive sense, in that those “subjective values” are accidental and inconsequential. That fact DOES impel you to reduce the “meaning of your life,” because within the materialistic worldview, any meaning that goes beyond physical function is illusory and, inherently, without value. “Subjective value” is the golden calf of materialism. While the materialist knows it is an empty god, he continues to exalt it nonetheless.

Bob Dylan said it best, “Sooner or later, ya gotta serve somebody.”

 

[prodigalson2011]

I agree that materialism doesn’t support itself definitively as the one true way to gain knowledge, but I also think while it produces some knowledge, it does not produce values - and meaning is a value. I would say that it does permit subjective valuations (rather than objective) in spite of the notion that we are just chemical effects like anything else, because that ‘fact’ does not impel us to reduce the meaning of our lives correspondingly.

I would also take issue with the statement, “meaning is a value.”
This is not necessarily so. Meaning is one of those words that wears several different hats. The act of making such a statement itself hinges upon the assumption that the words being used have a definite meaning. I can’t, for instance, interpret your statement of “meaning is a value” to mean “cats live on Jupiter.” And if I can, then your statement is meaningless. Do you see the tail chasing redundancy that this philosophy produces? There is such a thing as being overanalytical, and I think philosophers are all too often quite guilty of it.