Can a materialist conception of the mind really preserve free will?

[SentinelofTruth]

No, absolutely not. Under a materialist notion of mind we would have to think of action as the brain selecting one choice from a set of potential choices laid out sequentially in a simplex. The choice to select a given action A by the brain could only depend on information about the brain’s past states in terms of its chemical metabolism. The only way you could make it seem like there was free will operating in the brain would be to introduce some random selection mechanism, but that in itself would have to depend on a physical mechanism to generate the random deviates for the stochastic selection mechanism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But the thesis that a mind must be spiritual is what is being denied.

Exactly, it would be contradictory for a materialist to have a mind. But since they do have minds ( most of them ), materialism is a self-contradictory philosophy. People claim to be materialists but in fact that is not possible.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Exactly, it would be contradictory for a materialist to have a mind. But since they do have minds ( most of them ), materialism is a self-contradictory philosophy. People claim to be materialists but in fact that is not possible.

Linus2nd

Assuming that matter is insentient, please watch the following talk here

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

People claim to be materialists but in fact that is not possible.

Uh, yeah, it’s possible to be a materialist.

Linusthe2nd:

Exactly, it would be contradictory for a materialist to have a mind.

No it wouldn’t. Lots of minds in our world believe in materialism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Uh, yeah, it’s possible to be a materialist.

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
Exactly, it would be contradictory for a materialist to have a mind.

You are not contradicting Linus’ point. Neither the fact that YOU think lots of minds believe in materialism nor the fact that lots of minds actually do believe in it - precisely because it would be “minds” that do the believing - contradict his claim - or at least the implication of his claim - that if materialism is, indeed, true, minds would not exist, but, rather, be illusory.

Therefore it would be contradictory for a materialist - assuming s/he is correct that strict materialism is true - to have a mind.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Peter Plato:

Therefore it would be contradictory for a materialist - assuming s/he is correct that strict materialism is true - to have a mind.

Exactly - IF they are correct. That line was not part of Linus’s statement.

 

[ccmnxc]

Assuming that matter is insentient, please watch the following talk here

It seems unreasonable to ask someone to watch an hour-long video for a forum post. If they were writing a formal paper, maybe, but here it seems inappropriate. Perhaps that arguments can be summed up for us. Still, attempting to prove matter to be sentient seems to be near-impossible. I have yet to see a successful proof for the existence of sentient persons and minds aside from my own (I can believe it on experience and the fact that other people appear to be sentient). If we cannot show being who appear to be sentient actually are, I have no idea how on earth one would go about proving sentience in some entity (matter) that is at least prima facie non-sentient.

 

[Bahman]

It seems unreasonable to ask someone to watch an hour-long video for a forum post. If they were writing a formal paper, maybe, but here it seems inappropriate. Perhaps that arguments can be summed up for us. Still, attempting to prove matter to be sentient seems to be near-impossible. I have yet to see a successful proof for the existence of sentient persons and minds aside from my own (I can believe it on experience and the fact that other people appear to be sentient). If we cannot show being who appear to be sentient actually are, I have no idea how on earth one would go about proving sentience in some entity (matter) that is at least prima facie non-sentient.

The idea behind the talk is very easy. We assume that matter is insentient which leads to paradox where mind come from. If we assume that everything including matter is consciousness to different degree then the problem with why we have mind is resolved. In another word mind is continuous from very complex form, human mind, to what we call matter. The talk if fun to listen and full of useful information.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Uh, yeah, it’s possible to be a materialist.

No it wouldn’t. Lots of minds in our world believe in materialism.

And there are lots of minds who think they are Napoleon or Jesus, that doesn’t mean they are, they are just delusional. The same with folks who call themselves " materialists, " they may think it all they want. But in fact they are not because they have a non-material mind. This is half joke half real. I’m using an impossibility to prove what is true. No man is actually a materialist, they only think they are.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Assuming that matter is insentient, please watch the following talk here

Don’t tell me you found a talking horse!

Ha,ha.

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Bahman:

We assume that matter is insentient which leads to paradox where mind come from.

This is no paradox. It’s just a thesis that ultimately refutes materialism. But once one accepts that minds are substantively immaterial, and that they were created by God, the problem is resolved.

Linusthe2nd:

And there are lots of minds who think they are Napoleon or Jesus, that doesn’t mean they are, they are just delusional. The same with folks who call themselves " materialists, " they may think it all they want. But in fact they are not because they have a non-material mind. This is half joke half real. I’m using an impossibility to prove what is true. No man is actually a materialist, they only think they are.

A materialist is someone who belives in no ontologically primary immaterial substances. That’s something they really are. Just because they are wrong does not mean they don’t believe it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Assuming that matter is insentient, please watch the following talk here

How does one begin to rectify a hundred errors in logic and dozens of false assumptions and to overcome deep seated prejudices all at once? To begin at the beginning, consciousness does not come from matter, the immaterial, the non-material. Matter, however ephemerial it may seem to those of a Kantian persuasion, and inspite of Einstein and all those brilliant physicist, is real, it is not a near nothing. It is real and measurable and detectable, consciousness is not. So consciousness cannot come from matter.

And please, Peter’s contention that all matter is conscious is the wildest concoction I ever head of no matter how may Swamies and Mystics may imagine. Egads, shades of Plato all over.

Forms or Natures combine with matter ( and that can be very vague indeed) to make a substance that exists, a substance or being with a specific nature identifiable by its typical properties, habitual activities, and its identifiable powers of operation. These are not concocted by the mind, no matter what Descartes and Kant said. Two madmen if there ever where any…

Futher, there would be no consciousness ( other than a vague self-awarness without content of extra mental " forms, " ) unless there was an objective reality outside the mind to be experienced, the forms of which our senses abstract. If nothing existed outside the mind how could we have the " forms?" We couldn’t.

So where does consciousness come from? From God who creates the human soul with the properties of thinking, willing, knowing, remembering and which gives existence to the human person. Funny Peter never considered that.

What you and Perer need is a good dose of Thomism. That will put you back in touch with the real world.

P.S. You are introspecting far too much. There seems to be a regular epidemic of this disease on this forum. Have you guys calle a convention?

Linus2nd.

 

[Bahman]

This is no paradox. It’s just a thesis that ultimately refutes materialism. But once one accepts that minds are substantively immaterial, and that they were created by God, the problem is resolved.

There is a paradox from materialist point of view so called hard problem of consciousness. You can read more about it here

I am not materialist but to me all we are doing is to put mind as an unknowable entity inside a black box and relate it to body.

 

[Bahman]

How does one begin to rectify a hundred errors in logic and dozens of false assumptions and to overcome deep seated prejudices all at once? To begin at the beginning, consciousness does not come from matter, the immaterial, the non-material. Matter, however ephemerial it may seem to those of a Kantian persuasion, and inspite of Einstein and all those brilliant physicist, is real, it is not a near nothing. It is real and measurable and detectable, consciousness is not. So consciousness cannot come from matter.

I am a former particle physicist. If you ask me what is matter, my answer would be, I don’t know what is matter in its simplest forms, electron, proton etc. There are theories which try to explain the state of matter in its simplest form but unfortunately non of them is anomaly free, meaning that humanity still didn’t achieve to explain matter in its simple form.

And please, Peter’s contention that all matter is conscious is the wildest concoction I ever head of no matter how may Swamies and Mystics may imagine. Egads, shades of Plato all over.

Wilder idea is how mind, being a non-physical entity, could experience physical entities like, time, space and matter if they are not forms of Mind.

Futher, there would be no consciousness ( other than a vague self-awarness without content of extra mental " forms, " ) unless there was an objective reality outside the mind to be experienced, the forms of which our senses abstract. If nothing existed outside the mind how could we have the " forms?" We couldn’t.

What is so called outside is forms that arises in Mind. The problem with this forms is however that you could slice them to the edge of madness, so very important question is what is left at the end?

So where does consciousness come from? From God who creates the human soul with the properties of thinking, willing, knowing, remembering and which gives existence to the human person. Funny Peter never considered that.

And what is soul, some black box that we assign all our ignorance within? At least this viewpoint, which I am partially holding, does not resolve the problem of what consciousness is? How experience could take place in soul but not matter? How soul being a non-physical entity could possibly experience physical being but not vice versa? and many other questions.

What you and Perer need is a good dose of Thomism. That will put you back in touch with the real world.

You need a dose of Panpsychism

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is no paradox. It’s just a thesis that ultimately refutes materialism. But once one accepts that minds are substantively immaterial, and that they were created by God, the problem is resolved.

A materialist is someone who belives in no ontologically primary immaterial substances. That’s something they really are. Just because they are wrong does not mean they don’t believe it.

I know they think it. The point ( again!) is that a 100% material being can have no mind because a mind is immaterial, it is a contradiction in terms. A genuine materialist, one who is 100% material, is like a zombie, he has no mind. Therefore this person, if he thinks it, is delusional, I don’t care how much he may believe otherwise.

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

A genuine materialist, one who is 100% material, is like a zombie, he has no mind.

“Materialist” does not mean “someone that is purely material.”

Linusthe2nd:

If nothing existed outside the mind how could we have the " forms?" We couldn’t.

Something does exist outside the mind. There are billions, maybe trillions of other souls that exist outside the self, one of which is God, and then there is this masterpiece of causal correlations that gets (name removed by moderator)ut from living souls, called action, processes it, called the rules of physics, and outputs it in a form we call perception. I’m not sure why this world has to be real for us to have perceptions that suggest it is real.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Bahman:

You need a dose of Panpsychism

Actually, you both need a dose of Idealism
Bahman, if you perceive only one mind (you), and see that it can apparently control a certain part of the physical world, but not others, isn’t it a bit odd to think that this mind is “a universal feature of all things?” (see the first sentence in your link)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Materialist” does not mean “someone that is purely material.”

Something does exist outside the mind. There are billions, maybe trillions of other souls that exist outside the self, one of which is God, and then there is this masterpiece of causal correlations that gets (name removed by moderator)ut from living souls, called action, processes it, called the rules of physics, and outputs it in a form we call perception. I’m not sure why this world has to be real for us to have perceptions that suggest it is real.

Try to imagine your state if you had no sense perceptors at all, I think you will understand. Have you ever read the Helen Keller Story? I think that would give you an idea. Helen contracted a disabling desease ( I forget what ) as a toddler and it left her totally blind and deaf. The story is about her and her teacher and the great difficulty the teaher had in helping Helen experience the world and to learn how to communicate.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am a former particle physicist. If you ask me what is matter, my answer would be, I don’t know what is matter in its simplest forms, electron, proton etc. There are theories which try to explain the state of matter in its simplest form but unfortunately non of them is anomaly free, meaning that humanity still didn’t achieve to explain matter in its simple form.

Wilder idea is how mind, being a non-physical entity, could experience physical entities like, time, space and matter if they are not forms of Mind.

What is so called outside is forms that arises in Mind. The problem with this forms is however that you could slice them to the edge of madness, so very important question is what is left at the end?

And what is soul, some black box that we assign all our ignorance within? At least this viewpoint, which I am partially holding, does not resolve the problem of what consciousness is? How experience could take place in soul but not matter? How soul being a non-physical entity could possibly experience physical being but not vice versa? and many other questions.

You need a dose of Panpsychism

Boy, if we could just get you converted to Thomism you could be a great help in the Philosophy of Nature or the Philosophy of Science. Take a look at some of the works of William A. Wallace, I think he has a lot you would like to read. He is quite a guy, in his 90s and still working. morec.com/nature.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Actually, you both need a dose of Idealism
Bahman, if you perceive only one mind (you), and see that it can apparently control a certain part of the physical world, but not others, isn’t it a bit odd to think that this mind is “a universal feature of all things?” (see the first sentence in your link)

I think you misunderstood the sentence. It doesn’t mean that one mind is a universal feature of all things, it means mind in general. We are simply minds/us and Mind/nature if you wish and we perceive state of Mind.