Naturalism/Reductionism Cannot Support The Existence Of Willful Intentions

[MindOverMatter]

Its quite simple.

1. If every effect is ultimately due to a preceding cause, then to say that “i” think that such a thing is true, is a fallacy. If all things are due to physical causes, including my thoughts (since physics includes everything), then it is impossible that “i” can will or think anything outside of those blind physical events, regardless of whether or not they are random or deterministic. Thus i have no logical ability to disagree or agree. Everything i say and do, is not because of some mystical me, but because of some blind mechanistic process which determines everything i say and do. To speak of an “i”, implies the existence of that which transcends and gives causations to a chain of blind natural events that would have been otherwise unaffected by my intentions. Allot of Atheists wish to deny transcendence, and their failure to understand the irreconcilable flaws of their own position could in fact lead one to think that perhaps they don’t have any freewill.
2. If we wish to continue in this discussion, then we must at least admit what we all experience, and that is freewill and our awareness of that freewill. But if neither of these realities are caused purely by chemical reactions in the brain, then it cannot be true that my mind and my freedom, is a blind physical event. “I” must therefore precede, at least hierarchically, any chemical event in my brain. Therefore in-order for me to act intentionally and think, such acts and intentions must transcend the physical order of things; although not entirely. A free act, cannot be wholly caused by that which precedes it. A free act, by definition, must be non-physical, non-deterministic and non random.
3. What perceives ideas. If the brain is a structure made up of individual blind atoms, then what is that thing which perceives and understands that which is seen with the eyes?
   It cannot be the atoms, because they are inert. Where does the subjective mind exist?

Even if one thinks that Mind Body dualism cannot account for the existence of mind, it seems to me that Naturalism cannot account for the phenomenon of mind on physical terms. Therefore the belief that all can be explained by physical “causes” is false, in practice and by definition.

Anyone care to dispute my arguments.

 

[Anthony_A]

Well it seems like I may have pushed a button or two in my “Immaterial Causation” thread. Since you won’t go back and play ball in my court, I’ll just bring my replies over here.

Since I am not a naturalist, I won’t be defending naturalism. Since I am a physicalist, I will critique your objections to physicalism. Deal?

1. If every effect is ultimately due to a preceding cause, then to say that “i” think that such a thing is true, is a fallacy.

What fallacy is this exactly? There are plenty of mind/body dualists who view the mind as epiphenomenal. I am not one of those people, but your assertion is unwarranted. The mind could be purely a by-product that consciously experiences and yet has no causal efficacy in the world. Supposing this were true, you would go through life saying things like “I think that x is true” and wouldn’t be able to help yourself anyway.

If all things are due to physical causes, including my thoughts (since physics includes everything), then it is impossible that “i” can will or think anything outside of those blind physical events, regardless of whether or not they are random or deterministic.

This is clearly begging the question against physicalism. You are assuming that no aggregate of phyiscal matter can be autonomous if there is no “soul”. Take the case of dogs and cats. Most people who assume human persons have souls do not assume that dogs and cats have souls (or, at the very least, not in the way humans do). Yet we don’t talk about or interact with pets as though they are merely jumbled up bits of blind/inert basic particles. We have no reason to. Their autonomy is obvious. Their interactions are genuine. I see no reason that if humans don’t have a soul that they would not be autonomous as well.

To speak of an “i”, implies the existence of that which transcends and gives causations to a chain of blind natural events that would have been otherwise unaffected by my intentions.

Well, to you “I” implies the existence of a transcendent. To me, “I” implies the capacity for an organism to have a first person perspective. To have a self could simply be self reference. In any science fiction movie, like the terminator, etc, the premise of the move is usually that a system has become advanced enough to become aware of itself. The combination of a brain, body, social environment, etc leads to that capacity in the case of humans.

Allot of Atheists wish to deny transcendence, and their failure to understand the irreconcilable flaws of their own position could in fact lead one to think that perhaps they don’t have any freewill.

Not being terribly interested in the free-will determinism debate, I can’t give you a sophisticated explanation as to how a physicalist could have libertarian free will. If you are interested in learning how a physicalist theorizes that he has free will, I suggest you read “An Essay on Free Will” by Peter van Inwagen. He is a physicalist and a free willist (and a Christian).

1. If we wish to continue in this discussion, then we must at least admit what we all experience, and that is freewill and our awareness of that freewill. But if neither of these realities are caused purely by chemical reactions in the brain, then it cannot be true that my mind and my freedom, is a blind physical event. “I” must therefore precede, at least hierarchically, any chemical event in my brain. Therefore in-order for me to act intentionally and think, such acts and intentions must transcend the physical order of things; although not entirely.

Well you are the one who keeps insisting that on a physicalist (and, by extension, naturalist) perspective that because everything is reduced to basic physical substances then everything is nothing more than atoms or chemical reactions. Not every physicalist is a eliminative materialist or a nihilist like you claim them to be.

A free act, cannot be wholly caused by that which precedes it. A free act, by definition, must be non-physical, non-deterministic and non random.

That sounds like a contrived definition. I always understood a free act to be one in which the person doing the act could have done otherwise. Immateriality never seeped into that pretty standard definition.

1. What perceives ideas. If the brain is a structure made up of individual blind atoms, then what is that thing which perceives and understands that which is seen with the eyes?
   It cannot be the atoms, because they are inert. Where does the subjective mind exist?

You do obviously. Like I said earlier, once an organism has evolved the capacity of a first person perspective it has an “I”. Mosquitoes don’t have that capacity, monkey almost do, and humans beings (homo sapiens) clearly do.

It’s also no fair for you to assert that physicalists are committed to the proposition “I am my brain”. I don’t think that if you put a human brain inside a dog’s head that there would be an “I” that sees itself as a human person trapped in a dog’s body. Likewise, I don’t think that if you put a human soul into a dog’s body (however exactly that happens - insertion, infusion, whatever) that the “I” would think of itself as a human person trapped in a dog’s body. The human person is the totality of the organism - not reducible to one organ (though I will say the brain is crucial).

 

[Anthony_A]

continued…

Even if one thinks that Mind Body dualism cannot account for the existence of mind, it seems to me that Naturalism cannot account for the phenomenon of mind on physical terms. Therefore the belief that all can be explained by physical “causes” is false, in practice and by definition.

A physicalist is not committed to the idea that a belief is reducible to a physical cause, but could be committed to the idea that a belief can be reductively explained. In that case a physicalist could say “Well a belief is not xyz (the physical substance) per se, but we can tell you how a belief ‘works’ by these physical processes.”

Now that I have disputed your arguments, I have an argument, a question rather, from your buddy Jaegwon Kim that I would appreciate if you cared to explain. It goes like this:

For what is it for an immaterial thing wholly outside space to be “united” or “joined” with a material body with a specific location in space? The word “united” merely gives a name to a mystery rather than clarifying it. If God chose to unite my body with my mind, just what is it that he did?

I’m not asking why he chose to unite this particular mind with this particular body, or why he decided to engage in such activities as uniting minds and bodies…All of that could remain a mystery and I wouldn’t complain. What I’m asking is more basic…The word “union” remains a mere label, and we do not understand what it is that the theistic explanation is attempting to explain when it says that God ordained the “union.”

(Bold emphasis added, all other original emphasis)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Anthony A,

You said:

“Like I said earlier, once an organism has evolved the capacity of a first person perspective it has an “I”. Mosquitoes don’t have that capacity, monkey almost do, and humans beings (homo sapiens) clearly do.”

Explain in depth what you mean by “evolved the capacity of a first person”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Its quite simple.

1. If every effect is ultimately due to a preceding cause, then to say that “i” think that such a thing is true, is a fallacy. If all things are due to physical causes, including my thoughts (since physics includes everything), then it is impossible that “i” can will or think anything outside of those blind physical events, regardless of whether or not they are random or deterministic. Thus i have no logical ability to disagree or agree. Everything i say and do, is not because of some mystical me, but because of some blind mechanistic process which determines everything i say and do. To speak of an “i”, implies the existence of that which transcends and gives causations to a chain of blind natural events that would have been otherwise unaffected by my intentions. Allot of Atheists wish to deny transcendence, and their failure to understand the irreconcilable flaws of their own position could in fact lead one to think that perhaps they don’t have any freewill.

indeed what is the mechanism that breaks physical determinism?

we see that free will has been tested trillions of times per day, for the entirety of human history.

yet it has never failed to our knowledge.

its ludicrous to think that the free will that we empirically experience is simply the result of deterministic particle interactions.

its the equivalent of saying that free will is a complicated billiards trick shot involving every particle in the universe.

so we can know that free will exists. the mechanism by which free will interferes with the physical determinism that we normally experience is the real question.

i think that is a strong evidence of G-d in itself.

 

[Anthony_A]

StrawberryJam,

I don’t think that I can give you in depth explanation yet because I have yet to sit down and write a substantial piece of work which spells out all the intricacies that an in depth explanation would entail. If you can wait for me to turn in my honors thesis in about 1 1/2 years, I should have better details at that point. I can give you an idea though - a sketch of where I’m heading so to speak.

I think that Daniel Hofstadter has a really good idea of how an first person perspective comes about. He first wrote about it in his book “Godel, Escher, Bach” but that took him over 800 pages to work out the details. I should give a short quote from him so that I don’t misrepresent his idea:

“In short, an “I” comes about via a kind of vortex whereby patterns in a brain mirror the brain’s mirroring of the world, and eventually mirror themselves…think of what happens when a TV camera is pointed at a TV screen so as to display the screen on itself (and that screen on itself, etc))…when and only when such a loop arises in a brain…a unique new “I” brought into being”

So the idea is that when an organism has a organ like the human brain which has the capacity for infinite self referencing loops is when the organism becomes, not only aware, but aware that it is aware, and aware that it is aware that it is aware, etc… That’s why I said that a mosquito doesn’t have that capacity - the brain like component of a mosquito is much more “basic”. The processes it is involved in are not very complex at all. In the case of a monkey, the brain is involved in more complex processes and enables the monkey to be aware, but not aware that it is aware.

In the case of humans, we have the most sophisticated brain (that we know of) which is involved in extremely complex processes and has the capacity (or ability) to enable an organism to be self aware. You can imagine situations where the brain is under-developed or severely damaged, and I don’t think that first person perspective would be there. I mentioned in my “Should A.I. ever be granted rights?” thread that I don’t think if you put a human brain on a table it would be self aware, so I don’t want to sound “brain-centric”. The human brain is not the “I” itself, but it allows the organism as a whole to form an “I”. And what I mean by “evolved” is just that the homo sapien species is the one which through evolution developed the type of organ (the brain) necessary for the first person perspective.

I hope this at least gives you an idea of what I’m talking about in that quote. If you have any more specific questions I can try to answer those as well.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thank you Anthony A,

For helping me understand much more of what you were saying. It still leaves many problems from a theological standpoint, from my perspective.
The instance of abortion comes to mind.
How do you reconcile that with your philosophy?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hello Anthony. I see that you will not let me escape.

A physicalist is not committed to the idea that a belief is reducible to a physical cause, but could be committed to the idea that a belief can be reductively explained.

Whats the difference? If a thinking process can be reduced to inert chemical reactions, then a physicalist must accept that a belief is reducible to a physical cause. Or they must accept that physical events can be caused by an entity that is not itself physical.

In that case a physicalist could say "Well a belief is not xyz (the physical substance) per se,

Then it is not physical.

but we can tell you how a belief ‘works’ by these physical processes."

i have no problem with physical processes being involved in our ability to think. But to what degree, is a different question.

Now that I have disputed your arguments, I have an argument, a question rather, from your buddy Jaegwon Kim that I would appreciate if you cared to explain.

The problem is that you made many assertions and haven’t once attempted to defend you position. I want you to defend your position. Please don’t point to mind-body dualism and its possible defects and claim that your position is therefore rational. Please don’t claim that there are other positions that disagree with me, and that therefore my position is false. I am not necessarily a mind-body dualist my self; in fact if you look in the Catholic encyclopedia, the Catholic Church criticizes the classical Cartesian notion of mind and body, and opts for a more closer union that respects both mind and body. All i have done is make arguments that exposes the physicalist position and the naturalist position, and what ever reductionist materialist position you can think of, as being completely and irrevocably false and irreconcilable if we are to believe that we have freewill and free-thoughts, which is in my opinion evident to my senses and is absolutely necessary in order for us to have a rational conversation in which we can agree and disagree.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Since I am not a naturalist, I won’t be defending naturalism. Since I am a physicalist, I will critique your objections to physicalism. Deal?

They appear synonymous to me. But feel free to defend it if needs must.

The mind could be purely a by-product that consciously experiences and yet has no causal efficacy in the world.

What is it exactly that has experiences. Can you find experience in the brain? Is it a group of inert atoms? Is there a little man inside with a video cam recorder?

Supposing this were true, you would go through life saying things like “I think that x is true” and wouldn’t be able to help yourself anyway.

“You” would not be saying anything. It would just be the chemical reactions.

This is clearly begging the question against physicalism. You are assuming that no aggregate of phyiscal matter can be autonomous if there is no “soul”.

Why should i think that inert objects will start thinking?

Take the case of dogs and cats. Most people who assume human persons have souls do not assume that dogs and cats have souls (or, at the very least, not in the way humans do).

I do not assume that they have freewill either. And if they do, then there is apart of them that transcends physics.

Yet we don’t talk about or interact with pets as though they are merely jumbled up bits of blind/inert basic particles.

If materialism is true, then thats exactly what they are, regardless of how we treat them or how they appear to be.

We have no reason to. Their autonomy is obvious.

Its not obvious to me.

Their interactions are genuine.

According to what and whom? Ants appear very intelligent at times. Are you going to be so desperate as to claim that they have minds too?

I see no reason that if humans don’t have a soul that they would not be autonomous as well.

If all actions and thoughts are caused or occur because of chemical reactions in the brain then it is a logical contradiction to say that humans are autonomous.

Well, to you “I” implies the existence of a transcendent. To me, “I” implies the capacity for an organism to have a first person perspective.

How can that be possible if mind is made up of purely inert substances? Are you saying that the act of perceiving reality is synonymous to a chemical secretion in the brain? “I”, to me, is not synonymous to “inert moving objects”

To have a self could simply be self reference.

Why would a mind body dualist have a problem with this statement? To have a self is to be self-referential is it not? Is there any reason to think that inert Atoms are self referential?

In any science fiction movie, like the terminator, etc, the premise of the move is usually that a system has become advanced enough to become aware of itself.

Science fiction is not a measure of truth. It seems to me that you are saying that self is synonymous to inert geometric patterns, inert chemical reactions, and inert complexity?

The combination of a brain, body, social environment, etc leads to that capacity in the case of humans.

I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the claim that the mind is synonymous to physical objects arranged in a particular mechanistic pattern.

To be Continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Not being terribly interested in the free-will determinism debate,

Thats what Richard Dawkins said in one of his interviews in an attempt to avoid the problem.

I can’t give you a sophisticated explanation as to how a physicalist could have libertarian free will.

And yet you are willing to agree with them even though you can’t explain it yourself? I am disappointed in you.

If you are interested in learning how a physicalist theorizes that he has free will, I suggest you read “An Essay on Free Will” by Peter van Inwagen. He is a physicalist and a free willist (and a Christian).

Why don’t you just answer my question instead of passing the buck?

Well you are the one who keeps insisting that on a physicalist (and, by extension, naturalist) perspective that because everything is reduced to basic physical substances then everything is nothing more than atoms or chemical reactions.

Are you saying that there is something more then atoms and chemical reactions?

Not every physicalist is a eliminative materialist or a nihilist like you claim them to be.

They might not be, but if they followed their arguments to their necessary conclusions, they would have to be whether they liked it or not.

Like I said earlier, once an organism has evolved the capacity of a first person perspective it has an “I”. Mosquitoes don’t have that capacity, monkey almost do, and humans beings (homo sapiens) clearly do.

So what? How does that support your position against my arguments?

It’s also no fair for you to assert that physicalists are committed to the proposition “I am my brain”.

You either are, or your not. You are either a brain, or you are a mixture of two natures; one physical, one “not”-physical. Logic doesn’t allow for anything else. I’ve never heard of anyone finding an objective idea of a dog or a song in somebodies head.

I don’t think that if you put a human brain inside a dog’s head that there would be an “I” that sees itself as a human person trapped in a dog’s body.

Nobody said that this would be true.

The human person is the totality of the organism - not reducible to one organ (though I will say the brain is crucial).

So a person is the sum total of all chemical reactions in the human body according to you, correct?