The problem consciousness poses for the old materialist paradigm

[grannymh]

I do believe in Free Will! I am arguing that it is incompatible with materialism.

Many thanks for the reference. I’ve researched, discussed and written about this subject many times but I always welcome new ideas.

Of course, free will is incompatible with materialism. One only has to check material and methods in research done during awake brain surgery or brain mapping to realize that the hype in the abstract is smoke.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

free will isnt really a question of physics. it is incompatible with both a determinant, or indeterminant system.

a determinant universe, because then you dont have volition, your just a robot.

an indeterminant universe, because you dont have volition, your just a robot subject to random programming.

so the solution for many is to say that free will doesnt exist or its an illusion. however that cretes a further set of problems unde reither scheme itself.

a determinant universe would require the starting state of the system to be just so, to create the trillions of free will decisions that human beings have made every day for thousands of years, and the resulting motion of particles that seemi9ngly result from those choices. thats either the luckiest thing that ever happened, or an obvious case of design.

an indeterminant system the same effect would have to be acheived as above, just entirely at random.

caught in this general trap, it seems the only way out is to admit that the universe is not closed, physics does not yet know everything, and non-physical phenomenon interacts by some mechanism to create free will, and thereby conciousness.

any other result seems to result in a contradiction.

 

[Just_Lurking]

caught in this general trap, it seems the only way out is to admit that the universe is not closed, physics does not yet know everything, and non-physical phenomenon interacts by some mechanism to create free will, and thereby conciousness.

You seem to be arguing not only that physics does not yet know everything (which is obvious), but that physics cannot in principle know everything, because that would contradict free will.

If God can know what I will do before I do it, yet I have free will, why is it that physicists being able to write down unsolvable equations that will predict what I will do (either with certainty or probabilistically) contradicts free will?

God made the rules of the universe. Physicists are just trying to figure those rules out. The fact that universe has rules does not contradict free will. I don’t know if mankind is smart enough to be able to figure out those rules, but figuring them out or not doesn’t change that the rules exist.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Not at all! You are training your dog, not punishing him because he did something morally wrong. Even small children have a sense of fair play without ever having been taught about equality. Animals have more understanding than we credit them for but they live at the instinctive level and according to the way they have been trained - as any one who has seen wild dogs hunting realises full well. They lack free will and moral responsibility because they have no concept of evil and no power of self-control. Their nobility lies elsewhere - in their natural qualities which often put us to shame!

I have a different view. I’m pretty sure dogs and other higher animals have consciousness and free will. I have free will, because I know I do. I assume other people have free will, because I can see in their faces that they are thinking about what they will do before they act, just like do. Similarly, my dog thinks about what he will do before he does it or does something different, so it appears to me that my dog has free will.

This to me is the basic evidence that science must construct a theory around. Free will isn’t the deep and profound conclusion of reasoning about physical theories. Free will is one of the basic facts that physical theories must account for.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You seem to be arguing not only that physics does not yet know everything (which is obvious), but that physics cannot in principle know everything, because that would contradict free will.

i mean that science cannot answer the question of free will because free will violates both possible states of the universe, both determinant and indeterminant, not because that would violate free will in some way. in violating both possible states, i mean that physical causation of free will is not possible under either scheme. ergo, as science only deals with empirical data it cannot, by its nature, answer any question where all possible physical answers, can be eliminated.

the normal reply to this conundrum is the claim that free will does not exist. however such a claim presents its own problems. namely that the untold trillions of free will decisions human beings make every hour, and the associated motion of particles would need to be arranged prior to the systems start in the deterministic scheme, or be completely random in both schemes. though of course, we cannot prove the uncountable number of free will actions and associated particle motion are not random. but such a trusting position seems unreasonable. though i freely admit, it is not mathematical proof.

in metaphysical libertarianism, this means that the regularly accepted idea, that the universe is a closed system, is incorrect, and that the physical universe is open. which is why i made the comment concerning physics.

If God can know what I will do before I do it, yet I have free will, why is it that physicists being able to write down unsolvable equations that will predict what I will do (either with certainty or probabilistically) contradicts free will?

G-d doesnt know what you are going to do prior to you doing it. His knowledge is concurrent with your decision, in fact all change is concurrent in the temporal sense. what i mean is that ‘time’ does not exist except as a measure of the change around us. as counter intuitive as it may seem time isnt necessary for change to occur. it is important to realize that the change being measured by the arbitrary standard we call ‘time’ is the progressive view of cause and effect, or causality. we do not need steady intervals in order to track change, it is simply more orderly than to do so by the varying intervals of cause and effect, as a cause and an effect can be separated by an attosecond, or the lifetime of the universe. (read, any amount of change)

God made the rules of the universe. Physicists are just trying to figure those rules out. The fact that universe has rules does not contradict free will. I don’t know if mankind is smart enough to be able to figure out those rules, but figuring them out or not doesn’t change that the rules exist.

you shouldnt read that i dont like physics or science, i enjoy both very much actually, but i recognize their limitations.

 

[Just_Lurking]

you shouldnt read that i dont like physics or science, i enjoy both very much actually, but i recognize their limitations.

Thanks for the clarifications. This is interesting stuff to think about, not that I have any answers.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have a different view. I’m pretty sure dogs and other higher animals have consciousness and free will. I have free will, because I know I do. I assume other people have free will, because I can see in their faces that they are thinking about what they will do before they act, just like do. Similarly, my dog thinks about what he will do before he does it or does something different, so it appears to me that my dog has free will.

This to me is the basic evidence that science must construct a theory around. Free will isn’t the deep and profound conclusion of reasoning about physical theories. Free will is one of the basic facts that physical theories must account for.

i have a cat, opie. i trained him to play fetch, to come when i make a certain noise, he follows me around, etc. he is my buddy. but im not sure that he has free will, and by extension concsiouness.

i mean, if we program a machine to simulate the ability to make decisions independently, we know that as much as it looks as though the machine is doing so, it is really following a program of pre determined responses to stimuli.

as animals react to stimuli by instinct, (evolutionary programming) or by training. im not sure that they have free will. it seems to me that it is just as likely they are essentially biomechanical machines reacting to stimuli according to programming and not choosing among the infinite possible reactions to stimuli that we are.

all this though brings me to the idea that free will and conciousness (self awareness) are intimately linked.

somehow i feel like there is something to be learned in the connection of the two. i just have no idea what it is.

 

[Just_Lurking]

For me, free will is the ability for one’s consciousness to control one’s actions, so that consciousness is a prerequisite for free will. I would say that someone who was completely paralyzed, and could only lie in bed like a vegetable, but still had awareness and thought and consciousness (a perfectly horrible thing to imagine, I’ll admit), doesn’t really have free will because that person can’t manifest his/her decisions into action.

I don’t have any religious requirement to believe that higher animals don’t have free will, so based just on observation I think they have consciousness and free will. They seem self-aware, and they dream, which I think is how consciousness appears during sleep. I don’t know what level of intellectual decision making capabilities they have, but that isn’t part of my definition of free will. The key thing is that their consciousness makes a decision, and that decision is manifested into action. Even human decisions are greatly influenced by instinct and chemical processes in the brain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For me, free will is the ability for one’s consciousness to control one’s actions, so that consciousness is a prerequisite for free will. I would say that someone who was completely paralyzed, and could only lie in bed like a vegetable, but still had awareness and thought and consciousness (a perfectly horrible thing to imagine, I’ll admit), doesn’t really have free will because that person can’t manifest his/her decisions into action.

I don’t have any religious requirement to believe that higher animals don’t have free will, so based just on observation I think they have consciousness and free will. They seem self-aware, and they dream, which I think is how consciousness appears during sleep. I don’t know what level of intellectual decision making capabilities they have, but that isn’t part of my definition of free will. The key thing is that their consciousness makes a decision, and that decision is manifested into action. Even human decisions are greatly influenced by instinct and chemical processes in the brain.

there are several interesting things to discuss here. especially the relationship between freedom of action and free will. but im having that discussion on another thread right now. maybe at another time.

 

[grannymh]

as animals react to stimuli by instinct, (evolutionary programming) or by training. im not sure that they have free will. it seems to me that it is just as likely they are essentially biomechanical machines reacting to stimuli according to programming and not choosing among the infinite possible reactions to stimuli that we are.

all this though brings me to the idea that free will and conciousness (self awareness) are intimately linked.

It seems to me that free will [power of the soul] is connected to the intellect [power of the soul].

To me, the test for free will is the ability to choose an action that goes against all instincts. Suppose your cat opie lived in California and a raging fire was coming too close. Opie instinctively would flee. Opie could choose the best path for escape based on previous exploration of the terrain. Opie could even turn around and get the kittens to safety.

But would Opie stay to deliberately set a backfire according to what was specifically needed at the time?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It seems to me that free will [power of the soul] is connected to the intellect [power of the soul].

To me, the test for free will is the ability to choose an action that goes against all instincts. Suppose your cat opie lived in California and a raging fire was coming too close. Opie instinctively would flee. Opie could choose the best path for escape based on previous exploration of the terrain. Opie could even turn around and get the kittens to safety.

But would Opie stay to deliberately set a backfire according to what was specifically needed at the time?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

thats essentially my test, though i pose it as a matter of programming. if you have a limited set of reactions to stimuli from programming, instincts, etc. you really have no choice and are not then exercising free will, if you can pick from any imaginable reaction, say riverdance among the flames. that is free will.

 

[Just_Lurking]

But would Opie stay to deliberately set a backfire according to what was specifically needed at the time?

I don’t know many 7 year olds that could do that. Do young children not have free will?

 

[Just_Lurking]

thats essentially my test, though i pose it as a matter of programming. if you have a limited set of reactions to stimuli from programming, instincts, etc. you really have no choice and are not then exercising free will, if you can pick from any imaginable reaction, say riverdance among the flames. that is free will.

According to your test, do severely autistic people have free will? Or severely mentally retarded people who don’t have the intellect to formulate novel responses to stimuli?

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know many 7 year olds that could do that. Do young children not have free will?

I don’t know many adults who could stay to set backfires.

Because free will is a power or function of the spiritual immaterial soul, it exists from conception. However, it works through the physical body including the brain. Practically speaking, as the child matures, the use of free will matures.

 

[grannymh]

According to your test, do severely autistic people have free will? Or severely mentally retarded people who don’t have the intellect to formulate novel responses to stimuli?

Our will is always there. Actually our will is directed toward the ultimate good, which is God. The free part is that we can choose substitutes for God. The question is what can hamper our freedom to choose. Obviously our brains and our bodies can limit our freedom to choose.

As a Catholic, I believe that because of my spiritual soul I can share in the life of the Supreme Spirit, God. Even at my age, I find that hard to accept. On the other hand, when I see someone I know who is mentally retarded or the young autistic boy I met, I am certain that the God Who is sharing His life with these persons is a God overflowing with loving tenderness.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

According to your test, do severely autistic people have free will? Or severely mentally retarded people who don’t have the intellect to formulate novel responses to stimuli?

of course. freedom of action doesnt effect the ontological status of free will. those people with cognitive problems can still choose from any action they can imagine, that isnt restricted to a certain set and autism doesnt affect your free will at all.

.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Okay, it’s clear I’m using the terms free will and consciousness very differently than everyone else.

Edited to add: Here is an example of the kind of research that I think will lead to progress in the understanding of consciousness.

 

[grannymh]

Okay, it’s clear I’m using the terms free will and consciousness very differently than everyone else.

Edited to add: Here is an example of the kind of research that I think will lead to progress in the understanding of consciousness.

As soon as I get my morning Pepsi, I will be awake enough to agree with you. It is occurring to me that I am also using consciousness differently in regard to free will. When I think of free will, I automatically place it in the category of spiritual soul. But the root of consciousness would apply to any kind of animal, us included.

Previously to the current ban, I had been reviewing research regarding similarities between animals and humans. One result was an appreciation for sentience in animals as well as a deeper understanding of advocacy for animals.

I did click your link, but I need both eyes open to read it.

Blessings,
granny
:hypno:

 

[grannymh]

Okay, it’s clear I’m using the terms free will and consciousness very differently than everyone else.

Edited to add: Here is an example of the kind of research that I think will lead to progress in the understanding of consciousness.

From first reading, I find that the focus on the brain (good thing) is based on the materialist paradigm which is normal for scientific research. The question “risk a Cartesian theatre-like argument?” found in the comments following the article indicates, to me, the influence of Cartesian (extreme) dualism either in the reader or the presenter or both which usually presents a problem when trying to understand free will from a Catholic point of view.

In my humble opinion, it is important to understand consciousness from both the materialist and spiritualist positions.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In my humble opinion, it is important to understand consciousness from both the materialist and spiritualist positions.

Do you have any recommendations on additional readings for understanding consciousness? This is an area I am very interested in, but I don’t know much about.