Have Materialists Lost Their Minds?

_{GilDodgen
January 4, 2012

Intelligent Design, Mind

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In answer to the question, I suggest that they have. Materialist philosophy inevitably leads to transparent absurdities and self-contradiction, whether moral relativism (a truth claim about morality that no truth claims about morality are valid), or that random errors can produce sophisticated information-processing technology (for which there is no evidence and much disconfirming evidence).

The no-free-will thing is yet further evidence of the lobotomizing influence of materialist philosophy. Just the other day I was in the supermarket, and decided to treat myself to some ice cream. I like the Haagen-Dazs coffee and dark chocolate varieties. I thought to myself, “Self, which flavor would you like to purchase?” I chose the dark chocolate.

A thoroughgoing materialist would argue that my choice was no choice at all, that my decision was determined by my brain chemistry and other such transparent idiocy.

I make free-will decisions all day long every day, just as everyone reading this post does.

The denial of this obvious fact, along with other absurdities and self-contradictions as mentioned above, leads me to conclude that materialists have indeed lost their minds.

Comments

I am not "dissembling". If you want to engage my post, please do not accuse me of dishonesty. If you rephrase your post without that implication, I will respond to it. Otherwise, not.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Sims are NOT experiments.
They can be. I certainly use sims experimenatally.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio That’s a lot of requests! I am about to go out but I will give it my best shot.
But how can you say that consciousness is not necessary for free will?
Of course you can always define free will so consciousness is part of it and the vast majority of things that have free will are, as a matter of fact, conscious. But I don’t see it is as necessary. To me the essential element of free will is acting according to motives, needs and desires. Things have motives, needs and desires in degrees. A single-celled animal can hardly be said to have them. A worm more so. A complex mammal like a lion definitely. And the degree of free will tracks this.
I suppose I have asked other times, but could you please gice a clear and non ambiguous definition of what free will is for you? (and, I suppose, for compatibilists in general?).
See above
Is a computer endowed with free will? Is a light switch? Is a car engine?
None of these – they don’t have motives.
If non conscious things can have free will, what is the meaning of that, and how can we distinguish what things do have it or not?
See above
And, whatever your definition, could you please explain the meaning of the two words, “free” and “will”, in your context?
Free = able to act without constraint Will = act according to motives
And explain how they relate to the conscious intuition of conscious human beings of being able to choose between different options, to change their personal destiny, and to be responsible for their use of free will?
We are far more sophisticated than other animals in how we can act according to motives. Of course, as discussed above, you may wish to limit your definition of free will to this kind of decision making. I believe Elizabeth would do so. This more limited definition is also compatible with determinism. The process of choosing is determined by the options we are aware of and the various motives that impinge on us (plus possibly a random element). But that is not a constraint. That is doing what we want. Here is a single question for you. Suppose that a master neurosurgeon were to reveal they had been monitoring your brain for the last 10 minutes. They were able to explain in terms of chemistry and electricity how your motives and perceptions were stored in the brain, how that caused you to debate options internally, and how that lead to your decision. Would you now say you had lost the free will you thought you had? markf_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Quantum indeterminacy can allow consciousness to make free interventions at neural level without violating any deterministic law of physics. That’s why it is important in some models of consciusness brain interaction.
How? I would agree that quantum indeterminacy probably means that some decisions are made that would not otherwise be made, but in what sense is this not simply noise in the system? A willed decision is an informed decision, surely? What is "informed" about quantum indeterminate events?Elizabeth Liddle_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Quantum indeterminacy can allow consciousness to make free interventions at neural level without violating any deterministic law of physics. That's why it is important in some models of consciusness brain interaction. The same can be true for models of how a designer implements biological information.gpuccio_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle: Therefore, a materialistic model can account for free will. And substituting your semantics yields... "Therefore, a materialistic model can account for [informed, uncoerced choices] that are [not simply free of some causal prior]." Precisely the position expected of a materialist. As to your earlier dissembling: I am a materialist and I hold that we have free will, by which I mean we can make informed choices of action. You rule my position out, a priori. Why? Because your position in your own words, a priori, is "not simply free" Computers are "not simply free of some causal prior" and make "informed choices of action". Computers by your "materialist compatibilist" semantics have free will. That is why your position is ruled out a priori, because it isn't really "free", no matter how hard you stamp your foot. Words have meaning. Stop dissembling you agree with "free" and then redefine "free" to mean "not simply free".Charles_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

I don't think quantum indeterminacy is relevant to the issue of free will. I just meant that chaotic systems can be either stochastic or deterministic. As for the scaling issue, yes, I think quantum effects do scale up to the macro level. If a particle is emitted from some radioactive material, it may or may not hit, say, the DNA molecule in some organism somewhere, and result in, damage that results in turn in malignant tissue, or if it hits a gamete, perhaps a novel DNA sequence that may even prove one day beneficial to an inheritor. And for that matter, at neural level, there are at least some people who think that quantum effects scale up to the level of the ion, potentially tipping the balance of timing of the firing of neurons, and, in fact, that some animals may have evolved to exploit this, by allowing their behaviour to be randomly determined, and therefore un-second-guessable. But, as I said, I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether we are free to make informed choices or not, although it may have something to do with whether we are free to make uninformed choices, and thus outwit a predator! http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/pYa2evRsenbqaKQjkFbe/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141429?select23=ChooseElizabeth Liddle_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

champignon: I essentially agree with you. While in principle it is possible that some essential indeterminism at quantum level (however controversial) could be amplified in a chaotic system, I don't believe that we have any real model of how that copuld be of any importance in physics as we know it. The only reasonable role of quantum indeterminacy in a discussion about free will is its possible role in a cosnciusness-matter interface (for those who, like me, believe it exists).gpuccio_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Hi Mark, I think Todd is just trying to claim that 1. Materialists are determinists. 2. If determinism is true, everything we do is determined by the state of the universe at the time of our conception. 3. This means that materialists are "molecular astrologers". Of course, he's wrong about #1, because most materialists accept quantum indeterminacy, and he's wrong about #3, because the state of the universe evolves according to the laws of physics, not astrology.champignon_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Mark: I am tired to discuss free wiil, having done that in detail many times, and often with you. But just because it has come out again, let's try. Computers are not conscious. We are. But there is nothing that says consciousness is either necessary or sufficient for free will. Well, while I do believe that it is, I can still accept that the point that consciousness is sufficient for free will is what we are discussing, and therefore obviously controversial. But how can you say that consciousness is not necessary for free will? I suppose I have asked other times, but could you please gice a clear and non ambiguous definition of what free will is for you? (and, I suppose, for compatibilists in general?). Is a computer endowed with free will? Is a light switch? Is a car engine? If non conscious things can have free will, what is the meaning of that, and how can we distinguish what things do have it or not? And, whatever your definition, could you please explain the meaning of the two words, "free" and "will", in your context? And explain how they relate to the conscious intuition of conscious human beings of being able to choose between different options, to change their personal destiny, and to be responsible for their use of free will? These are all conscious representations, and I suppose that they are the natural basis for the historical definition of free will, and for all the concepts related to it.gpuccio_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

tjguy, See my discussion with Bruce David beginning here.champignon_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Hi Elizabeth, Assuming you're referrring to quantum chaos, it's not clear to me that such systems are actually non-deterministic at the macro level. As Michael Berry writes:
So the claim sometimes made, that chaos amplifies quantum indeterminacy, is misleading. The situation is more subtle: chaos magnifies any uncertainty, but in the quantum case h has a smoothing effect, which would suppress chaos if this suppression were not itself suppressed by externally-induced decoherence, that restores classicality (including chaos if the classical orbits are unstable).
Either way, Gil cannot assume that a chaotic system is non-deterministic.champignon_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

if who we are and what we choose at any given moment reduces to a certain arraignment of brain matter, that is no different than who we are being determined by the arrangement of ALL matter when conceived.
Why? Surely the difference between some matter (the brain) and all matter is rather fundamental.markf_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

I appreciate your trust in my integrity - thank you! I'll have a go. "Free will" cannot of course simply mean "free" of some causal prior. Our current understanding of the universe suggests that it is fundamentally non-deterministic, and while we can compute the half-life of a radioactive material highly accurately, we can never do anything more than guess when the next click of the geiger counter will occur. Radioactive decay events seem to be "free". However, we can agree, I assume, that they are not "willed". So what do we mean be "willed" action? it seems to me that "free" in the sense that a uranium nucleus os "free" to decay at any time is actually the opposite of what we mean by "willed". Willed action (or a willed event) is an event that does have causes, in that if an action is willed we generally (I would argue) mean that it is the result of informed choice, i.e. that there have been many factors that contribute to the final decision. In contrast, a uranium nucleus does not make an "informed" choice at all - there is nothing that affects the uranium atoms's "decision" to decay now rather than in 1000 years time. It is an "acausal" event. So by "free", in relation to "willed action" we mean the opposite of "acausal". However, for "will" to be "free" we do mean that it is not coerced, either by some external agent ("No, you can't have chocolate ice-cream, what's left has already been sold in advance to some other customer") or some internal agent we consider foreign to the self ("I would have chosen chocolate, but I'm addicted to coffee even though I know it's bad for me"). In other words, the only coherent sense in which we are free ("have free will") to make and execure an informed choice of action is the sense in which the agent we refer to as "I" is free to make an informed choice. Without informed choice three can be morality. And we have good "materialistic" accounts of informed choice-making and action. Therefore, a materialistic model can account for free will. How did I do?Elizabeth Liddle_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

"The fact that they are “products of pure chemistry” doesn’t mean they must be wrong. " True, but Champ, here is your problem. It doesn’t mean they should be right either. This idea that everything is determined takes away all meaning from our thoughts, words, actions, and life in general. Ultimately we cannot trust anything to be accurate or really know if anything is really true. Checking the results of the computer program in OUR head with the results of the computer program in another person's brain, like you suggested, is of little help. Both could be wrong. In fact, there is no guarantee that any brain in the whole universe works accurately and produces trustworthy and true results. And there is no way of knowing either way. This idea of determinism takes away personal responsibility for our thoughts and actions. It takes away motivation for change as everything is determined. It takes away meaning in life since everything is determined and it relegates us to impersonal machines who have been programmed to live a certain way. It just doesn't make sense of the world we know and experience. I agree with Mike1962 who said: "Bottom line here folks: if some reasoning is valid, then some things must be self-evidently true. That is, they must be apprehended to be true without reasoning. If nothing is self-evidently true, then no true reasoning exists." If we have no starting point, we cannot have reason. If there is no absolute truth in the universe, if there is no God, reasoning is not possible. Or perhaps I should say there is no reason to believe that the laws of logic would be valid. There would be no grounds for making such a conclusion because the laws of logic need a true and reliable starting point. Who would ever think that the reasoning of an evolved monkey holds any weight or value? Who would trust the conclusions or thoughts of an evolved ape? In reality, materialistic atheism destroys the possibility of knowledge and reasoning as shown above. But for the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning - God Himself. We are to pattern our thinking after God's thinking. The laws of logic are a reflection of His thoughts,. They are His standard for thinking. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. The Bible says that God cannot deny Himself (II Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory or logical. The laws of logic are a reasonable deduction from the character of God, but for a materialist who believes that everything, including our thoughts and decisions, is determined, there is no justification or rationality for assuming our conclusions or thoughts to have any semblance of truth or accuracy. This is a problem for the materialist worldview. So in the end, it makes much more sense to understand humans as having been made in the image of God. It explains our personhood, our mind, our soul, our reasoning ability, our yearning for meaning in life, our capacity for worship, the existence of absolute truth, our conscience, altruistic love, etc etc etc so much better than humanism does. It is obvious that there has to be a real "I" behind my reasoning and choices. Denying this is absurd. I do not say this in a put down kind of way, but there is real truth to this biblical statement: "“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Think about it. We humans are willing to believe that anything and everything except God. We have no problem believing that everything came from nothing. That life came from non-life in spite of all the evidence that this is impossible. That computer programs wrote themselves, that genetic codes were written and information encoded by accident, that information arises by chance in spite of not ever having seen this happen, that unobservable dark matter exists, that unverifiable multiverses exist, that countless random timely miracles of chance happened which enable the evolution of irreducibly complex systems and thousands of nano-machines that outshine human inventions by orders of magnitude and cannot yet even be understood, etc etc. We’re happy to believe in these things, but we claim that believing in an intelligent Designer, let alone the Creator God of the Bible, is irrational!tjguy_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Not necessarily. Deterministic systems can be chaotic, but so can non-deterministic systems.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

And yet they tell us in their very own words that no such truth claim is valid!
No they don't. That is the whole point of what we have been debating.markf_{January 7, 2012
January
01
Jan
7
07
2012
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

The other thing it shows us though is the need for a programmer. We all know that programs never write themselves.
Evolution is the 'programmer'. Bad thinkers tend not to be as good at surviving and reproducing as good thinkers. Good thinking is thus favored by natural selection.
If it[the materialist view] is true, then by logical deduction, humans would have no inherent value.
Why? Do you think immaterial minds have "inherent value", but material minds do not? How do you justify that?champignon_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

Bruce, interesting post! I've never read Conversations with God, but I'm wondering how you "know" that God is speaking directly to us in that book. What evidence is your faith grounded in? The "God will never judge us, ever." message is quite popular. But if He never judged us, then who cares about sin? How can God be righteous and just if He never judges sin and evil? In the Bible, we see a righteous and just God who judges sin in a final and terrifying way when Jesus became the object of God's wrath against sin. It is only because our sin has been judged, paid for, that God is able to forgive us and allow us into heaven. To not require payment for sin would be akin to a judge letting a murderer, liar, adulterer, and thief go scott free. This action would indicate that these sins are of no real consequence and don't really matter to God. I think we all know they do. The idea that God's love will win out over his righteousness, holiness, and justice doesn't make sense. It is a message that is pleasing to our ears on the surface, but when we see that it means that no evil is ever judged, we realize that it is not such a good idea after all. Why would God explicitly state that He will never judge us when He explicitly states that He will judge us in His Word? That statement is enough to know without even reading the book that it is not from God. Yes, I accept the Bible as God's Word. The God of the Bible who is a perfect mix of love, mercy, justice, grace, holiness, and righteousness is much better than a made up god who simply overlooks all evil and sin. Who would want to live under a King who ruled His kingdom like that? Not me, for sure. Sure, His judgments are harsh, but don't forget. He gave us His only Son who took that judgment on our behalf so that we could be forgiven and escape judgment. Faith in Jesus and His death on the cross is the ONLY way anyone will be able to escape judgment.tjguy_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Actually, claiming that a human is simply an impersonal machine programmed to have personality is what sounds absurd to me. But this is what the materialist worldview asserts. The other thing it shows us though is the need for a programmer. We all know that programs never write themselves. This view has deeply troubling consequences and corollaries concerning what we can and can't say about the value of life. By logical deduction, if this view of humanity is "true" (Oops. I forgot there is no such thing as real truth. But for the sake of argument, we'll just assume it is true.) If it is true, then by logical deduction, humans would have no inherent value. What if someone in authority actually decides to treat people in that way? There would be nothing right or wrong about it. Morality is all relative anyway. In fact, it would be consistent with their worldview, would it not? Fortunately, most people do not do this, but it has happened in the past and could happen again. If this is what we teach our kids, over time, we, and society in general, are going to suffer the consequences.tjguy_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Oops. Sorry about that post. I must have hit the post button by mistake. markf said: "If by “valid” he means the truth is decided by some absolute objective criterion then “relative” does imply “invalid”." tj: Agreed. But come on, don’t you think that is what he means? I mean he is describing moral relativism, right? Moral relativists make a truth claim about morality when they say “Moral absolutes do not exist. There is no such thing as “true” or “right” morality as opposed to “untrue” or “wrong” morality. It’s all relative.” That is a truth claim about morality, is it not? And yet they tell us in their very own words that no such truth claim is valid! I get your point about Gil making a meta-statement about morality. His point is still valid though. Perhaps the inconsistency in their view is not with their moral relativism, but with their view of truth. They deny that truth exists. Yet they want us to take their meta-statement about morality as a true and valid statement. This is the inconsistency.tjguy_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

If by “valid” he means the truth is decided by some absolute objective criterion than “relative” does imply “invalid”. However, invalid does not normally mean that. If you tell me that a book is amusing then that is a relative and subjective statement about the book – but we wouldn’t normally describe it as an invalid statement. However, the more substantial objection is that meta-statements about the nature of morality are not themselves moral statements and Gil has clearly muddled the two. Agreed?tjguy_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

It seems to me the materialist belief there is no free will amounts to molecular astrology - if who we are and what we choose at any given moment reduces to a certain arraignment of brain matter, that is no different than who we are being determined by the arrangement of ALL matter when conceived. I am continually amused at the condescension and arrogance displayed by those who are molecular astrologists and don't even know it. (especially when Behe is malquoted from the Dover trial)todd_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Dodgen and his ID friends here still affirm that “materialists” are intelligent agents with minds that work fairly well, but he (and some of his commenting friends) also argue (correctly, I think) that “materialism” undermines confidence in science and rationality itself. The TrueU links page http://www.trueu.org/dvd-curriculum/does-god-exist/resources-links#books includes a link to this well-argued treatise in support of Dodgen’s arguments by Angus Menuge: Menuge, Angus. Agents under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science. http://www.amazon.com/Agents-Under-Materialism-Rationality-Science/dp/0742534049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325889192&sr=1-1 Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Argues that science itself requires a metaphysical foundation that includes intelligent agency (mind and "intentionality" that cannot be reduced to material processes, or you remove the epistemological basis for the practice of science). The commentators seeking to undermine Gil Dodgen’s main points never succeed. First they argue like skeptics in regard to free will (doubting more than is reasonable to doubt), then they try to defend (assuming materialism) that humans can be fairly confident of many of our reasoning capabilities in science and beyond. Although it is difficult to make progress with a an extreme skeptic (doubts come cheap, but many of them are not reasonable doubts), it is easier to demonstrate that materialism undermines science itself, as Menuge does better than anyone in the book cited above. Warning: Menuge is not easy reading. Beginners should start with TrueU, then read J.P. Moreland’s book Kingdom Triangle http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Triangle-Christian-Renovate-ebook/dp/B000S1LVH2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325889793&sr=8-3. After that, you will be able to handle much of Menuge’s Agents Under Fire. I just blogged on this above here (with convenient links provided): http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/blogs/trueu/2012/01/06/have-materialists-lost-their-mindsMike Keas_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Gil, Are you aware that chaotic systems are deterministic?champignon_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Liz, I have a book recommendation for you if haven't read it: Chaos: Making a New Science The math is really, really, simple -- easily understandable by anyone with a decent seventh-grade math education. Forget human decision-making -- even given idealized presumptions, many relatively simple mechanical systems quickly become unfathomably unpredictable. This is a problem I deal with all the time in my work designing finite-element-analysis computer simulations of dynamic, nonlinear, transient systems. (A car crash is a typical example.) It is this kind of work that Darwinists are completely ignorant of. They basically make up stories with much bluster, presumption, and assurance that they have it all figured out -- when anyone with any experience in rigorous engineering disciplines can quickly figure out that they are blowing smoke -- and then expect to be admired as defenders of "science."GilDodgen_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

JDH,
So, tell me mark, why are you so afraid of there being a God, that you would hang on to something so absurd as to think all the subtleties of human communication and encoding can come about by purely natural means?
Whether we are "meat computers" or not has nothing to do with whether God exists. They're independent questions. But since you think they're connected, let me ask you a question: Are you so afraid that there might not be a God that you're unwilling to acknowledge that markf's beliefs are not as transparently absurd as you would like to think?champignon_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

markf- I'm afraid I can't help you. You are hopelessly stuck denying the obvious. In purely human emotion, it makes me extremely frustrated. BTW - I program these things for a living. I'm on the About Box of a very popular program. Can't you tell the difference between the act of responding to what must be free will inputs ( in some cases millions of lines of code full of abstract symbols which is highly improbable that it simply arose from some initial condition) and simply rote responding to those inputs as a computer does. The idea that you could think that even the number of abstract symbols put in this reply came naturally into being without there being an "I will" behind it acting at the hub of the decisions as each character is placed is simply mind boggling. It is not set by any initial conditions. There simply is not the probability resources to do that without it being driven by a will. Why do you refuse to see that? The only thing I can think of is you deny free will because you do not like its implications. So, tell me mark, why are you so afraid of there being a God, that you would hang on to something so absurd as to think all the subtleties of human communication and encoding can come about by purely natural means? I am really curious. You must be awfully afraid of the concept of God to allow yourself to carry about such a deception.JDH_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Mike, If you doubt the possibility of disconfirmation, doubt the existence of an objective reality, or believe that every assertion is equally valid or equally questionable because it is accompanied by the intuition "this is true", then why argue about anything? On the other hand, Gil clearly believes in an objective reality that includes other people and in which disconfirmation is possible. He asserts the existence of free will and claims that no rational person can doubt it. In short, he is making claims about reality. It is entirely appropriate for us to ask whether his claims are true. If Gil experiences the feeling that his will is free and says to us "It feels like my will is free", we have no reason to argue -- but not because it is an intuition and therefore unchallengeable. It's because there is a sound argument showing that such a challenge would be self-defeating. If Gil has the feeling that his will is free, then he has the feeling that his will is free. Having an experience is confirmation that you are having that experience. To assert otherwise would be absurd. On the other hand, the statements "I feel as if I have free will" and "I don't have free will" are not contradictory. The challenge is not self-defeating, and since we know that intuition is fallible, the burden falls on Gil to show that his intuition is correct in this case. The existence of free will is not self-evident.champignon_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

champignon: No, because intuition is defined in a way that excludes conscious inference or deduction.
You're missing the point. Re-read what I wrote in response to what you wrote. It's not the inference or deduction that is the intuition. It's the psychological *confidence* that you have in that inference or deduction. That is, the confidence in your own powers of reason. That confidence itself is not an inference or a deduction. It is an intuition.
It’s a pretty low wall. All you have to do is accept it provisionally while keeping an eye out for possible disconfirmation.
But you've gotten ahead of yourself. Your unstated assumption here is that the process of disconfirmation is reliable.
It’s baffling that you and Gil are so unwilling to even consider the possibility that your intuition is incorrect in this case. In Gil’s case it is particularly appalling, because he likes to think of himself as a scientist, despite the fact that his attitude is so far from the scientific ideals of curiosity and open-mindedness.
The whole question of immediate apprehension of the primary quality and freedom of consciousness has nothing to do with science. It merely has to do with those who see it, and those who don't. Beyond that, there's nothing else to discuss.
In other words, you’re proudly flaunting the closed-mindedness of your side.
You may as well try to tell me that I don't consciously experience color. Would I be close minded if I told you to go pound sand at that assertion?mike1962_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply