Have Materialists Lost Their Minds?

_{Gil Dodgen

January 4, 2012

Intelligent Design, Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

Orlando If Champignon has failed to get the point I am not surprised. It is really rather hard to understand what you are trying to say.
1.Identity Theory + Free Will = Contradiction. That’s why and how the Identity Theory denies the free will
This seems to be a rather obscure way of saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”
2.If the criteria that defines “right” and separates it from “wrong” are mere and solely results of the brain chemistry, the truth is only a matter of consensus restricted to a zeitgeist — which means that “it is true that truth does not exist” [contradiction]
The criteria are not the results of brain chemistry. Brain chemistry produces the statements and propositions. Those statements and propositions are right and/or wrong to the extent that they match up with reality. This is true whether the statements were made by a computer, a chemical process, a human or a deity. Kant is notoriously difficult to understand, open to many interpretations and in the opinion of many philosophers (e.g. Roger Scruton) ambiguous. However, I think you are talking about the problem of consciousness. Computers are not conscious. We are. But there is nothing that says consciousness is either necessary or sufficient for free will.markf_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

@ champignon : I do not think you got the point. 1.Identity Theory + Free Will = Contradiction. That's why and how the Identity Theory denies the free will. Got it? 2.If the criteria that defines “right” and separates it from “wrong” are mere and solely results of the brain chemistry, the truth is only a matter of consensus restricted to a zeitgeist — which means that “it is true that truth does not exist” [contradiction]. 3.Kant underlined the fact that we must always add a phrase to all our thoughts: “I Think” — independently of what we are thinking. In the “I Think” of the human subject, all the contents of the human conscience are connected; the “I Think” is the logical condition of any thought; it constitutes itself as the last logical reference point and the unity point of all knowledge. Putting it Kant's terminology: «The I Think is the condition of the possibility of thinking. » You never, ever, get the “I Think thing” from any computer.Orlando Braga_{January 6, 2012
January
01
Jan
6
06
2012
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

JDH A laptop needs to be created and programmed by a human being, but not to follow that specific set of instructions, just to be general purpose instruction follower. You can enter an arbitray set of instructions into a laptop and it will obey them - it is called a program. Just as a person has to be born, grow up and be educated before they can follow a strong of arbitary characters - only we don't generally call it a program. We are not discussing how things are created. We are discussing whether, once created, they have free will. And I still looking for that crucial behaviour that you will decides the issue so obviously.markf_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

The part of you that feels “confident” about this inference or that deduction is every bit as intuitive as someone who intuits that their consciousness is “primary.”
No, because intuition is defined in a way that excludes conscious inference or deduction. For example, look at the first two definitions that pop up when you Google 'intuition':
1. The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. 2. A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

Whoa Tex, before we can get anywhere near that question, we have to scale a pretty high epistemological wall. The question assumes a lot of facts not in objective evidence, such as the presence of a reality outside of your own subjective space.
It's a pretty low wall. All you have to do is accept it provisionally while keeping an eye out for possible disconfirmation. And if you don't accept it, then argument becomes pretty pointless.
A lot of us folks who see that “consciousness is primary and has Real Freedom” know what we know and are puzzled by your type, who don’t see what we see...We think you’re blind to the obvious.
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.
Just know that you always and forever shall lack the power to persuade one from our side.
In other words, you're proudly flaunting the closed-mindedness of your side. Good for you.champignon_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Re. another comment from the OP:
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)...
This charge is a confusion of levels. Moral relativism is the position that there are no absolutely or objectively true moral statements. That is not a moral statement; it is a statement about moral statements, and therefore not self referential. Ie, neither absurd nor self contradictory.Bruce David_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

champignon: You’re using the word ‘intuition’ in a strange way. Confirmation of a scientific prediction seems like the opposite of intuition to me.
The part of you that feels "confident" about this inference or that deduction is every bit as intuitive as someone who intuits that their consciousness is "primary." "Seems to work" (pragmatism) is an intuition. And in the end, that's all any of us have within our own subjective space. Including you.
"And if you’re arguing that everyone’s intuition is equally valid, what about the guy who thinks the FBI is monitoring his brain waves?"
Whoa Tex, before we can get anywhere near that question, we have to scale a pretty high epistemological wall. The question assumes a lot of facts not in objective evidence, such as the presence of a reality outside of your own subjective space. And it assumes that you have some kind of "realiable" means of dealing with that reality. How far to you want to press this?
Me: Some things *must* be self-evident… You: Sure, but Gil’s intuition about free will is not one of them.
Says you. A lot of us folks who see that "consciousness is primary and has Real Freedom" know what we know and are puzzled by your type, who don't see what we see. You think we're seeing something that isn't there. (A problemmatic view, even if we assume materialism.) We think you're blind to the obvious. Never the twain shall meet. You may as well tell us that the qualia of "blue" doesn't exist. I'm OK with that. Just know that you always and forever shall lack the power to persuade one from our side.mike1962_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

A human, given a symbolic representation of two integers, can produce a symbolic representation of their sum. A computer, given a symbolic representation of two integers, can produce a symbolic representation of their sum. If the human and the computer are both functioning correctly, then if their inputs are the same, their outputs will be the same. To argue that one is doing addition, but the other is not, is absurd.champignon_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

If my ideas — and though, my thoughts — are merely products [therefore, effects] of the chemistry of my brain, then it not possible to discuss the no-free-will thing [also called the “Identity Theory”, by the materialists], because the allegations coming from the no-free-will thing defenders are products of pure chemistry too.
The fact that they are "products of pure chemistry" doesn't mean they must be wrong. And by the way, identity theory is not synonymous with the denial of free will.
And in case some guy defends the opposite theory, then he’s right too, bearing in mind that his chemistry just got to a different conclusion.
If two computers produce different results, it doesn't mean they're both right. Why should it be any different for brains?champignon_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

I won't argue whether free will is self-evident or not. We either have free will or we will spend the rest of our lives pretending to, or will conclude that we don't, which ironically may be a freely made choice. But if free will isn't self-evident, then absolutely nothing is. If my decision to type this post or wear my blue shirt today and my grey shirt tomorrow or vice versa only appears to be a decision, then what reality can I take for granted? Maybe I only think I'm sitting at this computer but I'm really in a pod supplying power for the computers of the future. Maybe I belong to a species of aliens that sleeps for 80 years and has really vivid dreams. We have to inhabit the reality that we perceive. Fortunately we all seem to perceive something close to the same reality, although maybe I'm imagining that too. But in my personal reality, when one entity perceives reality too different from the other entities, they tend to think that it's eccentric, weird, or even dangerously insane. If it does things they don't like they don't care if it doesn't think it had a choice. So if everyone else thinks your free will is real and you ~~decide~~ are compelled to act as if it is not, proceed at your own risk.ScottAndrews2_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

mark writes "A very ordinary laptop computer can do everything you describe." No it could not. It could only do that if it was acted upon by someone who has free will. Sit a personal computer down that has not been programmed by an intelligent agent, and it can not do that. Are you that defeated, that in order to try and defeat an argument about free will, you bring up an object which could only be created and programmed by an intelligent agent who had free will. This is about as absurd as it can get.JDH_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Hi johnnyb, We're actually discussing this in another subthread (starting with comment 2 and currently extending through 2.1.1.1.9. Feel free to join in.champignon_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

mike1962 writes:
So where do you draw the line? The same intuition that Gil is feeling is like the intuition you feel when a scientific theory makes a prediction and it comes true. Why do you assume that is valid and Gil’s intuition is not?
You're using the word 'intuition' in a strange way. Confirmation of a scientific prediction seems like the opposite of intuition to me. And if you're arguing that everyone's intuition is equally valid, what about the guy who thinks the FBI is monitoring his brain waves?
Some things *must* be self-evident...
Sure, but Gil's intuition about free will is not one of them.champignon_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

tjguy writes:
I understand your analogy, but I don’t think it works. In order to assume that you are like this computer and can accurately interpret evidence, make deductions, and make good choices; you have to assume that your personal program, the one by which you make decisions, is the right program, that it is accurate and will give you trustworthy results.
Neither the materialist nor the dualist can assume that human thought is perfectly reliable. We know that it isn't. We have to double-check our thoughts, test our hypotheses against reality, second-guess ourselves, think about things from a different angle, solicit others' opinions, etc., and this is true whether or not thought is a purely physical process.
Why doesn’t everyone come up with the same results then? It would seem that we have different programs in our brains.
Sure, in the sense that no two brains are identical, and even a given brain changes state from moment to moment.
What makes your computer program more trustworthy than my computer program that results in a different interpretation of the evidence?
Our brains learn, so the 'program' can improve over time. We also have all of the methods I mentioned above for double-checking ourselves.
Besides, the computer program didn’t just write itself. It was written by an intelligent person.
Yes, but let's postpone a discussion of that until we're finished with the question of whether it's possible for a physical system to evaluate evidence and make decisions.
Are you open to this explanation for your own brain and system of thought?
Yes. The evidence is very strong that thought is a purely physical process.champignon_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

If my ideas — and though, my thoughts — are merely products [therefore, effects] of the chemistry of my brain, then it not possible to discuss the no-free-will thing [also called the “Identity Theory”, by the materialists], because the allegations coming from the no-free-will thing defenders are products of pure chemistry too. And in case some guy defends the opposite theory, then he's right too, bearing in mind that his chemistry just got to a different conclusion. Karl Popper named this slippery slope as “The Physical Determinism Nightmare”.Orlando Braga_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

I rule out your position because I can not reconcile what I think are mutually opposing concepts. BUT, I respond in this way because I really think you do try and explain yourself very well. If I am wrong and it is possible for a real definition of materialism to be compatible with a real definition of "free will", I would love to hear it. If it is true, it should be able to be explained in one post. Please post it here. I will read it. If I agree with it, I will apologize and change my mind.JDH_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Yes, you have misunderstood it completely. JDH
This might of course reflect on how well you explained it :-)
The sequences generated by an intelligent agent are NEITHER random NOR explicitly set by the initial conditions. This is much different than a random or pseudo-random number generator.
That is assuming your position is correct.
An intelligent agent is able to generate arbitrary sequences based on other abstract symbols. For example, someone can leave me written instructions which I can not look at until I start the sequence demanding any set of mutually possible conditions and I can do that. ( Example make the 459th character “A”, write the 560th character in lower case, make the 780th through 790th characters all characters whose position in the alphabet are prime numbers, etc. The set of instructions able to be encoded are infinite in the arbitrariness and are not known until the start of the sequence and can be encoded by another person with free will, at any time before I start generating a sequence. They don’t have to be physically hard coded into the initial state like would have to be done with your machine.
A very ordinary laptop computer can do everything you describe.
There just comes a time when you have to admit defeat mark. Your position does not stand up to common sense.
Maybe – but first I have to understand the argument that is meant to be defeating me.markf_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

I am just not interested in a definition of free will which is compatible with materialism. The reason I am not is because such position really does not exist. Any materialist universe implies “no free will” unless you tweak the meaning of materialism to include something that is not included in materialism.
In that case you have assumed your consequent. 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?Elizabeth Liddle_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Yes, you have misunderstood it completely. The sequences generated by an intelligent agent are NEITHER random NOR explicitly set by the initial conditions. This is much different than a random or pseudo-random number generator. An intelligent agent is able to generate arbitrary sequences based on other abstract symbols. For example, someone can leave me written instructions which I can not look at until I start the sequence demanding any set of mutually possible conditions and I can do that. ( Example make the 459th character "A", write the 560th character in lower case, make the 780th through 790th characters all characters whose position in the alphabet are prime numbers, etc. The set of instructions able to be encoded are infinite in the arbitrariness and are not known until the start of the sequence and can be encoded by another person with free will, at any time before I start generating a sequence. They don't have to be physically hard coded into the initial state like would have to be done with your machine. There just comes a time when you have to admit defeat mark. Your position does not stand up to common sense.JDH_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

JDH: (#4.2.1)
God has said he will judge you for this.
That is incorrect. What is accurate is that certain scriptures, including the Bible, claim that God will judge you for denying Him. Your statement is based on the faith that one of those scriptures (the Bible, I expect) is in fact the word of God. In the only book I know of in which God speaks directly to us, Conversations with God, by Neale Donald Walsch, God states explicitly and repeatedly that He will never judge us, ever.Bruce David_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

No, they haven’t, but that doesn’t make them right (or wrong). It all depends what you mean by “free will”.
From a rational analysis, free-will is the ability to start a unique chain of effects within space-time from the "outside." From the subjective view of a free-will thing (like my own consciousness), it's beyond further description, just like any conscious "qualia." You gotta be one, to know one.mike1962_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

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. To Gil, his free will is self-evidently true. If that is a fact (and who's to say he's wrong?), then no amount of reasoning can overthrow it since it's not dependent on reasoning. To Champignon, Gil's self-evident apprehension is an illusion. What would Champignon use (I assume) to demonstrate that? Human reasoning. Does Champignon think *any* thing is self-evidently true? At very least, Gil has a chance of being right. Materialists like Champignon do not. And furthermore, to Gil himself, he *knows* he's right, and the arguments of Champignon can never overthrow it. It's that simple, reallymike1962_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

champignon: Sure, and if Gil had said “My will feels free to me” I’d see no reason to ask for corroboration. But he’s not merely claiming that his will feels free. He claims that it is free, and that “any rational person” can see this. Those claims require justification.
So where do you draw the line? The same intuition that Gil is feeling is like the intuition you feel when a scientific theory makes a prediction and it comes true. Why do you assume that is valid and Gil's intuition is not? Some things *must* be self-evident, or else all reasoning (including yours) is B.S, and just happens to be right by a fluke. Why is yours better than Gil's?mike1962_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

champignon - Let's presume that you don't exercise free will, and that our intuitions are wrong. In that case, argument is meaningless, since none of us has the freedom to change our minds. We will simply do what physics requires us to do. Any decision, thought, etc. we make is meaningless, because it had to be that way. There is no justice, only accident.johnnyb_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

I agree, Gil. When reductionist ideas are carried to their logical conclusions, they reduce to absurdities like "no free will," or "the four forces of Nature can create computers and the Internet." At least, they are absurdities to the "common man", but of course for the materialist this just creates an opportunity to show how superior his mind is to the common man's mind.Granville Sewell_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Did you have any free will concerning the decision to post your comment?
I am not one who denies free will. My point was just that we can neither prove it nor disprove it. So maybe we should just get on with life. At least part of the disagreement over free will is over what "free will" means. Personally, I tend to go with Wittgenstein's "meaning is use," and most people use it in conjuction with decisions they make, such as decisions to post a comment to a blog.Neil Rickert_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

tjguy 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?markf_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

"For one “relative” does not equate to “invalid”. " Hmm. But then how would one make such an evaluation given that there is no ultimate standard by which to judge it? There is no answer sheet that gives the answer. How are you defining "truth" here? What does it mean to say that something is true in your mind? Perhaps that is where the problem lies. In my mind a truth claim is similar to a statement as to what is true in an objective absolute sort of way. But I guess you are not viewing truth in that way. I think he means an "absolute truth claim" when he says that no truth claims about morality are valid. Or that no truth claims about morality are valid in the sense that they are absolute. It is true. You cannot prove that any truth claim about morality is invalid. The most you can do is show that it is not held or appreciated by the majority of people. But there is no absolute standard of good by which to evaluate anything. I don't quite see your argument here.tjguy_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Champ said: "If you can see why she is wrong, and why the computer is actually doing arithmetic, then you’re on your way to understanding how it’s possible for a deterministic, purely physical brain to evaluate evidence and make decisions." I understand your analogy, but I don't think it works. In order to assume that you are like this computer and can accurately interpret evidence, make deductions, and make good choices; you have to assume that your personal program, the one by which you make decisions, is the right program, that it is accurate and will give you trustworthy results. What evidence is there for this? How could you ever evaluate it? You can only evaluate things based on the particular program that runs your brain. Why doesn't everyone come up with the same results then? It would seem that we have different programs in our brains. What makes your computer program more trustworthy than my computer program that results in a different interpretation of the evidence? Again, how could you ever evaluate such a thing since your brain only works according to your program and mine, according to my program? Besides, the computer program didn't just write itself. It was written by an intelligent person. Are you open to this explanation for your own brain and system of thought? I'm not seeing it yet.tjguy_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

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.
No, of course it isn't "determined by your brain chemistry". It's "determined" by the decision-making system that we call your brain, which takes into account all kinds of things that none of those chemicals know anything about, including whether you fancy chocolate or coffee today. That doesn't mean that the system isn't instantiated in physics and chemistry.
Elizabeth Liddle_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

No, they haven't, but that doesn't make them right (or wrong). It all depends what you mean by "free will".Elizabeth Liddle_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply