Materialists Know What They Say is False. They Say it Anyway

_{Barry Arrington
January 21, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Otherwise, they would have to give up their materialism.

Recently I posted about a woman who was charged with attempted murder when she put a newborn baby in a garbage bag and tossed him in a dumpster to die. Here is an exchange I had with Seversky regarding that post:

Barry:

Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so?

Seversky:

the overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil

Barry:

Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?

Seversky:

Presumably, it would be good in the minds of the majority who approved of it. It would not be a good thing from my perspective.

There you have it. Sev’s position is this: They would prefer tossing babies in dumpsters and I would not. There is no basis on which to determine which preference is superior. Therefore, the preferences are objectively equal.

As I have said before, no sane person actually lives their life as if materialism is true. But Sev’s religious commitments compel him to pretend he believes it is true. Which leads him to say that he holds an outrageous position that we can be certain he does not truly hold. Sad that.

Comments

Origenes@368,
Acting freely is the coming to be of the person you want to be, who wasn’t before. Every free act by a person changes a person, constitutes self-realization. By acting freely the person is self-creating.
The closest I can imagine to what you're asserting is in quantum mechanics, where the free choice of what to observe or measure can be demonstrated to result in the collapse of the mathematical probability wave associated with a subatomic particle. This probability wave is called the wave function, which changes what's observed from a probability in a volume of space into an actual electron, photon, or other subatomic particle. Notice that I used the word "changes," not "creates" or "reveals." The particle doesn't physically exist until it's observed or measured. It has only a mathematical existence. However, such probability waves cannot observe themselves or each other, but they may become a part of a Markov chain in a sort of domino effect originating from the original observation. So far, it seems that only human observation can collapse wave functions. No one is sure why (it certainly has something to do with information), nor has anyone devised an experiment to test this as far as I know. So, back to your assertion about self observation, where one can choose to observe oneself, one can observe oneself observing oneself, or observe oneself observing oneself observing oneself, or perhaps someone else, or perhaps obstinately and deliberately choose NOT to observe oneself, can you provide any supporting evidence that existence can emerge from such intense and perhaps recursive observation? -QQuerius_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Origenes “Acting freely is the coming to be of the person you want to be, who wasn’t before. Every free act by a person changes a person, constitutes self-realization. By acting freely the person is self-creating.” Meanwhile it’s been over two days and after repeated requests it’s still “crickets” regarding StephenB’s questions. Vividvividbleau_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Acting freely is the coming to be of the person you want to be, who wasn’t before. Every free act by a person changes a person, constitutes self-realization. By acting freely the person is self-creating.Origenes_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Querious
“self causation” can easily be imagined simply as the reverse of a snake swallowing its tail and eventually disappearing. In this case, a snake regurgitates its tail, beginning a new causal chain that causes itself to come into being–a whole new snake out of nothing!
Yes, that’s right. But then again, the author of such a dubious scenario, can, after having been ridiculed, simply say, “Oh, I didn’t really mean THAT” and then change his story. When apprised of the difference between the two stories, he can say, “there is no difference, they are one and the same.” Once you abandon the law of non-contradiction, all things are possible.
As Origenes contends, “the self-aware person comes into being by the creative act of observing oneself.”
Right. First comes the observation, then comes the person who observes. You seem to grasp the point very well. Of course, you are being awfully judgmental here. Remember, according to his testimony, something that is obviously impossible in the real world, may not be impossible in his world. So chill out.
So, just a few weeks ago, I observed a large, beautiful snake in my yard that I’d never seen there before. And now I understand how some people explain its coming into existence!
Well, be careful now. So far no one has suggested that a snake can perform the creative act of observing itself. Or, perhaps the snake can observe itself without knowing what it is doing, in which case, maybe it will appear after all. Still, we are stuck with another version of the earlier problem: How can a snake that has not yet come into being observe itself?StephenB_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Q, a snake swallowing its tail destroys itself of course. The problem is that self-motion or acting on oneself . . . where does the regurgitation come from . . . is not self origin. The later has the not yet causing itself. Absurd. Yes, feedback action implying memory effects and reflexivity are a commonplace of cybernetics and control systems, for that matter education and training. But the acting agent is antecedent. SB in 363 is quite correct to highlight the incoherence. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
You are free to create your own definitions, but I think the term is too confusing since some will interpret it to mean that the self caused itself to be.
Yes, but "self causation" can easily be imagined simply as the reverse of a snake swallowing its tail and eventually disappearing. In this case, a snake regurgitates its tail, beginning a new causal chain that causes itself to come into being--a whole new snake out of nothing! As Origenes contends, "the self-aware person comes into being by the creative act of observing oneself." So, just a few weeks ago, I observed a large, beautiful snake in my yard that I'd never seen there before. And now I understand how some people explain its coming into existence! It's all so easy when you can use your creative free will to believe anything you want, creating innumerable new causal chains in each case. But was it my free will or the snake's free will that caused it to come into existence? What happens if my free will opposes the snake-to-be's free will? -QQuerius_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
Suppose a free act can be regarded as a new causal chain.
I think you mean to say that it can be the beginning of a new causal chain.
Given that, the start of the chain can be named First Cause. How do we explain this particular First Cause?
You explain it as a free will act by a causal agent that has started a new causal chain..
This First Cause does not “necessarily exist as a maximally great being”
It is a simple matter of making the distinction between *a* first cause of a new causal chain and *the ultimate* First Cause of everything.
So what explains it? Wait, do I hear someone whisper “self-causation”?
You are free to create your own definitions, but I think the term is too confusing since some will interpret it to mean that the self caused itself to be.StephenB_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Origenes:
Some ppl regard my answer to be ducking the question or not an answer at all
Your answer has nothing to do with my questions, which you have, indeed, been ducking. It's all @310. For your convenience, I will reproduce them here: Origenes:
the self-aware person comes into being by the creative act of observing oneself.
How can a person who has not yet “come into being” observe himself?
Self awareness cannot come about in a time sequence; there is no “first this and next that.
But you have been using time sequences to describe this alleged phenomenon. You said that there is no person “before” this act of self observation.” You also said that the self aware person “comes into being,” which means that there was a time when it didn’t exist.
So, self-awareness does not fit a causal context with distinct parts…..
It has nothing to do with “distinct parts,” that’s a strawman, but you have been appealing to causation all along. You said that self-awareness is “due to a ‘(“already”) conscious person observing itself.” So clearly, creative observation is, for you, the cause, and self awareness is the effect.StephenB_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @
I see that when Origenes here says self-causation, he doesn’t mean that the self is causing its self, but rather that the self is causing things that have no external prior cause: that each act of free will is, so to speak, a mini first cause. Do I understand you correctly, Origenes?
You know you do. I am saying that the cause of the free act, the person, is causing itself with respect to this free act. IOWs with respect to the free act the person acts as a First Cause, self-mover, unmoved mover, uncaused cause.Origenes_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

I see that when Origenes here says sef-causation, he doesn't mean that the self is causing its self, but rather that the self is causing things that have no external prior cause: that each act of free will is, so to speak, a mini first cause. Do I understand you correctly, Origenes?Viola Lee_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Suppose a free act can be regarded as a new causal chain. Given that, the start of the chain can be named First Cause. How do we explain this particular First Cause? This First Cause does not “necessarily exist as a maximally great being” and it is also not the case that it always existed. So what explains it? Wait, do I hear someone whisper “self-causation”?Origenes_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

@ Seversky
It seems that this always reduces to a choice between an infinite chain of causation and an uncaused first cause.
And the plot thickens if one accepts freedom & responsibility. If determinism is true, and all our actions, our thoughts & beliefs included, causally trace back to events long before we were born, then we do not control our thoughts and beliefs. Is that acceptable to you? What is your position Seversky?Origenes_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Vividbleau @
If there is no distinction made between you and something existing outside of you you would never be able to determine that your existence is different and distinct from a TV.
I agree. Perhaps the question could be asked if it is possible for someone to have an unsound self-awareness, so that he mistakenly identifies himself with everything he perceives; thoughts, feelings and the TV? Put another way, can someone have a solipsistic self-aware experience? I’m not sure, but at the moment I am inclined to think that this is possible.
You want to argue that your self awareness and its encounter with the outside world (non self) happen simultaneously in time.
Providing that you are correct, my argument would be that they precede each other [they presuppose each other], which is, of course, an even stronger claim. I have attempted to convey this difficult point when I spoke about observer & observant. It is not enough for them to happen simultaneously in time, they must also happen “before” each other in time. Like everyone else I understand that this is impossible for ‘finite contingent things’, as you called them. So, when I encounter such "impossible" requirements I come to the conclusion that with self-awareness, and consciousness and personhood in general, we are dealing with something that cannot be understood in the same way as finite contingent things. Instead, in my view, we need another context than space/time in order to understand what’s going on. So, when someone asks me, for instance, how it is possible for an observer & observant to precede each other in time, my answer is that what’s going on cannot be understood as two distinct things in a step wise causal process within time. Some ppl regard my answer to be ducking the question or not an answer at all and some even get angry and lose their temper.
However does the outside world exist independently of your self awareness?
Yes. I firmly reject solipsism.Origenes_{January 31, 2022
January
01
Jan
31
31
2022
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

VL, I have explicitly argued that we are self-moved, reflexive, intelligent, morally governed agents with responsible, rational freedom and so are going concern agents capable of reason and first, initiating cause including of designs. We may be influenced and constrained but we have significant freedom and responsibility to use freedom aright. We are also obviously contingent and so our individual and global origin is not causeless. I have pointed to the Smith Model. I note, determinisms -- including anything implying that we are programmed, dynamic-stochastic computational entities . . . is self referential and undermining of rationality as Haldane et al noted. Similarly, compatibilism, because it embeds such determinism, likewise fails. Meanwhile, the above sidelining and evasion of the point in the OP has significant import. KFkairosfocus_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee
A further question: would the Creator have any judgment about who I voted for? That is, even though my decision to vote for X was a free-will choice, could my choice be wrong in respect to the Creator who gave me this capability to freely choose?
The Creator, by virtue of His omniscience, would know which political candidate is most qualified to govern in a fair way. He would also know which one possesses the better character and therefore, would be less likely to be corrupted. So yes, He would know which candidate is best in any given situation. However, that doesn’t mean that you would always be wrong to vote for the objectively wrong candidate if you thought that he or she was the right candidate. You can make free will decisions, but, like all of us, your knowledge is limited. You can only weigh the relevant factors that you are aware of, including moral factors, and try to make the right choice on that basis. The Creator would not hold you accountable for what you don’t know (unless it is something that you are expected to know and willfully choose not to know).StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
StephenB @346 Unbecoming. Our interaction ends here.
Sorry if I went over the line, but good faith dialogue is a two way street and, in my judgement, you have not been holding up your end. I was reacting to what I perceive as a lack of transparency on your part. Perhaps I should have been more patient. For my part, I am willing to extend you every courtesy and start over again as if nothing has happened. However, I do insist on fairness, and if I can't get it, I may assert myself in that context.StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Very good, and thanks, Stephen, for the clear, simple discussion. A further question: would the Creator have any judgment about who I voted for? That is, even though my decision to vote for X was a free-will choice, could my choice be wrong in respect to the Creator who gave me this capability to freely choose?Viola Lee_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Origines “However, I can also ask: how can one be aware of non-self if one is not aware of self?” Perhaps the term non self is causing confusion. By non self I mean that which exists and precedes yourself. For instance the outside world, independently exists independent of your existence. It was there before you existed and became self aware. It is this distinction between yourself and the outside world ( non self) that you are able to recognize and reason that, for example, the TV is not you. If there is no distinction made between you and something existing outside of you you would never be able to determine that your existence is different and distinct from a TV. You want to argue that your self awareness and its encounter with the outside world (non self) happen simultaneously in time. However does the outside world exist independently of your self awareness? If so it’s existence precedes your existence ( the necessary prerequisite of self awareness) If it precedes your existence (self awareness )it must also precede your self awareness . It is indeed the outside world that informs you that your existence is distinct from that outside world. Vividvividbleau_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Once again, unlike sentient animals, humans somehow ALL* know right and wrong, and they feel bad when they do wrong. * Except sociopaths, of course. Consider the chilling testimony of a sociopath. How would you convince him that he’s not “humanity 2.0” as he put it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakEcY7Z5GU Why? And a scientific answer isn't "because it's in their nature" since this position effectively ends all scientific inquiry. And morals, ethics, and duties duties are not typically associated with unrestrained hedonism. -QQuerius_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee
My point is this, illustrated with an example. I can vote for either X or Y. I can see positives and negatives about each candidate, but ultimately I choose to vote for X. This is a free-will decision on my part.
OK
Did the Creator who bequeathed me the capability to make free-will decisions have anything to do with my specific decision to vote for X instead of Y?
No, it would be just you and your decision. In that sense, you would be totally independent (unless, of course, you prayed to the Creator for wisdom, which would indicate that you no longer wanted to be totally independent).StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

StephenB @346 Unbecoming. Our interaction ends here.Origenes_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

re 347: No, I agree with that. I'm not discussing the exact same thing that Origenes is. My point is this, illustrated with an example. I can vote for either X or Y. I can see positives and negatives about each candidate, but ultimately I choose to vote for X. This is a free-will decision on my part. Did the Creator who bequeathed me the capability to make free-will decisions have anything to do with my specific decision to vote for X instead of Y?Viola Lee_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
So, there is a prior *cause* (the Creator) ….. and further down the road there is a *new causal chain*
. No, there is no cause that goes further back than the Creator. who is the ultimate first cause of everything. The Creator, the First Cause, is not caused. Otherwise, He would not be the "first" cause.". An infinite chain of causes is a logical impossibility.StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee
I understand all that, and will accept for the sake of argument the existence of the Creator responsible for my free will capabilities. However, given that, I am emphasizing this: “It is the creature who has been given the power to be his or her own causal agent that” makes the free will decision. So, there is a distinction between my ability to make free-will decisions and the actual free-will decisions I make:
Yes, that's right. The only reason for alluding to the Creator's act of providing the creature with the power to be a causal agent is to show that the creature cannot give that power to itself, as Origenes mistakenly believes. It must come from the outside.StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Origenes:
.In my philosophy a person is self-caused, a unity.
And your philosophy is pure, unadulterated, madness. No person can be self caused. You must already know this, otherwise, you would not run away from my questions. I cannot make you answer them, but the fact that you are afraid to try speaks for itself.
I must note that I do propose a context for this self-causation to come about. However, this context is not causative, instead it creates the conditions for this spontaneous act to occur.
More bad logic. Sorry, but you just don't understand causation and, unfortunately, you are not willing to learn. To "create the conditions" to make something happen is to create the "causal conditions," a technical and necessary term with which you are obviously unfamiliar.StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

to Stephen at 337: When I asked, “May I put the question this way: does not free will imply the ability to make and implement an uncaused effect?”, Stephen replied
What, in the name of sense, are you trying to say? There is no such thing as an uncaused effect. In the present case, the intelligent agent is the cause and the free will decision is the effect. However, as LCD tried to explain, and as I have indicated several times,. it doesn’t end there. There is also a prior cause. Someone or something (I would argue, the Creator), had to provide the agent with the *capacity* to think, make decisions, and start a new causal chain. These capacities or powers consist of the spiritual faculties of intelligence and free will (and , of course, the physical organ of the brain). However, the Creator, the one who gives the creature these capacities, is not the one who makes the free-will decision. It is the creature who has been given the power to be his or her own causal agent that does that.. The Creator grants the powers of thinking and making decision to the creature. He does not think or make decisions for the creature (though He can and will help when invited to do so).
I understand all that, and will accept for the sake of argument the existence of the Creator responsible for my free will capabilities. However, given that, I am emphasizing this: “It is the creature who has been given the power to be his or her own causal agent that” makes the free will decision. So, there is a distinction between my ability to make free-will decisions and the actual free-will decisions I make: if I decide to vote for X and not Y, even though there may be lots of things I take into consideration, the decision to vote for X is not caused by anything other than my free-will. The decision itself is uncaused by anything other than my free will even though the ability to make such decisions is caused. That is an important distinction. Here is a somewhat analogous situation where we have two related but separable issues. My understanding of the standard design argument is that the inference to design is separate from the question of who the Designer might be: we can study the criteria for inferring design and the things that might be designed irrespective of and separate from an attempt to identify the Designer. Same here: I infer free will, and exercise free will, with the understanding that that means my decisions are not caused by anything outside myself. The question of how I came to have free will is a separate question that is not necessary to investigate in order to investigate how free will works in the world. Who the Designer is and who the Creator is separable from the more experiential investigation of design and free will, respectively.Viola Lee_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

SB @
There is also a prior cause. Someone or something (I would argue, the Creator), had to provide the agent with the *capacity* to think, make decisions, and start a new causal chain.
So, there is a prior *cause* (the Creator) ….. and further down the road there is a *new causal chain*. A -> B-> C-> ….. W-> X-> Y I spot a problem here and you seem to gloss over it.Origenes_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Seversky
The problem with any uncaused first cause is that it is always possible to ask what caused the uncaused first cause
It is not rational to ask what caused something that is ucaused. That would be a logical contradiction.
If the reply is that it is, as the term suggests, uncaused then the obvious response is that, if it was not caused it must always have existed...
. Obviously.
which brings us right back to an infinity again.
Infinite existence, which is logical, has nothing to do with an infinite number of causes in a causal chain, which is illogical.StephenB_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

It seems that this always reduces to a choice between an infinite chain of causation and an uncaused first cause. Infinity is a difficult concept. It seems like philosophers and mathematicians are still grappling with it, not least because it's something which finite beings such as ourselves simply can't imagine. The alternative seems to be to declare by fiat an uncaused first cause as the backstop to the chain of causation. The problem with any uncaused first cause is that it is always possible to ask what caused the uncaused first cause. If the reply is that it is, as the term suggests, uncaused then the obvious response is that, if it was not caused it must always have existed, which brings us right back to an infinity again. Maybe there's something we're missing?Seversky_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau @
I want to be precise as I can be. I don’t agree that there are uncaused finite, contingent effects or things.
Maybe the following question helps: can a free act by a person be traced back to a cause external to the person?
O: “Why do you think that it is required (or even possible) to be first aware of something that is not self in order to be aware of self?”
VB: I will once you answer my question ,how can one be aware of self if not first aware of something that is not self?
By being aware of oneself …. I am sorry but I do not understand the question. Perhaps you have a point. Let’s assume that you are right and being self-aware presupposes being aware of non-self. However, I can also ask: how can one be aware of non-self if one is not aware of self? If there is no self-aware person how can there be awareness of not-self? So, if you are correct, the two states likely presuppose each other, which lends further support for my claim that being self-aware cannot be understood as coming about in separate steps, starting with an unconscious state.Origenes_{January 30, 2022
January
01
Jan
30
30
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply