Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Straight talk from Searle on free will

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

John Searle, who is currently the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, is one of the world’s most highly respected philosophers. In a recent nine-minute interview with Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Searle succinctly defined the problem of free will, in laypersons’ language. Although Searle finds it difficult (as a materialist) to see how human beings could possibly possess free will, he also realizes that it’s impossible for us not to believe that we have it. If it is an illusion, then it’s one we can never hope to escape from. At the same time, Searle is withering in his criticism of “compatibilist” philosophers, who assert that even if our actions are fully determined, we can still believe in a kind of free will.

Intriguingly, Searle argues during the interview that there has to be an evolutionary basis for free will. After all, he declares, if free will is an illusion, and our actions are causally determined by neurophysiological processes over which we have no conscious control, then how do we explain the suite of behavior which we have evolved, not only for rational decision-making, but also for teaching our children how to make rational decisions? It would seem strange, says Searle, for evolution to make such a huge investment, for something which served absolutely no purpose.

Here are some of the highlights from Searle’s interview (bolding is mine – VJT):

John Searle: The reason that we have a special problem about free will – and this is typical of a lot of philosophical problems – is that we have inconsistent views, each of which is supported by apparently what are overwhelming reasons. The reason that we have for believing in free will is that we experience it every day. We have the experience that the decisions were not themselves forced by antecedently sufficient causal conditions, … where the causes are sufficient to produce the effect. But on the other side, you’ve got an overwhelming amount of evidence that everything that happens has a causal explanation in terms of causally sufficient conditions…. And we don’t see any reason to suppose that’s not generally true. As far as we know, human behavior is part of the natural world, and it looks like it ought to be explained in terms of causally sufficient conditions. But if that’s true, that everything has causally sufficient conditions, that we’re completely at the mercy of causal forces, then free will is an illusion.

John Searle: In the case of other illusions, you can live your life in the knowledge that it is just an illusion. There are certain standard optical illusions, and you live your life on the assumption that the two lines are the same length, even though they look different lengths, in that Muller-lyer illusion. But when it comes to free will, you can’t live your life on the assumption of determinism. You go into the restaurant, and the waiter says: “Do you want the veal or the steak?”, you can’t say: “I’m a determinist. Que sera, sera. I’ll just wait and see what happens,” because – and this is the point – if you do that, if you refuse to exercise free will, that refusal is intelligible to you only as an exercise of free will. Now Kant pointed this out. We can’t shake off the conviction of free will. This doesn’t show that it’s true: it could be completely false. It could be a massive illusion. If so, [it’s] the biggest illusion that evolutionary biology ever played on us, because we live our life on the assumption of that freedom. We can’t get out of that assumption – and yet, for all we know, it might be false. We might be completely determined.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: And that would make that evolutionary product an incredible waste, or an effort being done to create that, when it would be irrelevant.

John Searle: Totally irrelevant. Yes. Now, the only thing that inclines me to think, “Well, maybe there is some evolutionary basis for free will,” is that we don’t know of any other part of evolutionary biology where you have such an expensive phenotype as conscious, rational decision-making. We devote an enormous amount of resources to teach our children how to do it, and just in crude biology, an awful lot of blood has to go to the brain, in order to sustain this mechanism, and to be told, “Well, it doesn’t have any evolutionary function; it’s just a massive illusion, it doesn’t do anything for you” – that’s a highly compelling argument that it’s not so. But it certainly would make it something unusual, as evolutionary biology goes. We would have this expensive mechanism for conscious, rational decision-making, and it’s all useless; it’s all epiphenomenal.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: So we have these two pillars of information – each one self-consistent, each one based on enormous amounts of information – the physical world, every event has a cause – and our sense of volitional free will, our perception of free will, and you have the evolutionary cost – and they are absolutely incompatible.

John Searle: Yes. Not only are they incompatible, but it’s hard to see how we could give up on either of them. [You] see, normally when you get two incompatible things like this, you just give up on one. Now I don’t see how we can give up on either of these. There are various possibilities that I can canvass.

John Searle: Now, I should tell you most philosophers think this problem has been solved. They’ve been solved by something called compatibilism which says, “Well, really, if you understand what these words mean, you’ll see that free will and determinism are really compatible. To say that you have freedom is to say that you’re determined by certain sorts of causes – such as your desires – instead of somebody putting a gun at your head. I just think that’s a cop-out. Compatibilism evades the problem. The problem can be stated without using these words. The problem is: is it the case that for every decision that I make that the antecedent causes of that decision were sufficient to determine that very decision?

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Because if they are…

John Searle: We have no free will.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: And it’s an illusion?

John Searle: That’s right.

John Searle: There is an “experience gap.” We do have an “experience gap” every day. You decide: who am I going to vote for in the next election? Now you don’t just sit back and wait to see something happen. You actually have to think it through and make up your mind. Now that’s what I’m calling the gap: the conscious experience that the reasons that you have for an action, though they are rationally the basis for that action, don’t typically compel that action. Yes, I did like this feature of that candidate, and I did like this other feature of that other candidate, but I voted for this guy. But I could have voted for that person, equally well. I wasn’t compelled or forced.

John Searle: Here is the puzzling feature: as far as our conscious experiences are concerned, it seems to me our conscious reason, at the level of the mental, is not causally sufficient to force the next [decision]… I mean, you can see that by contrasting the cases where it is – where you really are in a grip of an obsession – with the cases where it isn’t. But the tougher question is: what about at the level of neurobiology? If the neurobiological level is causally sufficient to determine your behavior, then the fact that you have the experience of freedom at the higher level is really irrelevant.

Readers can watch the interview here (h/t Professor Jerry Coyne):

(Closer to Truth has a larger series of videos on the subject of free will, which is available here.)

Searle takes causal determinism for granted in the foregoing discussion, but as physicists are well aware, determinism does not hold at the submicroscopic level, where quantum indeterminacy reigns supreme.

Could the phenomenon quantum indeterminacy rescue our belief in free will? The renowned astrophysicist Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) thought so, although he expressed himself more cautiously in his later years. Nowadays, quantum indeterminacy is often pooh-poohed as totally irrelevant to the problem of free will, on the grounds that if an action is random and undetermined, then it is no more of a free decision than a causally determined action would be.

However, this objection presupposes that proponents of free will are identifying a free choice with some quantum-level event. But if we define a free choice as a macroscopic event which is imposed upon a large number of submicroscopic quantum-level events, and if we reject the common reductionist assumption that causation is always “bottom-up,” then it is possible to describe how a higher-level macroscopic event could be non-random, without being causally determined. I have described in several previous posts (see here, here, here and here) how this could work:

…[I]t is easy to show that a non-deterministic system may be subject to specific constraints, while still remaining random. These constraints may be imposed externally, or alternatively, they may be imposed from above, as in top-down causation. To see how this might work, suppose that my brain performs the high-level act of making a choice, and that this act imposes a constraint on the quantum micro-states of tiny particles in my brain. This doesn’t violate quantum randomness, because a selection can be non-random at the macro level, but random at the micro level. The following two rows of digits will serve to illustrate my point.

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

The above two rows of digits were created by a random number generator. The digits in some of these columns add up to 0; some add up to 1; and some add up to 2.

Now suppose that I impose the non-random macro requirement: keep the columns whose sum equals 1, and discard the rest. I now have:

1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

Each row is still random (at the micro level), but I have now imposed a non-random macro-level constraint on the system as a whole (at the macro level). That, I would suggest, what happens when I make a choice.

Top-down causation and free will

What I am proposing, in brief, is that top-down (macro–>micro) causation is real and fundamental (i.e. irreducible to lower-level acts). For if causation is always bottom-up (micro–>macro) and never top-down, or alternatively, if top-down causation is real, but only happens because it has already been determined by some preceding occurrence of bottom-up causation, then our actions are simply the product of our body chemistry – in which case they are not free, since they are determined by external circumstances which lie beyond our control. But if top-down causation is real and fundamental, then a person’s free choices, which are macroscopic events that occur in the brain at the highest level, can constrain events in the brain occurring at a lower, sub-microscopic level, and these constraints then can give rise to neuro-muscular movements, which occur in accordance with that person’s will. (For instance, in the case I discussed above, relating to rows of ones and zeroes, the requirement that the columns must add up to 1 might result in to the neuro-muscular act of raising my left arm, while the requirement that they add up to 2 might result in the act of raising my right arm.)

I’d now like to throw the discussion open to readers. Has Searle successfully refuted compatibilism? Can belief in libertarian, “contra-causal” free will survive, in an age of science? Could I have done otherwise than write this post? Finally, does evolution provide grounds for believing in some sort of free will, as Searle thinks?

Over to you.

Comments
John Searle, call home. This just in: http://releases.jhu.edu/2016/07/13/what-free-will-looks-like-in-the-brain/ -QQuerius
July 23, 2016
July
07
Jul
23
23
2016
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
velikovskys said:
Our conscious experience is also that will can be coerced.
I've never consciously experienced my will being coerced. I think the idea of "coerced will" is pretty much an oxymoron.
You have yet to show ,except by defining it as so, that non material free will is not determined by its nature as well.
It's hard for me to understand how you are still not getting this. In an attempt to explain logically how we can have actual free will and save our arguments from nihilistic, solipsistic nonsense, X (the source of free will) is posited as an acausal loci of intent. You then come back with "but X may not be an acausal loci of intent". That's a non-sequitur. It's so off-base, it's not even wrong. Acausal intentionality is the very thing being premised must exist in order to provide true free will; your answer may be "well, it may not exist. You haven't demonstrated that it exists." That doesn't even make sense. It doesn't matter if it actually exists; what matters if it's the only thing that can logically provide any meaningful free will.
Reason exists or it doesn’t, your premise is not necessary for it to exist. It can justify the belief if true.
Unless you provide an alterntive, you haven't made a logical case that it is not necessary. I don't see any other way to provide free will; at the end of the day, if will is caused, it is not free will. You cannot have a caused free will intention. It's a contradiction in concepts.
Our experience could be solphistic illusion even with your spiritual force premise. Not sure why you think chemical reactions are happenstance, most seem to be anything but happenstance.
You completely do not understand my point. I don't say "the supernatural exists, so there is acausal will; I'm saying that in order to a answer the free will problem, acausal intent must exist, and I'm calling that supernatural, because it's presumed acausal nature.
Possible sophistic thoughts and utterances
That's not a premise, that's a bald assertion of possibility in lieu of a premise that can lead to the conclusion.William J Murray
July 21, 2016
July
07
Jul
21
21
2016
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
John Searle on Free Will - Michael Egnor – July 21, 2016 Excerpt: I have pointed out many times that the human intellect and will are immaterial powers of the mind. This is so because abstract thought is the contemplation of universal concepts, such as mathematics, ethics, philosophy, logic, etc., none of which have complete instantiation in matter. The concept of "justice" isn't a physical thing -- it has no location or length or mass or volume. Therefore, it cannot be in brain tissue. Therefore it must be an immaterial thing. And the argument that there is a representation of the concept of justice in the brain, but not the concept of justice itself, is of no use. In order to represent the concept of justice, one presupposes the concept of justice. A photograph presupposes the existence of that which is represented in the photograph. A map of a city presupposes a city. Representation presupposes that which it represents. So, even if there is a "representation" of the concept of justice in the brain, you haven't explained the concept of justice, which is that which you need to explain. Abstract thought is immaterial, and the intellect and will, which are the powers by which we contemplate abstract thoughts, are immaterial powers of the mind. As such, the will cannot be determined by physics and chemistry, because the will is not a physical or chemical process. The will is free, in the sense that it is not determined by any physical thing. Of course the will is influenced by physical substances, such as alcohol, and the will is influenced by immaterial powers such as the intellect (a subject for discussion another time), but influence is not determination. It is in the nature of man that his will is an immaterial power of the soul, and the will is free in the sense that it is not determined by physical processes. The denial of free will is a crude philosophical error, made not only by philosophical naïfs like Jerry Coyne, but by accomplished philosophers like John Searle. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/john_searle_on103013.html
bornagain77
July 21, 2016
July
07
Jul
21
21
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Wjm: I didn’t say we have no evidence. (In fact, we have ongoing direct empirical evidence (our conscious experience) that our will is not deterministic.) Our conscious experience is also that will can be coerced. What I said is this is not an evidential argument. Regardless of what you call it, unless there is acausal deliberacy (whether we call it a supernatural agency or not), you cannot escape the physicalist’s dilemma wrt free will. You have yet to show ,except by defining it as so, that non material free will is not determined by its nature as well. It’s not a hypothesis. Whether or not it is actually true is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is a logically necessary premise in order for rationality to exist Reason exists or it doesn't, your premise is not necessary for it to exist. It can justify the belief if true. in order for our ongoing conscious experience to not be a total solipsistic illusion generated by happenstance chemical interactions. Our experience could be solphistic illusion even with your spiritual force premise. Not sure why you think chemical reactions are happenstance, most seem to be anything but happenstance. Feel free to provide a physicalist premise that frees us from the chains of whatever solipsistic thoughts and utterances happenstance interactions of chemistry happen to produce so that we can have confidence in the rationality of our analysis and conclusions Possible sophistic thoughts and utterances You cannot fix an inaccurate ruler by measuring it with itself. No you can't,but you use it to built a house which is usefulvelikovskys
July 20, 2016
July
07
Jul
20
20
2016
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
vjtorley, I consider evil to be a quality that is only present below the wholeness of god; superficially, it is a corruption of the proper functioning of the interface which allows an individuated (by the interface) particle of god to observe, experience and intend. Ultimately, all evil (corruption) inadvertently aids in the good.William J Murray
July 19, 2016
July
07
Jul
19
19
2016
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
vjtorley: You responded thusly to WJMurray:
You write: “I don’t believe the soul of a human is a contingent entity.” That’s an interesting viewpoint. Since some human souls are clearly morally deficient, and since whatever isn’t contingent is necessary, it follows that you are committed to believing that some necessary entities are deficient. That’s a rather odd position, . . .
You go on to say why this is "odd."
. . . since (a) it is hard to see how a simple entity (i.e. one which is by nature devoid of parts) could possibly be described as deficient (as it can lack nothing that should belong to it by nature – unlike a composite entity, which may sometimes lack one or more parts which it should normally possess – e.g. a three-legged sheep); and (b) not only classical theists, but many other philosophers as well, would maintain that an entity which is composite cannot be necessary. Do you consider the soul to be simple, composite, or neither of the above?
The "soul" is immortal, but not eternal. So the 'soul' shares, or participates, in the necessary being of an Eternal God, and so, would have similarities to it. If you try to pigeon-hole everything, I suspect errors will arise since we're dealing here with a 'hybrid' being. Jesus is fully God, and man. If he wasn't contingent, then how did he die? And, if He wasn't necessary, then how did he rise from the dead? We're up against the mystery of the Incarnation here; and, as you full well know, mysteries are hard to sort out. I was just reading about a "holographic" photon---which is a sort of bizarre congruence of words---and we might liken 'man' to a holographic image, the kind we see at Disneyland, where at the Haunted Mansion a woman speaks to us from a globe. Globes, as we know, don't contain women; but here we see an image of woman who is speaking to us. There really is a fairly good connection between this holographic, yet detailed and dynamic image, and our reality as humans. Let's note that the holographic image is the result of the manipulation of light: an intelligent act. Hence the image is the blend of natural elements and the infusion of an intellectual component, one that must be continuously maintained for the image to itself continue. Just some thoughts.PaV
July 19, 2016
July
07
Jul
19
19
2016
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
velikovskys said:
As you say we have no evidence that the immaterial is not deterministic as well bound by its own nature as the physical world is.
I didn't say we have no evidence. (In fact, we have ongoing direct empirical evidence (our conscious experience) that our will is not deterministic.) What I said is this is not an evidential argument. Regardless of what you call it, unless there is acausal deliberacy (whether we call it a supernatural agency or not), you cannot escape the physicalist's dilemma wrt free will.
It certainly does not help the hypothesis and causes one to wonder if the dichotomy you present represents reality
It's not a hypothesis. Whether or not it is actually true is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is a logically necessary premise in order for rationality to exist and in order for our ongoing conscious experience to not be a total solipsistic illusion generated by happenstance chemical interactions. Are you unable to engage the logic? Or unwilling? You keep trying to make this some sort of scientific investigation.
I accept it is possible, but I am not sure that your premise is valid.
Feel free to provide a physicalist premise that frees us from the chains of whatever solipsistic thoughts and utterances happenstance interactions of chemistry happen to produce so that we can have confidence in the rationality of our analysis and conclusions.
Possible of course, in which case your reasoning of what is the only basis of rationality was created by an irrational tool. But even a defective tool can be useful if one can determine how it is defective
You cannot fix an inaccurate ruler by measuring it with itself.William J Murray
July 19, 2016
July
07
Jul
19
19
2016
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Hi William J Murray, I just noticed your reply to velikovskys: "Ultimately, it is my view that everything is essentially one kind of thing; it just appears different depending on one’s perspective." OK, so you're a monist. That answers my question. So your view is that although the soul of a human may appear to be morally deficient, it should properly be regarded as an aspect of a much Larger Reality, which is in no way deficient. On your view, this Larger Reality would be simple and unconditioned, and hence necessary. That's a much more consistent view. What, then, do you make of evil?vjtorley
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Hi William J Murray, You write: "I don’t believe the soul of a human is a contingent entity." That's an interesting viewpoint. Since some human souls are clearly morally deficient, and since whatever isn't contingent is necessary, it follows that you are committed to believing that some necessary entities are deficient. That's a rather odd position, since (a) it is hard to see how a simple entity (i.e. one which is by nature devoid of parts) could possibly be described as deficient (as it can lack nothing that should belong to it by nature - unlike a composite entity, which may sometimes lack one or more parts which it should normally possess - e.g. a three-legged sheep); and (b) not only classical theists, but many other philosophers as well, would maintain that an entity which is composite cannot be necessary. Do you consider the soul to be simple, composite, or neither of the above?vjtorley
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
William: No, my view is not dualism. Try to understand; do not try to coerce what I say into some preconceived notion. Fair enough Ultimately, it is my view that everything is essentially one kind of thing; it just appears different depending on one’s perspective. Logically, that “one kind of thing” cannot be material in nature, because matter is far too limited to provide what is necessary. Go on, you seem to be saying either matter is not part of " everything" or it is not exclusively everything. What is necessary for what? Again, this is a logical argument. If brain states are considered physical effects, then they cannot solve the physicalist’s dilemma of free will As you say we have no evidence that the immaterial is not deterministic as well bound by its own nature as the physical world is. Whether or not I can provide you with some characterization of a supernatural will and how it works is entirely irrelevant to the point It certainly does not help the hypothesis and causes one to wonder if the dichotomy you present represents reality . Now I accept that how things are may irrelevant for you Unless you accept a supernatural, acausal free will, you have necessarily abandoned any hope of rational discourse. I accept it is possible, but I am not sure that your premise is valid. If we are entirely caused phenomena, then we might as well be leaves rustling chaotically on neighboring trees while some freak accident of chance has the sunlight causing us to think that those noises are both willful and rational. Possible of course, in which case your reasoning of what is the only basis of rationality was created by an irrational tool. But even a defective tool can be useful if one can determine how it is defective However it might actually work or be arranged is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it must be supernatural and it must work — or debate here is absurd. That certainly is a possibility , but since you have by your own admission been wrong in the past, you may be again. That is why dialogue is useful.velikovskys
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
The problem with John Searle's position as a materialist is that quantum mechanics has falsified materialism. This completely undercuts Professor Searle's presuppositions considering that the fundamental nature of reality is probabilistic information that's dependent on observation and measurement. Professor Searle is also unfamiliar with Chaos theory which undercuts determinism. If a butterfly in Brazil can cause tornadoes in Texas, what effect will a moth in Mexico have on a brain in Beaumont? It really wouldn't hurt some of these philosophers to take some modern courses in physics to move them out of the comforts of the 19th century. -QQuerius
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
vjtorley said:
I take it you believe that God maintains all contingent beings in existence, and that you and I are contingent beings. So I assume that what you mean here is that while the will of human beings depends on God for its existence, its acts (or choices) are uncaused. Do I understand you correctly?
I don't believe the soul of a human is a contingent entity.William J Murray
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 18:
Let’s have some real straight talk. The purpose for denying free will is to avoid the task of resisting temptation.
Well, it also rationalizes the conduct of those who wish to coerce the rest of us to go along with their wifty plans. After all, if free will is an illusion, then there's nothing wrong with ordering people around at gunpoint.EvilSnack
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
vivid @48
I am interested on your take regarding Augustine’s position, “non posse non peccare” (not able not to sin)
Vivid, as you probably know, Augustine discussed four classes of persons: Pre-fall (able to sin and not sin), Post-fall (able to sin and unable to not sin), Reborn (able to sin and not sin) Glorified (unable to sin). I interpret the second category to mean that man’s will; severely weakened (though not totally obliterated) by the fall, still allows him to perform some good acts; but he will, nevertheless, eventually, and by necessity, offend God in some way. He simply cannot avoid it. In an unredeemed state, and without supernatural grace, he does not have the moral power to live a perfect life. Still, he does have enough freedom of the will to make some good moral choices. If he had lost his free will entirely, he could not even turn to God for help in order to be redeemed. which would, in itself, be a good act.StephenB
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Hi William J Murray, You wrote:
While others might consider human souls to be caused entities, I do not. The supernatural will of humans is something I postulate as entirely acausal.
I take it you believe that God maintains all contingent beings in existence, and that you and I are contingent beings. So I assume that what you mean here is that while the will of human beings depends on God for its existence, its acts (or choices) are uncaused. Do I understand you correctly? There has been a long-running debate among libertarians as to whether human choices are uncaused or self-caused (i.e. I cause my own choices). Personally, I think it's a bit of a storm in a teacup: it depends on what you mean by "cause." But I'd be interested to hear your take on this issue. I'd also like to comment on rvb8's question:
Say you were born in another English speaking, Christian country; we’ll call Scotland a country. Grow up there in a Presbyterian environment, with good schooling, good health care etc, would Barry be the same Barry of US vintage, or would the pre-determined environment create an entirely different animal?
Personally, I think that my identity as a person depends on my having had the parents I had; consequently, had I been born of different parents, I would not be "me." A Hindu would reject my assumption, of course; so would a Platonist. St. Augustine probably would too, since he defined a human being as a mind, rather than an animal with a rational soul. You might enjoy reading this article: From Augustine's Mind to Aquinas' Soul by Fr. John O'Callaghan. Fr. O'Callaghan argues that belief in a soul does not imply substance dualism, or the belief that soul and body are two things. On the contrary, he maintains that every human being is a unity. An organism's soul is simply its underlying principle of unity. The human soul, with its ability to reason, does not distinguish us from animals; it distinguishes us as animals. The unity of a human being's actions is actually deeper and stronger than that underlying the acts of a non-rational animal: rationality allows us to bring together our past, present and future acts, when we formulate plans. When Aquinas argues that the act of intellect is not the act of a bodily organ, he is not showing that there is a non-animal act engaged in by human beings. He is showing, rather, that not every act of an animal is a bodily act. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what you think.vjtorley
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Velikovsky, Whether or not I can provide you with some characterization of a supernatural will and how it works is entirely irrelevant to the point. Unless you accept a supernatural, acausal free will, you have necessarily abandoned any hope of rational discourse. If we are entirely caused phenomena, then we might as well be leaves rustling chaotically on neighboring trees while some freak accident of chance has the sunlight causing us to think that those noises are both willful and rational. However it might actually work or be arranged is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it must be supernatural and it must work -- or debate here is absurd.William J Murray
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
velikovskys said:
Not complaining just trying examine your explanation,yes it is possible that I don’t understand.
No, it is obvious that you do not understand.
I get that is your view, dualism.
No, my view is not dualism. Try to understand; do not try to coerce what I say into some preconceived notion.
that somehow the immaterial interfaces with the material causing the vessel to respond.
Ultimately, it is my view that everything is essentially one kind of thing; it just appears different depending on one's perspective. Logically, that "one kind of thing" cannot be material in nature, because matter is far too limited to provide what is necessary.
Why not the brain performing the same function? We have evidence of what brain damage causes.
Again, this is a logical argument. If brain states are considered physical effects, then they cannot solve the physicalist's dilemma of free will.William J Murray
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
William: I recognize from the way you word your complaint that you “don’t see”, velikovskys, because you fundamentally misunderstand Not complaining just trying examine your explanation,yes it is possible that I don't understand. The spiritual force is not programming “us”; we are that spiritual force inhabiting and directing the physical tool/interface. I get that is your view, dualism. that somehow the immaterial interfaces with the material causing the vessel to respond. Why not the brain performing the same function? We have evidence of what brain damage causes. Other questions abound, if we really believe we are a spiritual force, why does morality care about the physical bodies? You are not torturing a child, that child is spiritual , untouchable . Torture is some spiritual force messing with chemistry. Also, you fail to understand that the supernatural nature of free will is logically postulated here as being acausal and supernatural, not asserted as a fact requiring supporting evidence I understood that convenient aspect too. What is the logic that the supernatural is not bound by its nature, curtailing its exercise of will to only certain parameters like our material body is bound by its chemistry and its structure and its knowledge?velikovskys
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 27: I get all of that. There are lots of reasons people become atheists or theists. My question was whether you come to this site on your own free will. In response you stated that you were dismayed at the stupidity of your Sunday school teachers and fellow students, and now you want to provide counterpoint views on creationist (and science) sites. Sounds to me like free will actions based on unresolved anger and hatred issues (just my opinion). Are you saying that you are driven or compelled to this site without any free will of your own? As to your question for me, no, it does not bother me at all to know that my life is largely out of my control. I choose (by my free will) to enjoy the good things while I have them and help those who need help while I can. There are lots of reasons in my past that could lead me to act otherwise (I hear that voice, too), but in the end I choose the other voice...of love, compassion, mercy and faith. Two competing voices from which one is chosen to believe and follow. That's free will.Truth Will Set You Free
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
velikovskys said:
I don’t see how a spiritual force programming us is different that environment and chemistry, any evidence that this spiritual force is not programmed itself by unknown factors?
I recognize from the way you word your complaint that you "don't see", velikovskys, because you fundamentally misunderstand. The spiritual force is not programming "us"; we are that spiritual force inhabiting and directing the physical tool/interface. Also, you fail to understand that the supernatural nature of free will is logically postulated here as being acausal and supernatural, not asserted as a fact requiring supporting evidence. While others might consider human souls to be caused entities, I do not. The supernatural will of humans is something I postulate as entirely acausal.William J Murray
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
William: all depends on what you think is actually going on when a person is born; is it a spiritual force inhabiting and animating a biological tool, or is it just a biological automaton programmed by chemistry and environment? I don't see how a spiritual force programming us is different that environment and chemistry, any evidence that this spiritual force is not programmed itself by unknown factors? Does the spitball force work by altering the chemical configuration?velikovskys
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
RE 48 To be clear Augustine is referring to natural man after the fall. Vividvividbleau
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Stephen "Yes. God is a causeless cause. Logically, the first cause of all other causes must be a causeless cause." I understand that, my fault since my question was poorly worded. Thinking about the rest of your answer. I am interested on your take regarding Augustine's position, "non posse non peccare" (not able not to sin) Vividvividbleau
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
These people seem to have lobotomized themselves. I'm laughing imagining RVB looks a lot like Jack Nicholson being led to his bed at the end of One Flew Over while typing....specter13
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
vivid
Stephen I am having difficulty understanding a “causeless cause” Are you saying that there are causes that have no cause?
Yes. God is a causeless cause. Logically, the first cause of all other causes must be a causeless cause. Also, a human who executes a moral act is a causeless cause in that one sense. He is morally responsible for what he does because his moral act (and the decision that precedes it) is not caused by previous events, though the biological, behavioral, and psycho-dynamic conditions that provide the context for his moral act, are caused. On the other hand, a human is not a causeless cause in the sense that his capacity to make a moral decisions come from God. Or, to put it in the active voice, God causes the human faculties of intellect and will to exist, but He is not responsible for what humans do with those faculties.StephenB
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
You haven’t answered my question: Say you were born in another English speaking, Christian country; we’ll call Scotland a country. Grow up there in a Presbytarian environment, with good schooling, good health care etc, would Barry be the same Barry of US vintage, or would the pre-determined environment create an entirely different animal?
It all depends on what you think is actually going on when a person is born; is it a spiritual force inhabiting and animating a biological tool, or is it just a biological automaton programmed by chemistry and environment? If the former, then you can expect a person to be that same person in some essential ways, even though working through and within different materials and situations will certainly necessitate some variations of action and thought. IOW, "Let's find a way to not be cold" means a different set of activities and thoughts in various physical environments. In this manner, s spiritual being in a physical body can know by conscience that an activity is wrong even if society at large holds the action to be right. If the latter, there is no reason to worry about slaves or slave wages; it's just how physics and chemistry shake things out. You might as well worry that some leaves on a tree get more light than others. There would be no "essential" aspect to any person, and a stray scent or piece of food can tip the scale from behaving with love to behaving cruelly.William J Murray
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
There are billions of people on this planet who live on slave wages.
What you see here is merely the difference between wildly-paid corporate leaders and cultural/political content-providers on the one hand, and the often poor, incapable and unorganized masses on the other. It's merely the playing out of the different arrangements of neural protein in their brains. Obviously, it's nothing to bother about. Whether the disparity is greater or lesser at any given point in time, it remains irrelevant in the true nature of things. As humans beings who feel pain and seek satisfaction, we may say that our conditions are better or worse, but as a scientifically-enlightened people, we can rest assured that those notions are ultimately silly in light of inexorable laws. I suppose there is a sense of intellectual dignity in simply accepting the things that do not changed, chief among them is the reality of inequity-based suffering as an inherent condition of the environment. Certainly there is no data to suggest that humans intend to stop taking advantage of each other. People do what profits them, and frankly given the resources, it would profit the upper half if the bottom half were simply to die. With a fully modern (reality-based) understanding of matter, we can all take solace -- those who waste fortunes on their whims and those who have nothing to eat -- that its simply a numbers game. The best you can hope for is to have those lucky protein arrangements above the mean, and let chemistry take it course. /sarcUpright BiPed
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Good Morning Everyone, Even that greeting is just one of many I could have chosen. If I do not have free will in choosing that then there is no free will. I will admit that my choice of greeting is limited by many social constraints, some I am aware of and some unconscious. I am aware that there are forces working on me. However, I know that I am making a choice and there is always at least one other choice I could have made. If there is not free will how can we condemn, or even be upset with, a young man running down people in Nice? After all he really did not have any choice. The answer is of course that our free will is determined by a spiritual part of our existence that is not controlled by the material world. That is why we do not hold a dog morally responsible. Rather we excuse it for acting on instinct for a dog must act like a dog. The comment by RVB8 on his siblings remaining in the Church is a perfect example of free will. He went 180 from them. He was not forced, he choose to go that way. He could today choose to go back. That is the basic thing. It all comes back to our choices. My entry into the Church (baptised April 14, 2001 - my second of three birthdays!) did not change the world, only how I saw it. All I can say is that the world from the Christian view is a world that makes sense. The world I saw before that was a much harsher, meaningless world. God BlessGCS
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
I believe; the only free will that matters: we did not ask to be born, but we will have to ask to be saved. A free, simple choice, on which rests the eternal fate of the human life form. Did God know who would be saved or not from the beginning of human free will?mw
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Without supernatural free will (transcending/overriding/constraining physical sequences from outside of the causal chain) and a supernatural basis for logic, rationality itself is impossible. This is the physicalists's dilemma which they must simply ignore even though it makes any argument they present otherwise intrinsically self-refuting. You might as well argue that language doesn't exist.William J Murray
July 18, 2016
July
07
Jul
18
18
2016
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply