| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,012 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Apr 13 2007, 08:34 PM Post #326 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You are assuming free will, Jeff, not proving it. You keep asserting it, but fail to give any mechanism other than electrochemical activity, which we commonly understand to follow immutable laws and patterns. So the logical assumption must be that what is conventionally called "free will" is likewise chemicals following immutable laws and patterns like any other set of chemicals. How do you escape that? The problem with your positivistic view of natural ethics is that you fail to account for the that established fact that the "laws of nature" must now be considered electrochemically, which you fail to do. You just do a bit of handwaving, invoke "free will" and hope that no one notices the intellectual legerdemain.
Of course not alien from the outside, they are intrinsic and the very material stuff of us biomachines. Nothing alien about them, for without the atoms and molecules and electrochemical reactions we simply would not be. If anything, they govern us from within. Again, a bit of handwaving, invoke "will" and PRESTO! chemicals are not doing what chemicals do because you say so?
Here you acknowledge electrical and chemical impulses are behind all these things, yet you can't bring yourself to say that they are also behind WILL? Why the aversion, Jeff? Why not simply admit that our "will" is really the product of electrochemical activity?
A car is not an automaton, it is a machine that requires an operator. An automaton is a self operating machine. From the Gk. αὐτόματος,, "self acting". Given what we know about the human being (and all forms of life) we are automata, or biomachines. We just happen to have different chemicals that give us self awareness, the ability to create ratios between things (hence rationality), and a few other faculties. Given that we can no longer hold the notion of immutable and stable human nature, it is more accurate and less emotionally loaded to consider us as self aware biomachines or automata. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, and we certainly wouldn't want to try to erect an ethical structure on sloppy thinking, would we? "Love" is of course defined in many ways. All that is really being said, regardless of the chosen definition (agape, eros, altruism, benevolence, charity, friendship, etc) is that some sequence of chemicals produces some particular effect. The semantics of love/not love are not important, Jeff, other than for sentimentality (obviously another neurochemical process). It is ONLY because of those chemicals, and ONLY through those chemicals, that we experience the various physical sensation we call love. Without those chemicals there is no love. Why then is love not reducible to chemicals? What else is there? (you surely don't think that love is anything other than a physical thing, do you?).
I don't think the Tuskegee Experiment is an imaginary example. Nor is chemical castration. You must have missed the part where I noted that science and medicine has done lots of neat things. I have no problem with anyone using knowledge to increase human well being, but all those finer points about what that entails makes for extreme difficulties and vast potential for abuse and massive damage. In short, I just don't trust scientists to tinker with the human biomachines on the level of neurochemistry to build a better machine. Do you?
So what exactly are you taking from the Greeks? That we are social beings? That we are disposed to seeking the truth? That we are inclined to acquire things we find good? That we like pleasure and have aversions to pain? That we want to propagate and are inclined to self preservation? Or is it something else? It better be something else, since you are sounding like a closet natural law theorist. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 13 2007, 09:11 PM Post #327 |
|
Senior Carp
|
IT: "It is ONLY because of those chemicals, and ONLY through those chemicals, that we experience the various physical sensation we call love. Without those chemicals there is no love. Why then is love not reducible to chemicals? What else is there? (you surely don't think that love is anything other than a physical thing, do you?)." I wouldn't use the term "reducible", I would use the term "explained by" or "constituted by". There is no reduction. But yes, as I have said 15 or so times, love, free will, well-being etc. are all purely physical processes (both chemical and electrical, based on our current understanding), and without these physical processes, these things do not exist. You seem to think that "Free will is a chemical and electrical process" is a contradiction of terms, and that free will cannot be a physical process, by virtue of the meaning of the term. If so, please explain what you think free will could possibly be, other than magic. Edit: Strictly speaking, I am a functionalist in the philosophy of mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism...osophy_of_mind) Some places above I seem to have lapsed into a one-to-one identity theory, whereby "choice" or "love" or "consciousness" is identified with a certain chemical process. But non-mammelian creatures (robots, for example) could have mental states (e.g. "self-awareness"), and some of the mental states in question (e.g. romantic love) involve intentional states towards others outside the brain, so I should broaden my definition a bit. None of this changes any of my dispute with IT. Functionalism is still a purely materialist approach to mental states, and would still have the same alleged "problems" IT is concerned about. Also, a bit more on ethical naturalism. Above someone (Larry?) thought it was wrong to claim there were moral facts in nature (which the poster viewed as an amoral realm of animals eating one another or something). But natural simply means in this context a fact that can be discovered by science in the material world. Human well-being is the most obvious of these facts, and one of the main goals of morality is to increase this. It is usually not hard by observation to see if an action helps or hurts human well-being over all, and this would be the sort of natural, observable fact that makes an action morally right or morally wrong. Very simple, really. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 13 2007, 09:48 PM Post #328 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Never mind. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 13 2007, 11:15 PM Post #329 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OK, so we are in substantial agreement that free will is some sort of neurochemical process. You want the biomachine to be "free" of the actions of these chemicals. Perhaps you can give me some other examples of how the biomachine can be unaffected by the operation of the chemicals that constitute its own biomachine: for instance, can we decide that amino acids not form proteins? Or that erythrocytes not deliver oxygen? Or that adrenaline not increase the supplies of oxygen and glucose to the brain and muscles? Unless you can show *how* the biomachine is "free" and unaffected by the very chemicals that make it operate, we must assume that it is the idea of "free will" that is wrong, not physics.
That is not even what I seem to think. I've already accepted your assertion that we are soulless biomachines. So to correct your misstatements: "You seem to think that "Free will is a chemical and electrical process" I should not have to point out to you that is not an argument to say "it must be this because that is what we call it, what else could it be"? You are also again assuming the existence of "free will" in asking me what it could possibly be. I have already accepted your definition that the human being is a soulless biomachine -- a TRUE automaton constantly processing the chemicals that govern its operations. (Unless you can show me how *we* govern chemistry without recourse to the tautology of "free will"). So there is no necessary answer to what free will need be, since it seems that it need not be. In a completely material universe, that is the most elegant and simple solution. Entia non sunt multiplicanda and all that.... But for fun, some classical thinkers would have handled the matter through connatural, or adamic knowledge. That of course is not unlike what Gebser would consider "magical consciousness" wherein there was a polar tension between the subject and object (in your case between your "Will" and the atoms, molecules, chemicals and electrical activity that constitute it) such that there was an integral relationship of mutual cause and effect between the two. But I doubt you want to go there to resolve the issue. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 14 2007, 04:05 AM Post #330 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I think your usage of "free will" is different to each other. Ivory you (i think) are appealing to the classical theological concept. Which i agree with you, is totally bunk. Jeffery is (i think) appealing to a compatibilist view of free will whereby the emphasis is not on ultimate mechanistic origins but simply relates to us, or put another way it refers to the subset of eletrochemical processes in the brain involved in decision making and whether that subset is able to influence the behaviour of the body in accordance to the expectations of behaviour also present in the brain. (The ultimate origins of these expectations and decisions, whether they are determined or not, that all becomes irrelevent to the compatibilist). i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Determinism Even though you're using the same words i don't think you are talking about the same thing. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Apr 14 2007, 04:09 AM Post #331 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
been out if this thread for a while, and then u go and read the last posts and u see u havent missed anything. just like...days of our lives....
|
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 14 2007, 05:21 AM Post #332 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Moonbat - Yes, I did say above that IT's Contra-Causal conception of free will was not compatible with modern science. Your gloss is correct, I am what would be called a "compatibilist" in the traditional terminilogy of these things. It's not that we are using the same word to mean different things, we are discussing (if that is the right phrase) what "free will" or "choice" or "reason" are. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 14 2007, 05:28 AM Post #333 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
ivorythumper, Help me out a bit here... Is it your thesis that "physical processes" cannot give rise to "free will" because "physical processes" are "deterministic"? Such that given the same set of stimuli, two "biomachines" of identical content and identical configuration MUST react the same way and will always lead to the same "decision" or the same "choice" to be made by these two "biomachines"? |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 14 2007, 06:33 AM Post #334 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Another point on compatiblism/free will. I take IT's point to be that if choice and free will is simply a series of chemical and electrical reactions, and if these chemical and electrical reactions are set in a deterministic universe, then we don't really have "free" will, since our responses to events are fixed, and we "could not have done otherwise". I think this is a bad argument, since it equates "free" with "magical", but I will approach the issue from another direction: If we assume that there is a God and that this God is omniscient, and has foreknowledge, this God knows, for 100% certain, what we will do in the future. In this case we also "cannot do otherwise" than what God knows, right now, we will do in the future. If science is a problem for genuinely free will (as IT conceives of it) then so is God's foreknowledge. Just to be clear, I think both of these arguments are equally bad, neither science and the laws of nature, nor God's alleged foreknowledge, undermine the genuineness of free will. But if the one argument works, so does the other, for similar reasons. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Apr 14 2007, 06:36 AM Post #335 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I'm calling it. The No's have it. :ph43r: |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 14 2007, 10:25 AM Post #336 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Jeffrey: Since you told me that we are soulless biomachines, I've come to understand that there is no such thing as "free will" -- from naturalism, contracausality, spirituality, anything. So it is a silly argument to say "that IT's Contra-Causal conception of free will was not compatible with modern science." since I hold that the concept of free will must now be understood to be incorrect, not the chemistry that gives us the appearence of free will. I have no problem with "reason" being the processing of ratios between two things -- that is something an AI computer can potentially do, but "free will"? A whole other problem if your think it is any thing more than weirdly complex and not understood algorithms produced by the neurochemicals. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 14 2007, 10:28 AM Post #337 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I suppose that might be the case, though we have yet to find two completely identical biomachines. However, the evidence of identical twins separated at birth and growing up in different circumstances that wind up developing eerily similar tastes, skills, avocations, professions, life patterns, etc certainly would support that intuition. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 14 2007, 10:34 AM Post #338 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You keep using magic and magical in an unfamiliar way. Please define your meaning, since it is not magical that a billiard ball drop to the floor when you release it. Your argument from God is not based at all on how classical (Catholic) theology considers God in relation to free will, nor does it consider the relationship between act and potency, time and eternity, spirit and matter, and a whole host of other considerations. Unless you are dealing with the question in its entirity, you are setting up a straw man that you think you can knock down easily. We have company coming in town, and then I travel next week, so I'll be scarce. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 14 2007, 10:54 AM Post #339 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Was that predestined or of free will? |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 14 2007, 11:38 AM Post #340 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Have a safe trip, Steve. I know my well-wishes do not change the pre-determined facts of the trip, but my chemicals impell me to wish you well anyway. (Yes, this is a joke).
|
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 14 2007, 12:29 PM Post #341 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jeffery told a joke. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 14 2007, 12:47 PM Post #342 |
|
Senior Carp
|
You will also surely like the following book, written by an analytically trained contemporary philosopher: http://www.amazon.com/Only-Promise-Happine...76583521&sr=1-1 |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 14 2007, 01:31 PM Post #343 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'd like you to recommend a book on why some Jews are the funniest people on earth and why some do such a fantastic job in the other direction.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 14 2007, 02:48 PM Post #344 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If you suddenly start acting with benevolence toward me, I might have to rethink your assertion that we are soulless biomachines. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 14 2007, 08:56 PM Post #345 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I argued with a study group this exact point at a Bible Camp just a few years ago... this point about "foreknowledge/omniscience" being inconsistent with "free will." [And unlike ivorythumper, I don't think there's any "other consideration" needed to argue this point, it can stand alone just fine.]I was tempted but chose not bring it up this time because I'd like to see if the "science and laws and nature undermine the genuineness of free will" argument can stand on its own (as opposed to an argument that's simply "not worse than" the "God's alleged foreknowledge undermines the genuineness of free will" argument.
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 14 2007, 08:57 PM Post #346 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The reason I brought this up, ivorythumper, is that I do not believe that, whether in biomachine or in any other system, physical processes are "deterministic" in a strict/absolute sense. Quantum mechanic is "probabilistic" rather than "deterministic." It is not guaranteed that two identical systems (if such identical pair actually exists) would react to the exact same stimuli (or just evolve on their own) in identical ways. Couple that with Chaos Theory, and even what started as the smallest discrepancies (due to the probabilistic nature of the underlying physics) in a very small part of a system can lead to vastly different outcomes down the line. Hence even as biomachines whose behavior reflects the outcomes of sequences of electrochemical reactions, two "identical biomachines" subject to the exact same "stimuli" can "make" vastly different "decisions" or "choices." Can this pass for "free will"? I am willing to say "yes." What say you? |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 14 2007, 09:15 PM Post #347 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Once I start seeing words like "compatiblism" and "probabilistic" I know I'm reading the words of people who are more interested in mental masturbation than in finding answers. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 14 2007, 09:29 PM Post #348 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Is probabilistic a shorthand for "we can pretty much determine it, but still haven't figured out quite how it works"? I can't let you off the hook that easily for deciding that even if two "identical" biomachines are given "exactly the same stimuli" produce two vastly different outcomes that it is not deterministic (a rather strange term -- who determined that one?). We simply do not have the ability to measure the exactitude of identicality, either for the object or the subject, to decide this -- it can only be an approximation. And besides, strictly speaking you are still talking about this process giving the result that we call "free will" -- the minute variations in stimulus or in the operation of the biomachine that yield vastly different results are indeed better explained through something objectively verifiable such as chaos theory than through recourse to some notion of "free will" that carries with it all sorts of suppositions and intellectual baggage from outmoded understandings of philosophical anthropology, ontology, cosmology, etc. If your going to be a materialist, be a materialist. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 14 2007, 09:56 PM Post #349 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I've just argued that the notion of "free will" can be accommodated within the laws of physics (using quantum mechanics and chaos theory) as we understand them today, and therefore viewing humans as "biomachines" does not strip them of "free will." That's not "materialist" enough for you?
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 14 2007, 10:37 PM Post #350 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You did not argue that the notion of "free will" can be accommodated within the laws of physics, you simply stated it. Reread your post two above -- you are not explaining how the will is "free"; you are simply explaining how we can account for differentiation in results *assuming* identicality and exactly the same stimuli (which in itself is a massive and impractical assumption). Even assuming chaos and quantum, you still haven't explained how the will as a neurochemical process is "free" -- quantum machanics still yield a very high degree of predictability; chaos theory is still deterministic. Yet even more are you begging the question in that even if we assume that the human biomachine had some sort of randomizer that allowed for vastly different results, the action is still a "result" of biochemical activity -- it can be nothing other than a result AND THAT PRECISE RESULT given whatever particular variables of stimulus, energy, matter, space, time, etc and whatever that randomized factor is. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










[And unlike ivorythumper, I don't think there's any "other consideration" needed to argue this point, it can stand alone just fine.]

12:45 AM Jul 13