*sigh* The illusion of free will

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

The basis of everything I started this thread for is this: The mind is a part of the universe; part of its laws of physics and cause & effect. It is impossible to dispute this.

I don't think that there is a dispute. IOW, maybe the real question lies elsewhere and you are, intentionally or not, fighting a strawman.

Just by observing the dynamics of this thread, I think that the crux of Z's point would be to reset the table by asking, 'Are qualia "part of the universe"? Or are you denying qualia altogether?'

Because it seems to me that the only way to get the result for which you seem to be aiming would be to put qualia in parentheses.

Considering that scientists, at least on the cutting edges, no longer bracket qualia with a handwaving dismissiveness, it seems that the exigencies of the question have finally caught up to their field. And all of this, even though they know full-well that their field is unable to treat qualia as other than an unfactorable 'X'.

So the real question seems to be, 'Does one deny freewill simply because one can't capture it in a bottle?'

[Fist and Faith]

I'm trying to build things up one step at a time. This seems to be the starting point. If we can agree on the conditions here, we can move on to the next step, whatever that may be. At some point, there will be disagreement. Finding that point, and hashing it out until we come to agreement on it, may resolve the issue.

So I think the mind controls the physical body. Which means the mind exists within the same system of laws that the physical body exists within.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I'm trying to build things up one step at a time. This seems to be the starting point. If we can agree on the conditions here, we can move on to the next step, whatever that may be. At some point, there will be disagreement. Finding that point, and hashing it out until we come to agreement on it, may resolve the issue.

So I think the mind controls the physical body. Which means the mind exists within the same system of laws that the physical body exists within.

But is this really the starting point? I'm not so sure. (Of course, I'm not disputing that you posited such on this thread as being the starting point, but it seems to me that there are unspoken philosophical assumptions undergirding your posited starting point.)

A bit earlier, you had said: 'The mind is a part of the universe; part of its laws of physics and cause & effect. It is impossible to dispute this.'

The way I read this is: 'The mind is part of the universe [so far, so good]; the universe is science [whoa, Nelly!]. This is a first principle [an axiom].'

It's the subtle insertion of that codicil (i.e. 'the universe is physics/cause & effect') which may well be the point of contention.

[Fist and Faith]

I then explained my position. The mind arises from DNA, sensory input, and the chemicals in the body. All of these are governed by the laws of particle particles/chemistry.

Also, the mind controls the body. The body is a physical thing, and it moves because chemicals and bio-electrical activity cause the muscles to contract. The mind makes that happen. Can that be accomplished without the laws of particle physics/chemistry? Are neurotransmitters released for reasons that do not involve these laws?

What is the alternative? If that is not how these things work, how do they? Or if the starting point I have suggested is not the starting point, what is?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I then explained my position. The mind arises from DNA, sensory input, and the chemicals in the body. All of these are governed by the laws of particle particles/chemistry.

Also, the mind controls the body. The body is a physical thing, and it moves because chemicals and bio-electrical activity cause the muscles to contract. The mind makes that happen. Can that be accomplished without the laws of particle physics/chemistry? Are neurotransmitters released for reasons that do not involve these laws?

What is the alternative? If that is not how these things work, how do they? Or if the starting point I have suggested is not the starting point, what is?

Firstly (and I hope that I'm not coming off as unnecessarily combative), my only initial purpose is to identify the point-of-disagreement, and I think that this 'starting point' you propose may well be it.

Secondly, you seem to assume some sort of 'fundamental substrate' to which everything reduces and that, if anyone is unable (or unwilling) to offer an alternate substrate (a 'theory of everything'), then science/physics/particles/etc becomes the default position. That's far from certain.

Maybe there is no fundamental substrate. Maybe things are what things are. Maybe an apple is an apple, and a cloud is a cloud, and the EU is the EU. There is no rule that says that, as a condition of making a true statement about reality, one must have access to a 'ground'. That is, no 'ground' other than the real-life world in which we all live. This would the starting point for Realists.

A Realist would say that science may be one way to describe these things. One way to describe reality. But not the only way. A Realist would be likely to say something along the lines of 'the universe contains science', but not 'science contains the universe'.

[Fist and Faith]

If you disagree with my starting point, and do not offer a substitute - indeed, there is none - then what do you suggest?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

If you disagree with my starting point, and do not offer a substitute - indeed, there is none - then what do you suggest?

Well, I don't want to bogart your and Z's convo, so I think that I'll wait for Z to chime in. I've probably got some thoughts, but I want to see if Z thinks that I've added anything productive. It can go from there, I s'pose.

[Fist and Faith]

We can have two conversations in this thread. It's my thread, so I'll allow it.

[Zarathustra]

Jumping back here, since I saw you and Av discussing things. Hoping to narrow things down a little. We branched out into a few areas.

At some point I think we need to recapture our incredulity for such "accidents." There is more going on here.

How much do you still agree with this:

We turn wonder and awe into a sucking void of "this is not enough in itself, there must be more."

I was talking supernatural vs natural explanations in that 2nd post. I still believe in a natural explanation, I just think that telos is natural, otherwise it would have never manifested through natural beings, such as us. Saying that "there must be more" isn't always meant in terms of "more beyond this universe." In fact, science always moves toward better explanations by people realizing there is more that is not captured by the theory.

The mind is a part of the universe; part of its laws of physics and cause & effect. It is impossible to dispute this.

You'd be correct if you said "brain" instead of "mind." It is quite possible to dispute that the mind is part of the physical laws of cause and effect. I've shown numerous times how the content of mind may not be dependent upon physical cause and effect, even while the production of the mind is. Insisting upon the latter doesn't necessitate the former (see below).

In the other direction, our minds direct our conscious, physical actions. If I reach for the candy, it is because my brain sends a signal to the motor pathway; a motor neuron fires; a chemical is released, which hits the muscle; the muscle fibers react; my hand moves.

The mind is both an effect and cause within all of these chemicals and physical structures, and every step of all of these processes follow the laws of the physics, and cause & effect.

So what parts of all that do you disagree with?

I agree with all of that, but you've left out the parts that I do not think can be reduced to physical causation. For physical acts, the missing part is the potential purpose or goal in that act. I don't believe any law of physics will ever be able to tell you that a particular clump of matter is about to make a computer (or car or atom bomb). You could analyze every atom in the brain, and NEVER be able to predict the intention residing in the mind, much less devise a physical law that determines "x arrangement of atoms = y intention."

And that's just for physical acts, which are entirely different from creative or rational thought. It's possible that we often act thoughtlessly (like grabbing a piece of candy), but when a thought process depends upon creativity, math, or logic, these are not built into the laws of physics and thus could never be derived from them. The causation between one thought and the next is happening due to causes that have literally nothing to do with the motions of atoms or their chemical bonds. Any number of atomic motions could convey exactly the same meaning. There is no deterministic relationship between the signal carrier and the signal itself. It's entirely arbitrary.

Now, that's not saying you can't ever understand and predict the workings of the mind with some type of scientific theory, but it will have to be one working on a much higher level than physics and chemistry. Something more like psychology ... or something new altogether. Causation doesn't have to be limited to the kind described in physics. There is obviously causation on "higher" levels, when you talk about the reasons why people do things. We only assume it all reduces to physics because of the hierarchal way we arrange sciences. But maybe the hierarchal picture we have of "levels of scientific" explanation--with physics on the bottom, biology in the middle, and social sciences at the top--is all wrong. Why should physics be the foundation of everything else? That's just a prejudice we've developed given the modern success of the so-called hard sciences. Maybe the levels of explanation intertwine in ways we don't expect, so that the causal relations loop from the "higher" levels on the hierarchy back to the "lower" levels. It's all science. Why does one HAVE to be primary?

I think these kinds of prejudices are hidden all throughout our unexamined metaphysical assumptions.

[Avatar]

Isn't that inevitable since we're examining and trying to understand and describe a system from the inside?

--A

[Zarathustra]

Isn't that inevitable since we're examining and trying to understand and describe a system from the inside?

--A

What's inevitable? Hierarchal ranking of scientific explanations? I don't think so. The strategy of reductionism rests upon this hierarchal structure. If, as things get more complex, relationships of things aren't reducible to relationships of their constituent parts, then it's not inevitable at all. In fact, it's misleading.

When clumps of matter are simple, everything interesting about them can be entirely described in terms of forces, fields, and motions. But when clumps of matter come to life and start breeding, eating, fleeing, preying, socializing, politicizing, philosophizing, all the interesting things about these clumps of matter are completely lost when analyzed in terms of forces, fields and motion. Even if you *could* describe all these spheres of action in terms of physics, you'd miss much that makes them what they are ... their essence.

Imagine something like a board game. It's a great way for a family to spend some light hearted face time with each other. But if you described it entirely in terms of motions of pieces of matter, you'd miss things like the rules of the game, which govern the movement of pieces across the board on a level that's almost entirely independent of the physics underlying that movement. While it's true that the game pieces must still obey the laws of physics, science can only define the possible paths they can take. What defines the actual path they take are rules of some silly game invented by humans. But those rules constitute the very essence of the game, without which it would not exist.

If reductionism was the ultimate, inevitable explanation of everything, then science would be utterly blind to most of the things we find interesting and valuable. They literally wouldn't exist when described in terms of physics.

With that said, let's assume for a moment that you're right, and everything reduces to physics. That commits you to the inevitable conclusion that even philosophy and religion are properties of matter. Somewhere inside atoms, Jesus's love would have to reside. Descartes's cogito would have to reside. Every thought that every human has ever had would have to be programmed in matter, if it's nothing more than a product of physics.

Now, the burden of proof would lie with the reductionists to come up with the proof that philosophy reduces to movements of atoms. If you think that's possible, then you must explain how. How do tiny bits of matter bump into each other in just the right way that existentialism pops out? Given that things like existentialism and Christianity aren't bits of matter, but instead collections of ideas, what is the basis of connection between ideas and matter? How do the laws of physics latch onto them at all, in order to affect their "shape?"

I think that by losing the incredulity which I mention above, people start assuming that these problems are easy. They are fantastically problematic! And until you ask yourself questions such as those I list above, your realism is naive and unexamined. You can't just sweep these problems under the rug by assuming that it all reduces to physics. The assumption of reductionism is the very thing in question.

What makes it easy to think these problems are soluble via reductionism is the analogy of brain to digital computer. Since we program electrical circuits to model logic, and thereby store information and meaning in electrical circuits, it seems natural that matter and meaning can be made to "adhere." However, computers derive their meaning from the top-down. We know that "01011010" (or off-on-off-on-on-off-on-off) stands for "n" because we've made a choice to invent that relationship. Those combinations of electrical currents could stand for anything. No law of physics determines that this particular physical structure has this conceptual relevance ... much less that "n" itself stands for something else, namely, a nasally sound made by humans during speech. And no law of physics attaches that nasally sound to concepts, either, because we use that sound in millions of different concepts, all of those uses being entirely arbitrary. We could have used the sound symbolized by "t" in those words and got along just fine.

So the only reason that computer input/output means anything at all, instead of a jibberish of 1s and 0s, is because someone invented a set of rules (much like a board game) that translates one to the other. The laws of physics have absolutely no say in those rules, and therefore offer no help whatsoever in illuminating how meaning in adheres to neural "circuits" in our brains. Computers only have meaning because they are built by humans to have meaning, and their output is only relative to our interpretation. Because they are created with the very consciousness we're trying to explain, they contain the very same mystery we're trying to explain, and thus offer no explanation by way of analogy.

[Zarathustra]

...I want to see if Z thinks that I've added anything productive. It can go from there, I s'pose.

Yeah, you've added some good points:

...you seem to assume some sort of 'fundamental substrate' to which everything reduces and that, if anyone is unable (or unwilling) to offer an alternate substrate (a 'theory of everything'), then science/physics/particles/etc becomes the default position. That's far from certain.

Maybe there is no fundamental substrate. Maybe things are what things are. Maybe an apple is an apple, and a cloud is a cloud, and the EU is the EU. There is no rule that says that, as a condition of making a true statement about reality, one must have access to a 'ground'. That is, no 'ground' other than the real-life world in which we all live. This would the starting point for Realists.

A Realist would say that science may be one way to describe these things. One way to describe reality. But not the only way. A Realist would be likely to say something along the lines of 'the universe contains science', but not 'science contains the universe'.

I think we're making similar points, basically anti-reductionism?

What do you mean by 'realist' in this sense? I think the world as given in human activity would be a starting point for existentialists. I suppose this can be a sort of realism. But materialists and reductionists would consider themselves realists, too, right?

[Avatar]

What's inevitable? Hierarchal ranking of scientific explanations?

No, hidden assumptions.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Crap, so many paragraphs wasted on the wrong point!

It's inevitable that we have metaphysical assumptions, but not inevitable that they remain unexamined. That's why we have philosophy.

[Fist and Faith]

I think this is the key point:

You could analyze every atom in the brain, and NEVER be able to predict the intention residing in the mind, much less devise a physical law that determines "x arrangement of atoms = y intention."

We can say the same thing about a computer. We cannot examine its atoms and predict what it will do. But it is about to do something. And, ultimately, it's all happening at the particle level. Again, from Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind:

Although chemistry is theoretically based on physics and could be derived entirely from physics, this would be unwieldy and infeasible in practice, so chemistry has established its own rules and models. Similarly, we should be able to deduce the laws of thermodynamics from physics, but once we have a sufficient number of particles to call them a gas rather than simply a bunch of particles, solving equations for the physics of each particle interaction becomes hopeless, whereas the laws of thermodynamics work quite well. Biology likewise has its own rules and models. A single pancreatic islet cell is enormously complicated, especially if we model it at the level of molecules; modeling what a pancreas actually does in terms of regulating levels of insulin and digestive enzymes is considerably less complex.

Some people program computers in Basic, or C++, or Fortran, or whatever. Fewer do the actual binary code. And nobody programs a new video game at the particle level. But it IS happening at the particle level. And if our brains were up to the task, we could understand it and play it at the particle level.

Who's to say that's not what's going on in our brains? Enormously more complex, to be sure. Who's to say what the limits of particles and the ways they interact are? They are the reason we have A, B, C, D ... W, X, and Y, but they can't do Z? How do we know that?

[Avatar]

Crap, so many paragraphs wasted on the wrong point!

I did feel sorry for you while reading it. Well written though. I don't believe it all reduces to physics though...I believe that we're greater than the sum of our parts.

They will be examined, but our examinations are almost certainly full of assumptions of their own.

--A

[Zarathustra]

I think this is the key point:

You could analyze every atom in the brain, and NEVER be able to predict the intention residing in the mind, much less devise a physical law that determines "x arrangement of atoms = y intention."

We can say the same thing about a computer. We cannot examine its atoms and predict what it will do. But it is about to do something. And, ultimately, it's all happening at the particle level.

I don't think the analogy works at all. First, computers don't have intentions. They have programs. Secondly, we could very well examine its circuits and predict what it will do, because we're the ones who designed it to do just that. Even its software is physically encoded on a hard drive. A detailed examination would absolutely reveal what the computer will do. How could it not?

The difference between brains and computers is that everything computers do can be reduced to an algorithm. Intentionality and qualia are non-algorithmic phenomena. You can objectively describe what a computer does--in fact, that's exactly what its program is, an objective description that 100% captures every possible function of that computer for a given context--but you can't objectively describe the subjective quality of our consciousness.

Although chemistry is theoretically based on physics and could be derived entirely from physics, this would be unwieldy and infeasible in practice, so chemistry has established its own rules and models. Similarly, we should be able to deduce the laws of thermodynamics from physics, but once we have a sufficient number of particles to call them a gas rather than simply a bunch of particles, solving equations for the physics of each particle interaction becomes hopeless, whereas the laws of thermodynamics work quite well. Biology likewise has its own rules and models. A single pancreatic islet cell is enormously complicated, especially if we model it at the level of molecules; modeling what a pancreas actually does in terms of regulating levels of insulin and digestive enzymes is considerably less complex.

That's an argument against reductionism, isn't it? As things get more complex, it makes more sense to describe them in terms that ignore their physical basis in particles, fields, and forces. That's my whole point! Maybe this is not a short-cut as much as it is the realization of higher level functioning. It's not only simpler and easier to talk about biological rules instead of molecular ones, it's also more revelatory. We would miss relationships, patterns of interaction, if we kept our focus at the level of atoms. And this is even more obvious for social sciences that deal with conscious beings.

Why is the same thing not true for a star? The atomic view of a star is the most revelatory view, explaining even the large scale structure of this massive ball of thermonuclear fire as a balancing act between heat and gravity. Without knowledge of nuclear reactions, everything about a star is a puzzle. But you could understand most of life on earth without knowing anything about nuclear reactions, simply by understanding Darwinian evolution.

Some people program computers in Basic, or C++, or Fortran, or whatever. Fewer do the actual binary code. And nobody programs a new video game at the particle level. But it IS happening at the particle level. And if our brains were up to the task, we could understand it and play it at the particle level.

The engineers who design the processors and mother boards are "programming" the computer at the physical level. Logic is encoded in the electrical circuits themselves, which is why computers can run software at all. Controlling the flow of electrons to mimic the flow of logic is programming at the particle level.

But as I've already said, this doesn't help us understand the mystery of the brain, because that mystery is involved in creating computers. Computers didn't evolve from the bottom-up due to physical processes in nature. They were designed top-down (i.e. with a goal or intention first, then a detailed plan later) by goal-oriented, conscious beings.

***************************************************************

Let me try a new tactic. Will you concede at all the possibility of causation on a "higher" level than particles and forces? Or is particle/force causation the only kind that exists in your view? When I see a commercial on TV for potato chips, and this causes me to go out and buy potato chips, is it meaningful and true to say that an ad campaign worked? Or is that just a short cut euphemism to describe an atomic process of causation? Is there nothing going on at these higher levels at all? Is everything in the human sphere of interaction no more real than the icon on a computer's "desktop" that allows you to engage a much more complex program with a double click?

I reject the notion that just because we can create a reductive explanation for the underpinning of all these processes that this must mean there is nothing real about those processes themselves. Reality is much too complex to pretend that there is only one level that is real. The agreement or disagreement you have after reading this sentence is more than an arrangement of atoms. Not only can it exist without any knowledge of those atoms whatsoever, but a description of those atoms would entirely miss its content and meaning. From either direction--top down or bottom up--these levels need not connect at all. In fact, their "connection" is still a vast mystery. To ignore that mystery by assuming that it all reduces to particles is at the very least an unproven hypothesis, and at most a misguided metaphysics.

Another way to ask: can an entity ever be more than the sum of its parts? Does anything new whatsoever develop when you put atoms together in certain ways? Or are they always nothing more than collections of atoms? If this is so, then why are some systems better described by "higher" level rules (like biological systems) while others are better described by "lower" level rules (like stars)? Is complexity nothing more than complication? Surely not, or there would be no difference between chaos and order.

[Fist and Faith]

I think this is the key point:

You could analyze every atom in the brain, and NEVER be able to predict the intention residing in the mind, much less devise a physical law that determines "x arrangement of atoms = y intention."

We can say the same thing about a computer. We cannot examine its atoms and predict what it will do. But it is about to do something. And, ultimately, it's all happening at the particle level.

I don't think the analogy works at all. First, computers don't have intentions. They have programs. Secondly, we could very well examine its circuits and predict what it will do, because we're the ones who designed it to do just that. Even its software is physically encoded on a hard drive. A detailed examination would absolutely reveal what the computer will do. How could it not?

You changed the point I was making, which was based on the point you made. We were talking about examining atoms. We can examine every atom in a computer, and have no idea of what it is about to do. The same is true of the brain. Not being able to predict what a brain will do by examining every atom in it is not evidence that the mind is anything other than the brain's activity.

Although chemistry is theoretically based on physics and could be derived entirely from physics, this would be unwieldy and infeasible in practice, so chemistry has established its own rules and models. Similarly, we should be able to deduce the laws of thermodynamics from physics, but once we have a sufficient number of particles to call them a gas rather than simply a bunch of particles, solving equations for the physics of each particle interaction becomes hopeless, whereas the laws of thermodynamics work quite well. Biology likewise has its own rules and models. A single pancreatic islet cell is enormously complicated, especially if we model it at the level of molecules; modeling what a pancreas actually does in terms of regulating levels of insulin and digestive enzymes is considerably less complex.

That's an argument against reductionism, isn't it? As things get more complex, it makes more sense to describe them in terms that ignore their physical basis in particles, fields, and forces. That's my whole point! Maybe this is not a short-cut as much as it is the realization of higher level functioning. It's not only simpler and easier to talk about biological rules instead of molecular ones, it's also more revelatory. We would miss relationships, patterns of interaction, if we kept our focus at the level of atoms. And this is even more obvious for social sciences that deal with conscious beings.

No, it is an argument for reductionism. Yes, it makes more sense to describe various things in terms that ignore their physical basis in particles, fields, and forces. Yes, we would miss relationships, patterns of interaction, if we kept our focus at the level of atoms. But the point is that it is all built on/dependent on/a result of the particles, fields, forces, atoms. It all can "be derived entirely from physics". The reason the pancreatic islet cell works the way it does is because of the atoms that make it up and how those atoms interact. If the particles were not exactly what they are, and were not interacting exactly as they are, then the regulating levels of insulin and digestive enzymes, and the laws of thermodynamics, would not be what they are. The macro is only happening because of the exact way the micro is working.

Why is the same thing not true for a star? The atomic view of a star is the most revelatory view, explaining even the large scale structure of this massive ball of thermonuclear fire as a balancing act between heat and gravity. Without knowledge of nuclear reactions, everything about a star is a puzzle. But you could understand most of life on earth without knowing anything about nuclear reactions, simply by understanding Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution would not take place without DNA, its base pairs, the way covalent bonds join the sugar and phosphate, etc. Yes, we can understand a great deal of the larger aspects of life on earth without knowing anything about any of that. But there would be no life on earth if the electron shells didn't do exactly what they do to make the larger molecules, join things together, etc. Everything reduces to the particles.

Some people program computers in Basic, or C++, or Fortran, or whatever. Fewer do the actual binary code. And nobody programs a new video game at the particle level. But it IS happening at the particle level. And if our brains were up to the task, we could understand it and play it at the particle level.

The engineers who design the processors and mother boards are "programming" the computer at the physical level. Logic is encoded in the electrical circuits themselves, which is why computers can run software at all. Controlling the flow of electrons to mimic the flow of logic is programming at the particle level.

Re your first sentence, the physical level is not the same as the particle level. Re your last sentence, controlling the flow electrons is no more programming at the particle level than controlling the flow of a river with dams is. Nobody is manipulating individual electrons or water molecules.

No, I'm not saying we don't manipulate individual electrons and water molecules at times, for certain purposes. But the topic is manipulating individual particles to build a computer. We use hunks of plastic, metal, ceramic, etc. The point is that when the computer is assembled and running, we will not gain the slightest insight into what it will do by examining every atom in it.

But as I've already said, this doesn't help us understand the mystery of the brain, because that mystery is involved in creating computers. Computers didn't evolve from the bottom-up due to physical processes in nature. They were designed top-down (i.e. with a goal or intention first, then a detailed plan later) by goal-oriented, conscious beings.

I would argue that our brains are amazing computers that were built from the bottom-up due to physical processes in nature.

Let me try a new tactic. Will you concede at all the possibility of causation on a "higher" level than particles and forces? Or is particle/force causation the only kind that exists in your view? When I see a commercial on TV for potato chips, and this causes me to go out and buy potato chips, is it meaningful and true to say that an ad campaign worked? Or is that just a short cut euphemism to describe an atomic process of causation? Is there nothing going on at these higher levels at all? Is everything in the human sphere of interaction no more real than the icon on a computer's "desktop" that allows you to engage a much more complex program with a double click?

I reject the notion that just because we can create a reductive explanation for the underpinning of all these processes that this must mean there is nothing real about those processes themselves. Reality is much too complex to pretend that there is only one level that is real.

There is nothing for you to reject. Of course it's all real. I'm simply explaining how it's all accomplished. This is the nature of reality. My hand cannot pass through my table. Why? Because the electrons in my hand and the electrons in the table repel each other. That's why solid objects don't pass through each other.

Does that mean solidity is not real? Of course not. This is simply the explanation of solidity. You need not reject the notion.

Vision is not less real simply because we know how it is achieved on the molecular level.

Life is not less real, or less alive, because it is made of various organs, circulatory systems, etc. Those organs etc are not less real because they are built from the blueprint we call DNA. DNA is not less real just because it would not exist without the atoms that it is made of.

The properties of particles do not stop functioning once a certain size or type of group, with properties not seen until then, is achieved. The properties of the larger groups are a product of, and only exist because of, the properties of the smaller.

It's all real, at every level.

Truly, I don't know how you can say anything I have written in this post is inaccurate. And, at this point, that's all I'm saying. Again, I'm just trying to establish a base that we agree on. But if you don't agree with this basic science, I don't know how we can continue. Maybe you have a suggestion.

[Zarathustra]

We can examine every atom in a computer, and have no idea of what it is about to do. The same is true of the brain. Not being able to predict what a brain will do by examining every atom in it is not evidence that the mind is anything other than the brain's activity.

I thought that by determinism you mean that if we understood a system down to its atomic level, we'd understand everything about it. If you know its current state, and the laws describing its change of state, then you ought to be able to predict its next state ... unless something more is going on that reductionism doesn't capture. For the brain, I believe this "something more" that you can't capture is the subjective content of experience (which influences one state to the next). It won't show up under any objective examination of the positions of atoms. The content of a computer program, however, would.

Therefore, since there would exist something that can't be described deterministically in terms of objective matter, then mind is indeed something more than the brain functioning.

No, it is an argument for reductionism....the point is that it is all built on/dependent on/a result of the particles, fields, forces, atoms. It all can "be derived entirely from physics".

No, not everything in the biological world could be derived from physics. Just because the physical cells are built up from physical/chemical reactions of matter doesn't mean that the ways these cells evolved through time are determined by physical/chemical reactions (even though the factors which *do* determine their evolution are themselves comprised of elements built up from physical/chemical reactions).

Example: Darwinian evolution is not "in" the laws of physics (even though it can't happen without them, as you point out). While something like being able to run faster can be described in physical terms, nothing in physics will make it plain why faster is "more fit" for a given environment. Neither fast nor slow violates the laws of physics. Those laws favor neither. But the very existence of a particular ecosystem might depend upon the speed of predator and prey within it. That relationship determines an actual feature of reality, i.e. which organisms will survive to reproduce. For those particular "clumps of matter," their shape is literally determined by something that no law of physics could ever explain. The deterministic factors at play here are not how atoms move, but how animals move in a predator/prey relationship. The "laws" of that relationship are: 1) Eating rocks, 2) Getting eaten sucks. Newton's Laws might help you to draw up equations that could describe the possible paths these two creatures are physically able to take, but the actual paths they take depend on "rules" that exists on a level where Newton's Laws are utterly blind. The laws of physics could no more distinguish a hunt from a dance.

This is why you can use Newtonian mechanics to predict the motions of celestial bodies, but they are utterly useless to predict the motions of biological organisms.

The macro is only happening because of the exact way the micro is working.

While it's true that the macro happens in a way the doesn't violate the micro, the macro is happening due to reasons and needs that exist only in the macro.

Ditto the point about DNA. While DNA molecules provide the raw materials for evolution, this doesn't explain the course of evolution itself. Molecular knowledge of DNA (genotype) could never be used to predict which DNA molecules would end up being reproduced, because that actually depends upon factors of the phenotype. If everything reduces to physics, as you say, then the phenotype is entirely irrelevant ... which is clearly absurd.

I would argue that our brains are amazing computers that were built from the bottom-up due to physical processes in nature.

But our brains aren't algorithm machines. That's just a misleading metaphor.

The properties of particles do not stop functioning once a certain size or type of group, with properties not seen until then, is achieved. The properties of the larger groups are a product of, and only exist because of, the properties of the smaller.

Well, I'm not saying that the properties of particles stop functioning or stop being necessary once you get to higher levels of interaction. I'm just saying that the laws of physics set the fundamental parameters, providing the "playing field." But it does not determine the rules of the game you play on that field. Take that example literally, if you want: nothing in baseball violates physics, but that doesn't mean baseball reduces to physics. You can't deduce the rules of that game from the rules that govern the motions of atoms. And given that you can't deduce baseball from physics, how can we say physics determines this curious interplay of matter we call baseball?

Truly, I don't know how you can say anything I have written in this post is inaccurate. And, at this point, that's all I'm saying. Again, I'm just trying to establish a base that we agree on. But if you don't agree with this basic science, I don't know how we can continue. Maybe you have a suggestion.

Of course I agree with the basic science. But you are talking about necessary cause, not sufficient cause. Just because matter is necessary for organisms doesn't mean that the laws of matter are sufficient to explain their behavior. For instance, the properties of aerodynamics make flight possible, but they don't explain why any particular bird flies here or there.

Even if you admit that "higher level" causation happens, you could still say that the universe is deterministic. The causation doesn't have to be particles/fields for that to be said. However, it also opens up the possibility (at least logically) that the mind can itself be a causal agent, which is how I see freewill: mental states causing mental states.

[Zarathustra]

F&F, thanks for keeping up the debate! I'm having a lot of fun, and it's good to know that I'm not typing all this for myself. Sorry about the double post here.

So ... I have a (deceptively) simple question for you:

What's the difference between a) natural selection shaping our genes and b) humans shaping their own genes through genetic engineering--if everything reduces down to particles/forces/fields?


I propose that under a reductive explanation, the difference cannot be characterized whatsoever. Your view of reality would have you choose blindness for something you can plainly see.

The difference between these two situations is so vast, they represent two different existential stages for the entire universe (assuming that we're the only beings who do this). We are at the point when evolution stops being shaped by purposeless processes, and atoms (i.e. us) begin shaping themselves (i.e. our genetic codes) for specific goals.

So, if there is no purpose in the laws of physics, how the heck do atoms form up purely by the laws of physics into arrangements that can purposely arrange themselves? How can we still say that matter ONLY arranges itself by the laws of physics, when the arrangements we're about to create with genetic engineering would never have arisen without the addition of our intellect, understanding, and purposeful action?

If the laws of physics determine the arrangement/function of atoms in our brains, and our brains make minds, and we use our minds to learn the laws of physics, and we use the laws of physics to determine the arrangement/function of atoms in our brains, we've not only "closed the loop of Being" back upon itself, we have produced something entirely new in the process. Purposeless laws of physics cannot explain what is going on in this loop. It is one thing for atoms to move about due to the laws of physics ... it is something entirely different for them to do this using the knowledge of those laws. Unless those laws encode their own self-knowledge--unless they know themselves--something besides those laws is at work.

Reducing mental states to physical states erases the very purpose/intellect that is shaping these physical states (via genetic engineering), making it seem as if nothing but the laws of nature are playing causal roles here. But when we shape our own evolution consciously, the causal chain has turned in the opposite direction, doing something that is literally impossible for a bottom-up, blind, purposeless process to achieve.

Unless you accept that minds are causal agents in themselves, that mental states can cause other mental states ("horizontal" causation rather than "vertical"), then what is happening here is a violation of the laws of nature. It's magic.

I believe what makes all this possible is that a deterministic, one-to-one relationship between cause and effect is false. For any given situation, quantum randomness (if nothing else) allows for any number of possible futures. Sure, a physical cause produces a physical effect ... but it could have just as easily been a different effect, given that randomness. What controls which future happens? We don't know. Thus, there is built-in "wiggle room" in reality for outcomes that are consistent with the laws of physics, but still not determined by them.

And curiously, consciousness itself seems fundamental to "collapsing the probability wave" and making possibilities turn into actualities. I believe the laws of physics are already telling us that mind is a causal agent (top-down, mind to matter) and that we not only make choices for ourselves, but choices that determine the nature of reality. This cannot simply be reduced, in fact, it's one of the biggest mysteries of science.