The Irrationality of Atheistic Materialism: Case and Point
Posted on: January 15, 2009 - 10:13pm
Offline
The Irrationality of Atheistic Materialism: Case and Point
Here is a classic example of the irrationality of atheistic materialism.
patcleaver wrote:
Physical events occurring without physical causation supports materialism because it is something that has been established by science and every time that science succeeds it indicates that materialism is true.I do not really care what other atheists believe. All I care about is the evidence. The evidence indicates that there is no God.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Free will is the belief that if given the same circumstances and situation, an individual could have chosen otherwise. And the fact is that you are compelled to presuppose free will in practice even if you deny it in theory. The fact that you really do believe in free will was made evident by the moral judgments you expressed in your recent post. In a strictly deterministic world, it would be ridiculous to hold anyone morally responsible for his actions if he could not have acted otherwise. This would be tantamount to chastising a robot for its misbehavior. It's completely absurd and irrational!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
But there are a few causation models, and one of them happens to be in line with what we were discussing earlier, so I hope you don't mind my interruption. Probabilistic causation is not only perfectly viable, but extremely logical:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/
The example used in the article is the probability of a smoker developing cancer. There's a high probability that a smoker will develop cancer, but it's not a completely deterministic process. That is, not every smoker will develop cancer. None of this throws causation on its ear, it just gives causation the same dynamics of statistical error and probability as everything else.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Hmmmmm.....I don't know if I accept that definition of free will. I have free will and my actions are deterministic. I decide and choose based off of available information, and that information interacts with my senses and brain in a deterministic manner. I don't see why it can't be both at once: you make choices and your choice making process is deterministic.
The universe is deterministic and people are responsible for their actions. Once again, both of those things can go together. Some people make decisions that intentionally harm others. Whether or not those decisions are deterministic has nothing to do with morality or determining ways to influence people's behavior (such as through fines and prison sentences). I can denounce people for performing amoral actions and recognize that the universe is deterministic. Regardless of determinacy, we can develop moral systems and hold people accountable to them. Think of it this way: if you had a robot that could learn not to do something after you chastise it, chastising it would be a rational action to take for controlling its behavior.
I don’t see how a deterministic universe prevents people from making decisions and/or prevents us from questioning or denouncing those decisions as being amoral. I just don’t see the irrationality here.
Here we go, I knew my trusty Encyclopedia of Philosophy wouldn't fail me:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Well, the main thrust of that question wasn't for a clarification of free will; it was about how a random cause (quantum indeterminacy) can explain a non-random outcome (free will). Without a selection mechanism, randomness remains random. I guess I was asking for a description of the mechanism that turns quantum indeterminacy (randomness) into non-randomness (free will).
But you answered that (at least for the interim) when you said:
I'm not sure what "universal consciousness" is, other than perhaps the concept that quantum events themselves are conscious, or that consciousness is a property of quantum events. But as Roger Penrose rightly pointed out, the issue (still) is turning randomness into non-randomness.
But, you say that universal consciousness may be a brute fact of the natural order of things. This highlights the uncertain nature of this proposition. What is the evidence supporting this proposition? Or, what is the evidence for any prescriptive definition of quantum mechanics? Near as I can tell, we have absolutely zero evidence for any hypothesis describing the fundamentals of QM. So far, we have a mathematical model of the result of QM. We have a few proposed competing hypotheses and mathematical models for the fundamentals, but no evidence whatsoever supporting any of them.
What is the evidence supporting universal consciousness? What is the evidence supporting QM events providing consciousness?
I really am trying to understand your position.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Just as a quick aside, there's a huge difference between the descriptive model of quantum mechanics, and the prescriptive model of relativity. The model of relativity gives us insight into how the universe works (including gravity), whereas the descriptive model of quantum mechanics provides no understanding of how quantum mechanics works, just what the effects are. This is very fundamental. Just as Newton described the effects of gravity, but was unable to model exactly what gravity was, so too quantum mechanics merely describes what quantum events do, not what they are.
So not all theories in physics are equal.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yes! Quite right - it didn't occur to me to point out the difference, actually, and that would have helped the discussion. It should be a bit clearer now.
Hopefully.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is the same thing, because whatever allows you to do something different can not be physical if the physical circumstances are the same.
Free choice, which is the freedom to make decisions based on your values, is purely physical. We could program a robot with values and their importance, and let the robot make decisions.
All social animals that have been investigated, punish other members of their group who violate their instinctual morality. It is instinctual for social animals to punish those who violate their instinctual morality.
Most people do not know anything about "free will" - Indian tribes in the Amazon certainly never heard of it - Neither did ancient cultures, its not biblical, are you saying that they can not be moral or punish someone for immorality?
If an uncontrollable robot started killing people then we would try to destroy the robot. Punishing people for violating morality has nothing to do with free will.
If Dr. Evil performed an operation on Austin Powers which made him more violent, and then Austin murdered someone, then he would go to jail. The fact that he would not have murdered but for the operation does not matter.
If a construction worker fell off a roof and became more violent, and was diagnosed with brain damage, and he killed someone, then he would go to jail. The fact that he would not have murdered, but for the brain damage, does not matter. Same result if someone had a mini-stroke that made them more violent.
Someone who was abused as a child, which causes them to be more violent than average, kills someone. The fact that it is very unlikely that they would have killed, except for the abuse they faced as a child, is irrelevant to their guilt or their punishment.
We punish people for immoral actions, not for being moral or immoral deep inside.
The only purpose for free will is an excuse for the problem of evil. It is a contradiction for a God to be all powerful and benevolent and allow his children to suffer. The apologist's excuse is that God allows suffering, and even causes natural disasters that result in immense suffering, so that man can have free will. Free will has no value to humanity it is just useless bullshit.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
The term "probabilistic causation" (in the context that you are employing the term) is misleading. Yeah...sure...smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for forty years may dramatically increase the probabilities that one day you will develop lung cancer. But the "probability" itself does not cause the cancer - the smoking does. More precisely, the smoking is a significant factor that may lead to lung cancer. That being said, the term "probabilistic causation" (as you have defined it here) has nothing to do with QM or with the logic of cause and effect relations. But there may a causal link between quantum events and cancer because quantum events are known to lead to genetic changes.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, it could. Cancer doesn't have one cause that can be determined. When a doctor explains what "caused the cancer" to a pack-a-day smoker, the doctor will say that the smoking probably did the trick. That doctor is not saying that smoking caused the cancer in the philosophically stringent sense. In that more stringent sense, the doctor does not know exactly what started the cancer cells in their hyper-propagation, but it was probably the smoking. Probably.
There are very few examples of events outside of simple mechanical systems where you do get cause-and-effect as a clear two-step chain. Even then, as is the case with billiards, the ball being struck by another was pushed there itself by a cue, which was pushed by a person, who derived the energy to do so from food, and on and on until you go all the way back to the big bang. There, we reach a place where we're inching towards knowing where all this foolishness "started", if indeed that wasn't itself a continuation. Any original "cause" has yet to be determined.
In fact, it has everything to do with the logic of cause and effect relations. It demonstrates to you, first of all, that there is not just one philosophical model examining cause and effect, and second, it links the topics we've been covering: probability and quantum effects. It's a good article.
But Paisley, if we're to take quantum events seriously, then everything involves a quantum event. Everything. So yes, quantum events lead to genetic changes, since genetic changes occur all the time. Those genetic changes are themselves an aggregate of quantum events.
And those quantum events on an individual basis have a certain probability of occurring in a certain way, which can be observed to a high degree of precision, just not to an exact state at an exact time (only to a probability distribution).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Fallacy = Fail.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Free will" or, if you like, "self-determination" is the "selection mechanism" (and technically speaking, it's not mechanical...that's the whole point). The quantum superposition represents a realm of possibilites from which one state among alternatives is chosen.
The fundamental units are conscious (technically. experiential or proto-conscious) rather than materialistic particles devoid of internal experience.
I'm not very familiar with Penrose's quantum mind theory. But Stuart Hammeroff (Penrose' collaborator on the research project) seems to be arguing for free will. (Incidentally, he also seems to support panpsychism and/or panexperientialism.)
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/freewill.html
Metaphysical positions are interpretative systems, not scientific theories. That being said, process metaphysics has more explanatory power than materialism. It can account for quantum indeterminacy; materialism cannot.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The person that you quote seems to be saying that science and materialism are the same. In other words this person defines materialism as that which is established by science.
In another thread you've said this.
The person you have quoted does not believe in materialism as you define it. If a person doesn't believe in materialism as you have defined it then how can you use them as an example of why materialism is illogical? By the definition you are using you should not consider this person a materialist at all.
Any interpretative system not bound by empiricism is speculation, and therefore unreliable. Pure logic is good for determing what is not correct, but that's about it. Unless you can reduce the possible options to one, metaphysics can give you nothing new.
If you bound your system by empiricism, you have science.
As for materialism and quantum indeterminacy: I believe it's been demonstrated that materialism can account for all aspects of quantum mechanics. Since we still have not reduced the option space to one, we still don't know which option is the correct one; but several of the options are materialistic (or, as I like to say, "natural"
in nature. So to claim that materialism cannot account for QI, but metaphysics can, is a false claim.
Except for that statement, though, I pretty much have no problems with your interpretation. I don't agree with your views, but they are certainly potentially correct. I simply disagree on your insistence that you are right, and those of us who disagree are wrong.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
The person I quoted believes that uncaused physical events do not require an explanation. How convenient!
If we are allowed to redefine logic in order to accommodate our worldview, then there is no point in having a logical discussion. Obviously, to embark on such a journey would be an exercise in futility.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Scientific facts are subject to interpretation. This is made abundantly clear by the many interpretations of QM that are proffered.
Incidentally, materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientifically established fact beyond all reproach.
Please provide me with the materialistic interpretations of QM that account for everything that is observed.
This is a welcome change of attitude.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Do you even know what the people who use this site believe? You seem to be assuming an awful lot about people without ever asking them asking them to define themselves. You keep talking about how stupid materialism is, but you have never even asked the people you are talking to if they believe in materialism as you have defined it. Why don't you make an honest effort to understand the positions of the people you are debating?
Ha ha. That'll be the day. Paisley making an honest effort at something. It is a good setiment, but I doubt that Paisley is capable of it.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Absolutely! Good science never claims that everything is known, or that any knowledge is 100% certain. All we can do is judge how certain we are about a particular hypothesis or theory. Even well-established theories are sometimes subject to re-interpretation, though it is rarer these days when an accepted theory is truly disproven. Usually, they are merely revised or bounded, such as what happened to Newton's laws of gravity.
That doesn't mean that all hypotheses or theories are equal. Some are more certain than others.
I accept that. It is, however, the only metaphysical position for which there is empirical evidence. That makes it a stronger position than others.
Ah! Trick question. There is no interpretation of QM that accounts for everything observed. That's why we have no universally-accepted theory of QM. The front-runner (string theory) has failed to produce anything other than a complex mathematical model that introduces all kinds of exotic components.
But, causal dynamical triangulation (CDT) which we've discussed briefly is completely materialistic in nature. It has the advantage of predicting four dimensions from first principle, as well as the cosmological constant. As it predicts these things from first principles, and introduces no exotic concepts, it is a much stronger hypothesis than string theory. It also requires causality as a fundamental property of reality.
It isn't as mature as string theory, though, and that is a drawback. So, although it's promising so far, there is yet much that could go wrong with it. After all, string theory seemed to be simple and elegant with plenty of explanatory power, back in its youth.
So, there is at least one hypothesis that approaches quantum mechanics from purely-materialistic assumptions. (There are others, of course, but none with the success of CDT.)
It isn't as much a change, as an admission. I've never particularly had a problem with your views (even though I don't agree with them). It's been your arrogant attitude that has always put me in a foul temper. As I've come to know you a little better, though, I'm more able to accept it. (Also, I think you're mellowing, as well, so that helps.)
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yes, I do. There are indviduals on this site who believe that physical events occurring uncaused and unbidden require no explanation to be perfectly consistent with materialism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Nope. Way off target, skip. We don't believe that events that occur require no argument or explation or thesis. Why else would we delve into science so deeply? We seek reasons, and we have tried God as an answer. But it didn't work for us.
Evidently, you don't have a clue who we are. And I don't mean that to be rude. After reading your posts, I sincerely believe you don't know who we are.
I don't have the time to cater to your religious beliefs. Its much less time consuming to simply mock them, and, on occasion, give a reasonable explanation as to why I do so. But that's if I'm in a good mood.
"Could have chosen otherwise" is the type of "free will" that is presupposed by everyone in practice, even if they deny in theory. Why does anyone experience regrets? Answer: Because he feels that he could have chosen otherwise. So, it is obviously relevant because this is how we experience our lives.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The plasticity of the free will you allege to have, Paisley, is so terribly obvious when one reflects on your position that your theistic model allows you access to 'the ultimate' ('the ultimate' clearly referring to your deity and their plans / desires). Since you are (in your own mind, anyway) unbendingly at the whims of 'the ultimate' - whatever you happen to be told that involves - and are not permitted to inquire about the wisdom of what you are being told, where does freedom of any sort come in?
To you, with your 'ultimate truths' and 'ultimate purpose' that cannot and should not be questioned, but rather thoughtlessly obeyed, how might you even be able to excercize your alleged 'free will'?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It doesn't account for all the empirical evidence (e.g. psi phenomena).
What about "consciousness collapses the wave function" interpretation? It's definitely the most parsimonious one.
How do you figure that CDT is completely materialistic? It reduces the "physical" to space, time, probability waves, and the cosmological constant.
I don't understand string theory. I suspect you can only appreciate it if you have the mathematical background. That being said, I thought it doesn't make any predictions.
Stop whining and make an argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Obviously, you're attempting to be rude. If you weren't, then you would not have made the statement.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley, you were so close to thinking for a second there. So close. But you've gone back to your old lines. Why? I witnessed a brief and wonderful expansion of understanding in your writing, and it seems as though you've reflexively drawn it back. Just because someone says, "the water is getting warmer" doesn't mean they don't understand that the molecules in the water are accumulating kinetic energy. You can't equate colloquial short-hand with precise speech and decide that's the end of the argument.
Sure, it's relevant to our feelings, but thankfully, scientific inquiry is designed to avoid being influenced by our feelings.
So are we talking metaphysics or are we talking feelings, here?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The precise philosophical term is "libertarian free will." And libertarian free will is what everyone presupposes in practice.
We're talking about first-person experience here. And I wasn't aware that science has rendered the "free will vs. determinism" debate obsolete.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I'm being honest. There is a difference, you know.
I don't have the time to cater to your religious beliefs. Its much less time consuming to simply mock them, and, on occasion, give a reasonable explanation as to why I do so. But that's if I'm in a good mood.
You have got to be kidding. First, the evidence for "psi" is so scant as to be essentially non-existent. Second, if we were to assume "psi" was real, there are no current explanations, but I can think of materialistic explanations that would cover the cases for which there is potential evidence.
It doesn't bring in probability waves. In CDT, energy (and therefore matter) are aspects of spacetime itself, built up of the fundamental nature of the universe, the "simplexes." And the "cosmological constant" doesn't exist as a separate entity; it is a mathematical fudge-factor, which is why Einstein didn't like it. It introduced a mathematical constant into an otherwise elegant equation. Later, he thought it was unnecessary, as it turned out the universe wasn't in equilibrium. But, recent observation indicates there is a cosmological constant. Perhaps the universe has slightly more than 4 dimensions (say, 4.01 dimensions). Or it could be that the universe has an internal pressure due to its very existence. But the cosmological constant itself isn't an entity.
In any case, CDT is completely materialistic because it requires causality. That has been your primary argument against materialism, has it not? That non-causal QM obliterates the concept of materialism?
Oh, it makes predictions, all right. It wouldn't be science if it didn't make predictions. There are several problems, though: most of the predictions made by string theory have either turned out to be wrong (requiring further modification of the hypothesis), or we have no clue how to test (how do you test the number of dimensions tied up in subatomic particles?).
Heh. Your sense of humor is growing on me.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Oh great. Let's all go back to the Dean Radin thread now.