Reductionism and its malcontents
Offline 
The above portrait is an excellent metaphor for reductionism. That our minds can be reduced to neuronal electrochemical activity is analogous to cogs and wheels in a clockwork universe. Because of the realities of chaos theory, it is likely impossible to realistically reduce any complex system such as the mind to its parts. Yet in theory, the mind is the result of neuronal intercommunication. And atheists/agnostics such as Steven Rose or even the late Stephen Jay Gould are either uncomfortable with reductionism or are staunchly anti-reductionist. Here's the dilemma that I find. If a system in theory is not the product of its interacting parts or if indeed one believes that the sum is greater than its parts, doesn't that imply adding an extra spooky ingredient. In other words, isn't anti-reductionist therefore implying acceptance of the supernatural? And this is contrary to atheism. Can anyone explain this contradiction? Can one really be atheist and anti-reductionist?
- Login to post comments
Well, I'm glad I brought it up then.
Yes. But that calculation will take longer than it takes for the universe to play itself out, and so does *not* count as pre-determinism. Please tell me you understand that.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Exactly! In fact, the only thing that can calculate the next state of the universe is... well, the universe.
"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
On this topic of bad naming, I have another suggestion, which is foundationism. Not to be confused with foundationalism.
Foundationism, in my coinage, is the idea that we start with the simplest philosophy we can generate, and from that 'foundation' we build up more and more sophisticated philosophies. Each new philosophy can be used as a further foundation for even more complex/useful philosophies.
If we apply this to science, then 'reductionism' is really just the idea that physics is the foundation of chemistry, which is the foundation of biology, etc. etc. All sciences have their foundation in physics, whether the link has been fully established yet, or not (such as psychology, for example).
The reason I like foundationism is that it's about a) finding common ground, and b) building up from that common ground. Foundationism is the basis for looking for the biological causes of psychological disorders, for example, because we acknowledge that biology is the foundation for psychology. Biology does not eliminate the need for psychology; we don't express all psychological problems in terms of the interactions of cells. But we do acknowledge that it is these interactions (esp. in neurons) that are the foundation for psychological phenomena.
Here's how the distinction can be useful: When hearing a New Ager talk about raiki or crystal healing or whatever, the reductionist might say, "Nonsense, it's all in your head!" whereas the foundationist might say, "the placebo effect is real, and has a foundation in psychology, and hence neurology, and hence biology. So maybe we can investigate how thinking can change your physiology." Instead of dismissing all nonsense claims immediately, a foundationist might try to find the link between New Age claims and science, and try to find some common ground.
(Before anyone gets confused, foundationALism is a different idea: The idea that in order to answer the 'why? why? why?' infinite regress, we stop at a set of 'foundational' assumptions upon which we rest all of our other ideas. Foundationism is different because it is not about making a set of assumptions, it's about connecting philosophies together, one as the basis for the next.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
The difference is that in the pre-determinism example, you don't just have 'knowledge of the future', you have 'specific knowledge of the predetermined future'. For example: the exact pre-determined outcome of the 1/0 program. You looked ahead into the plan of the future and pulled out some specific knowledge.
On the other hand, in the post-determined example, you can have 'knowledge of the future' without looking at any cosmic plan. It's just the kind of prediction we do every day. If I drop this ball, it will fall down, rather than up. We 'know' this, and this knowledge is 'of the future', so we have 'knowledge of the future'. It is simple prediction.
So, the distinction is important because if someone *truly* believes this universe is pre-deterministic, then their 'knowledge of the future' is completely worthless. It cannot affect anything. The future is what the future is, and they can't do anything to change it.
I've actually met several people who proclaim to believe this. Really it's just an excuse to be complacent.
But worse, non-determinists use this as a straw man to argue against determinism.
So, I have to explain to them, "Hey, if I see a ball coming at me, I know it's going to hit me, and so I can use this knowledge to get out of the way." That's all I was saying in that quote above. The point is that my *knowledge* of the future is an input into how things will play out deterministically. In a pre-deterministic universe, my knowledge of the future is impotent. The 1/0 program proves that *real* knowledge of the pre-determined future can alter it, thereby contradicting pre-determinism in this universe.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Okay, I've pretty much said my piece and I'm starting to repeat myself, so I think I'll take your cue and try a different tack.
I'll play devil's advocate here. Specifically, I'll play the part of a non-determinist trying to poke holes in your determinism. Hopefully this will highlight why I find the distinction of pre-determinism useful. Okay, here goes:
"So, you're a determinist, eh? Do you have any goals in life? Well if you do, why bother trying to achieve them? They will either happen or they won't. The future is already determined, according to you, and there's nothing you can do to change it. Either you will achieve your goals or you won't. That has already been decided. Let's say the future is such that you won't achieve your goals. Then nothing you can do will ever help you achieve them. On the other hand, if the future is such that you will achieve your goals, then nothing you can do will ever prevent them from happening.
All of your efforts are completely pointless. I feel pity for you, mindlessly flailing about in useless effort, all for no possible reason.
Why are you even participating in this conversation? Either I will be convinced of your points or I won't, and either way there's nothing you can do to change that determination.
Obviously, determinism is a hopeless philosophy. I can't understand why anyone would ever subject themselves to that nonsense. Everybody knows that we can take action to achieve our goals. That's because we have FREE WILL! Suck on that, you dirty determinist."
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I never said I liked the idea. As I recall I clearly stated that I despise fatalism. However until we discover something that lies outside the confines of "determinate force" (made it up myself!
As far as I know anyway...) I don't see how we can logically have freewill. Which is why I tend to lean toward quantum universe options, hoping that there is something outside the grasp of the fundamental forces that drive the universe.
My argument here is that I see no meaningful distinction between predetermination and regular determination. If something is determined based solely on it's PREvious state how can it not be PREdetermined.
As far as my goals are concerned (assuming I subscribed to determinism) the short answer is there is no point. In a deterministic universe you can't get from point A to point C without having gone through point B. My actions (even thoughts about where my life is going) are out of my control. I do what I'm supposed to do because I am compelled to by the current state of the universe. My goals and subsequent actions in pursuit of them are predetermined. I, in a very real sense, have absolutely no control over anything that happens (not even my desire to effect change in the universe). Having said that, there is no point to this conversation either. We are talking about this right now because all of the previous states of the universe have led us here. We are inexorably drawn to the next state in the universe in this fashion forever.
Having just expressed everything I (and probably you) hate about determinism, I'd like to point out that I sincerely hope this is not the case. I don't know how anyone could live with the idea that freewill is an illusion (except as an excuse of course). Thought I know it is a distinct possibility that freewill is non-existent I chose to "take it on faith"(I hate doing that by the way) that it does exist. The idea of fate is to depressing for me to accept without unquestionable proof. I will hold on to freewill for as long as is logical to do so, because it is what makes me me. With out it we're just a lump of matter and energy operating within the confines of "determinate force." Truly a fate worse than death.
Luckily for us the presupposition of determinism is practically unprovable, at least as I see it. It's kind of funny that you would think I was a fatalist given the signature at the bottom of all of my post.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Logically, I can assess my options, choose which one I want to pursue, and then pursue it. To deny that this is possible is just insane. I can choose to be a firefighter or an astronaut. In determinism, you are either going to be a firefighter or an astronaut, and there's nothing you can do to change it. Even if you want to be a firefighter, you'll become an astronaut if that's what the future is. Even if you sat on the couch all day, you'd end up being an astronaut. So why don't you just sit on the couch all day, and maybe one day you'll be an astronaut! *snicker* (stupid determinist)
Of course, that's how we have free will! We send out quantum waves into the universe, and the universe *manifests* what we want! Haven't you read The Secret?? God, these science types think they're so smart and don't know squat about metaphysics.
But in your worldview, C will either happen or it won't. The future is already determined. So it doesn't matter what you do, C will either happen or it won't, according to the what the future was from the very beginning. You could be trying with all your might to stop C, and C will happen if it's determined to. Or you could do nothing at all to bring C about, and it will happen anyway! So why don't you just sit on the couch all day and enjoy yourself while you can? Even if you die of starvation, well, heck, that's what was going to happen anyway!
Yep, sure sounds hopeless to me! I'm glad I'm not you. I've got my free will, and I can pursue my dreams. A determinist can't explain that. We see people achieving their goals all the time, by choosing to work hard and put in the effort. If the universe was determined, it wouldn't matter what people do. The future is going to happen either way, so why bother doing anything? Either the future is going to turn out shitty or it'll turn out great. Nothing you can do to change it, so why do anything at all?
Free will's not an illusion. I could have chosen not to write this message, but I chose to write it, because I'm trying to get through your thick determinist skull. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but if I don't use my free will to try, then nothing will happen for sure.
If free will is an illusion, then why do we have jails? We have jails because people don't want to go to jail, so they *choose* not to commit crimes. They use their free will, nobody is forcing them not to commit the crime. That only comes later, if they get caught. But before they commit the crime, they have a choice, do it, or don't do it. Without free will, the jails would do nothing. People would already be determined whether they are going to commit the crime and so if someone commits a crime, they had no choice to do otherwise!
See, this is what I don't get about determinists. It's obvious people have choices. We make choices all the time. But a determinist can't explain it. If the future is already going to happen, how can we choose anything?
You make choices everyday with your free will. How do you think you get out of bed in the morning?? Stop depressing yourself! Just wake up to the reality that you have free will. You don't need faith. It's obvious!
You're the one who calls himself a determinist. (And I'm playing devil's advocate, remember? I'm playing the non-determinist who cannot differentiate between post-determinism and fatalistic pre-determinism.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
What is it exactly that makes you think you have a choice though? You seem to think you can deny determinism in the face of personal experience, but it is not so easily cast aside. If it were a predetermined universe your free will is an illusion, and your "unwillingness" to believe that is what drives you to do exactly what the previous state has compelled you to do. Your decisions would all be dependent on the previous state, including your beliefs on the subject of determinism. And you can't get from point A to C any more than you can walk from the US to China. C is dependent on B, and B on A. A causes B, B causes C, C causes D. In a predetermined universe each interaction is dependent on the last, and as each interaction comes to pass it is "set in stone" providing the foundation for the next interaction. C happens because B happened, and B happens because A happened. If B doesn't happen it is because it was predetermined that it would not happen, and therefor C is also predetermined not to happen.
You have to remember we're not just talking about events like killing a person or founding a new city. We're going all the way to the root of the universe. Individual interactions of sub-atomic particles (or sub-sub-atomic for that matter.) With out some sort of outside controlling force or an inside random force the universe can only progress in one way.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
The universe had a beginning, since that beginning the universe has progressed in a causal chain toward the present. Given the immutability of the past, in retrospect it is nonsensical to say that the future could have been different. Which is to say, that in retrospect the progression of the universe is necessarily fixed due to causation. Even if there are any truly random events in the universe, in retrospect, the results could not have been different, because the past is immutable. It is in that way that I mean the universe has been predetermined. That's my error. I'm using the wrong word. Actually, I don't think there is a word for that particular realisation. Essentially, what I am saying is that the future is fixed exactly because the past is and it's necessarily true in a deterministic universe. So, maybe that needs a word all its own. Because that's really what my hang up has been. You're saying that the future isn't fixed (I'm pretty sure), but it necessarily is and regardless of knowledge of the future of any sort. In fact, my reasoning has nothing to do with knowing ahead of time what will happen in any way, it is only saying that in retrospect the future can't have happened differently because the past is immutable and the universe is causally determined. Admittedly, it's not a useful realisation, but it is interesting to me.
So, I suppose we don't actually have a disagreement at all, only a confusion (largely on my part) of terms.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Free Will: Why We Don't Have It...
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I was looking at the program described in naturals post and couldn't help but think that it actually does support predeterminism. You know before hand that your input will be swapped for it's opposite and that's exactly what happens based upon the determinate force the he has created. The program could be written like this:
bool calculateFuture(bool initialState)
{
return !initialState; // ! is the fundamental force of the program.
}
There is one and only one answer for each input. You know ahead of time what the result will be, and in that way is somewhat in support of predeterminism. Freewill is also an illusion in the program. Once the rules of the program begin operating on the data the option of altering the data or changing the initial state is gone. Only the value passed to initialState can "decide" what the outcome will be when constrained to the rules of the program.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Like I had posted earlier, if you know the future and the future you know doesn't come to pass, then you didn't know the future at all. Knowing the possibility of what will happen based on an action and not taking that action or performing a different action is not the same as knowing the future. The illusion of 'knowing-the-future-and-being-able-to-ensure-it-doesn't-come-to-pass' is what 'free-will' is. The future, in retrospect, is fixed.
Actually, I wonder if that's not a paradox... it's certainly counter-intuitive. Hear me out.
The future has not happened. The universe is deterministic. You know that something may happen in the future and so you do something so that that possibility is removed or diminished. That something does not come to pass and the future is now in the past. The past is immutable. Therefor you had no real choice in your action or else you are contradicting reality; after all the even has come to pass and one thing happened that must have happened because the event came to pass.
Actually, after rereading a passage from Hamby's post on free will, I realize that this may be an extension of his argument, or at least it can snuggle with it.
Not only do we not have free will, but the future is set in stone in the past. Determinism meet the law of survival of the stable.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
There was a study (I'm sure you all have heard this) that showed a 500ms delay in thought and awareness of thought. And if I remember correctly 10 seconds in certain lobes. If we are making decisions 10 seconds (or even .5 seconds) before we are aware of it, can we really have free will?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Yes. I couldn't get my hands on the full text of that study, but I read the abstract. It certainly does imply that in quite a lot of instances, we literally make decisions before we're aware that there's a decision to make, and it calls into serious doubt the notion that we are in control of our own choices.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, you mean 'no', right? As in, 'No, we can't really have free will...' Because we don't have free will, right?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Yes. I mean No. I meant yes I've seen the study indicating that no, we can't really have free will...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You were answering the first question. Got'ya.
The study was done by Benjamin Libet
He wrote a book about it called "Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness."
As far as I can tell the study was repeated with success several times with out a failure.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Oooh... I missed that memo.
["books to read" list grows to 74]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism