Materialism = Fatalism: Discuss.
Offline This subject has been touched on a couple times before.. but the debate always gets taken off on some huge tangent. So I was just looking for some responses from the vast resevoir of knowledge that is RRS.
I've had the conversation with a couple of my collegues here that might consider themselves materialist--at the end of the discussion, seems that fatalaism is a necessary conclusion.
I.e. if we are in a closed materialist system that follows universal laws, how exactly does one "choose" anything? "Universal laws" are not consistent because they "choose" to be consistent--they're consistent because that is what they are.
I.e. "Choice" or "freewill" are merely necessary actions based upon normative rules, no different then a rock falling to the floor.
IF this be true, then why exactly are we are discussing "rationality" and "irrationality"? "Why do you believe this?" Or "why do you believe that?" These questions or assertions would seem to be meaningless in a fatalist structure. The answer will always be "because that is what I do" or "I have no choice."
Actual "freewill" would seem to require something "supernatural." "Supernatural" being defined, in this case, as an element which is not bound by "universal law." I.e. an element which allows for "stimuli" to be created not merely received.
Hm.. at least that is my thoughts. For the record, I don't believe any reference to "quantum physics" is an adequate answer. Randomness does not allow for "freewil" and surely doesn't underwrite the "rationality" of a "irrational/rational" distinction.
- Login to post comments
I don't even understand how that is a sound line of logic. Maybe I missed the point, but I cannot see how the laws of physics have anything to do with our choices. They definitely limit our choices (ie. we cant jump to the moon on a whim), but we are absolutely able to do almost anything within the limits reality sets upon us.
All I see is a giant leap in your logic to a naked assertion; materialism = fatalism because I say so. You in no way explained the connection between materialism and fatalism.
Thats cute.
Your whole point (whatever the fuck it is), falls apart with inclusion of the question-begging term "free-will".
Determinism, or something...
Discussed.
I'm sorry. I thought it would be understood.
Here:
Answer this question: How do you move your hand?
Inevitably, the description of "how you move your hand" will come down to "physical processes" based upon "universal laws."
For instance, external stimulation of a neuron makes it release electrical ions which then leads to the movement of the hand.
Exactly where does "choice" come into this?
Or another way:
Assuming the "universe" began with the big bang, could the system that came about been ANYTHING else but what it is? For instance, no earth?
I would venture to say that most people would agree that no. Because the processes that occurred after the "big bang" were based upon constant universal laws, the existence of earth was inevitable.
In the same way that earth was merely an inevitable product of the inevitable things that happened before it.. so too, it would seem, are individual actions. At what point do you make a "choice"?
In order to make a "choice," the "action/reaction" system that we have going on would have to "stop," for however short of a time, in order to infuse *something* into the system. Otherwise, it is all "action/reaction," "stimuli/reaction."
I know this isn't a new theory.. so if someone has a better way of explaining it. Go right ahead, I'll revist it when I get back from the gym.
Man your kinda being Captain Obvious at the moment. Of course we have to follow physical constraints. You havent addressed at what point our physical reality is making the choice to move my hand. Reality just is. My consciousness is an emergent property of my brain that at some point, unbeknownst to me, emerged from a ton of years of evolution. My consciousness, and body, being a produst of natural process, must act within its own limits. But that doesnt mean the choices that I do make are directly controlled by reality, only limited.
Thats cute.
What a lovely sounding idea. Except that it is meaningless. First, conciousness has yet to be succintly defined. Second, while emergentism is a tantalizing and at times an even compelling theory, there is, AFAIK, no known mechanism that would explain the emergence of conciousness from biochemical processes. You can just as well as say "goddidit" and be as truthful as "my conciousness emerged".
My Artwork
Thanks Magilum, it was a good read. I especially liked this quote:
Heh. I enjoyed it because I'm currently taking Crim Law and there are more then a few academics that would disagree with this point. Retributive v. Rehabilitative. A very long discussion.
Back to the point at hand. The discussion didn't really come to an end with the determinism.
I think the two explanations were "probabilistic determinism"--which, as far as I can tell, is a distinction without a practical difference when it comes to the matter of "choice." It may be "probalistically determined" that a coin will land on heads/tails/or its side when flipped, but no one will describe the coin as "choosing" what it will land on.
And, the other explanation that defines determinism as consciousness which allows "you to chose who you are."
Which I suppose is the answer I got in my discussions here in RL. You mind builds nueral pathways based upon experience (outside of your control) and you act in accordance with those nueral pathways, not because you "want" too but because that is "who you are."
This would definitely bring an end to the retributive v. rehabilitative discussion if it was commonly accepted.. although, the definition for "rehabilitative" might need to change.
well then it must be god... that is after all the only possible explanation. O, wait its not actually an explanation at all. Thanks for positing that I am wrong without offering another option that doesn't ask more questions than it aswers. I don't think whether or not consciousness is at some level a result of physical reactions in our brain is really under too much scrutiny at this point.
If your argument is that God is a better answer than what neurologists offer, I might be compelled to compare that to the "evolution vs. ID". Not so much competing theories.
Thats cute.
Here's an interesting article on the topic from the author Vessel references in the other thread.
Edge: THE NEUROLOGY OF SELF-AWARENESS by V.S. Ramachandran
And, like so many times happens here, you read things into my statement that are just not there. You made a direct, positive claim about the origin of your conciousness for which you have no empirically substantiated basis. That is as logically valid as saying god did it.
My Artwork
Are you a: Biologist, physicist, medical doctor, engineer, cosmologist, astronomer, neurologist? From what your telling me I must be an expert in all of these to hold anything in the respective fields as true.
Lets say you go to the doctor and he tells you that you have cancer. I dont have any empirical evidence that it is true. So for me to be qualified to hold what the doctor says is true, by your definition, I have to go to school for 6-10 years and become a doctor? Otherwise I dont have any right eh?
Apart from becoming an expert in all fields of science, the best I can do is examine the evidence that the experts give me. I have seen alot of your posts on this board and you have made many positive claims on things that I am sure you aren't an expert in. The scientific method, as you know, isn't like religion in that it does not make naked assertions. From my limited expertise on the matter of neurology I can reaonably say that what the neurologists say is based on more than speculation. I would gander a guess that it is based on shitloads of evidence. This is a rational stance.
I asked you to correct me if I was wrong about what you were saying. You haven't done so, so all I have to work with are your previous posts and the theist label.
Thats cute.
Interesting article. This seems to suggest that self is an illusion, a model built into neurons that we mentally "look" at. A different set(s) of neurons models others.
My Artwork
I wouldn't say "allows you to choose who you are" but that the choices you make are made because of who you are. I really don't see anyway around that what we consider making a "choice" is doing one thing as opposed to others because of the person you are, something which is determined by innumerable cause effect relationships across the entirity of your life up until the very moment the choice is made.
Even if we were to add some unknown ('supernatural' if I must use that term) property into consciousness would this property not simply be another property adding to the network of causes that bring us to choose whatever it is we will choose? If it is part of who we are then we are still simply 'choosing' what we will choose based in who we are. There is no reason to think we could have chosen anything else in that specific instance. If it is not, then how can we say it is 'me' that is making the choice?
If somebody gives me a choice between a Coke and a Pepsi and I choose a Coke there are reasons that I chose a Coke. There are reasons that I have these reasons that have led to my choice and there are reasons why I have those reasons. At what point following the causal network backwards will I ever reach a point where it was simply an uncaused choice?
The only way freewill, in its strict sense, makes any sense is if we consider a choice to be based in nothing, but that's not really a choice either as it is then random. I don't think anyone would consider random selection to be 'choosing'.
Yes. And part of 'who you are' is what you 'want'. The things you want you want for reasons whether always consciously obvious or not.
I've never understood the purpose of retribution except as a road to rehabilitation. It makes no sense, as a course of action for its own sake, as it serves no end. Rehabilitation without retribution, however, is unaffected in its purpose. Rehabilitation, or the attempt to rehabilitate, is the only course of action that seems to me to make any sense whatsoever.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Now you are being absurd. You don't have do be an expert in everything, but nor should you be making direct positive claims about things that have no empirical basis. This is one of the biggest complaints that the atheists at RRS have about theists. Making unsubstantiated claims is no more valuable when coming from an atheist than a theist.
My Artwork
Well man I won't argue about you on the unsubstantiated claim issue. I cannot see how my claim is unsubstantiated. I have read alot about it and the scientific world, I am sure, would mostly agree with me that its rooted in some way physically. Destroy the brain, destroy the consciousness.
I will be the first to admit my being wrong if you could show me some counter evidence, because I can't find anything contrary outside of the philosophical realms.
Thats cute.
Meh. Is your Avatar from The Sword of Truth series?
Conciousness as an emergent phenomonon posits that eseentially the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But science (read the link provided above by magilum) doesn't universally support that. Conciousness is also modeled as a somewhat illusory perception of specific brain states. There is no self, only specific brain states that allow recursive perception of those states. This recursive perception "feels" like self, but it is an artifact of perception, not an emergent phenomenon. To put it in terms a Christian would hate, there is no "self" to be saved. There is no you in there.
My Artwork
Yes my avatar is from the sword of truth series. It's from my favorite book in the series "Faith of the Fallen". Those books changed my life. In fact they are what broke my theism and why I gained such a passion for learning. So I am very fond of them. If you knock them I might cry.
I'll have to read about what you have just said. The article from magilum didn't give me the impression that we have no true identity though. Moreso it seems to me to be an idea of what physical properties give rise to our consciousness among other things. It may not be more than what you say, but the fact remains that I am here and that I am conscious. I cannot reasonably refute the axiomatic statement "I exist"
Thats cute.
Naw. I've got the final one of the series sitting at home waiting for me to read it. But I haven't started it because I usually read these books obsessively and my life stops until I'm done with it.
My Artwork
you just gained about 1000 points with me wavefreak. Let's put our differences asside and get back to my original question pertaining to the OP.
Where do you, the guy who started the topic, draw a parralel between Materialism and Fatalism? Or a better way of asking how do you get from one to the next. It appeared you just jumped from one to the other without any real explanation of how they correlate. I can guess vaguely by the other peoples responses, but you yourself haven't made a strong case for it.
Thats cute.
I think everyone understands the problem. Even you.. since you seem to be addressing the notion of "self." This is the only thing I'm getting at.
Fatalism/Determinsm, suggests predetermism, or, a world in which the end is set and "choice" is meaningless. At least, IMO, this is what it suggests. As much as an "omniscient" God would present this problem.
Why does materialism necessitate determinism/fatalism? Because everything, e.g. atoms, molecules, nuerons, so on down the line, react exactly how they are supposed to based upon the reactions that predated them.
As certain as it is that the last domino will fall in a small series of stood-up dominos, so too is tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day.
IF not, what variable is allowing for this uncertainity?
Certainly not "choice"--which may be merely illusionary.
In anycase, to address something Vessel said, a post which I found really interesting.
Retributive stances in Crim Law seemed to be based on the notion that we want to make our "society" feel better.
Of course.. if I can think of an example where one might want retributive even though rehabilitation is pointless.. I'll say it.
Hm, let me think.
IF epliletic X jumped into car Y and ran over person Z after having a seizure (perhaps he didn't think he would have one that day), not knowing what he did was "criminal negligence"--should he be punished?
THere was never anything personal. Lifes to short for that. It's funny how you say the series had an effect on your views. I find it very interesting as well in how it portrays institutionalized beliefes and blind following of ideology. And how can you go wrong with Mord Sith body guards?
My Artwork
This seems to boil down to the ideas of absolute morals versus relative ones. What is an interesting wrinkle on this is that it is now conjectured that morality is an evolutionary adaptation. But now that we are increasingly able to control our genome, the mechanisms of natural selection will be supplanted with concious choices. Befor, natural selection "decided" what was moral. But now we can "decide" without having to go through generations of trial and error. But, as there is apparantly no absolute morality, we have no basis on which do make those decisions. The only principal of evolution is survival of a genome. Evolution doesn't care if that survival for one genome ends in mass extinction of another. Basically if god doesn't care if I eat my enemies, and evolution doesn't care if I eat my enemies, why should I care? And we arrive at fatalism.
My Artwork
I think I am going to agree with wavefreak on this one. Emergence of conciousness doesn't have any emperical evidence(as far as I know), so if your going to state anything about it, you should put a disclaimer. Unless you have some evidence for it, why can't we simple state, I don't know what conciousness is.
[Edit: seems I should have refreshed my window before posting, I was 30 minutes behind]
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Yeah. The problem I have with such a stance is that it really doesn't accomplish anything. I don't think anyone would suggest that instead of trying to cure cancer we should just try to make those with cancer feel better. Feeling better is nice but a course of action that simply attempts to make society feel better, at the end of the day, doesn't do anything to address the actual reason they feel bad.
Now, this is not to say that punitive actions don't possibly have what one might call a pre-emptive rehabilitation effect. I would imagine some people might consider a course of action and reject it based in the knowledge that such an action would likely end up costing them. Still, I think it is better to focus on addressing the mind frame that brings one to consider certain actions in the first place.
These questions are difficult as they don't take into account (and I realize this is about to be pretty subjective) whether it is reasonable to believe, in the specific instance, that the person would do such a thing again, or that others would take his non-punishment as license to act in a similar manner. Was that avoiding the question I just did right there?
I could never be a judge because, for one thing, I'm a push over, and for another, I'm a large scope kind of guy. Give me the broad concepts and I'm happy as can be. Try to get me down to practical implementation of those concepts and I'm likely to implode.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
i don't see how materialist, fatalism, or anything else really comes into this debate. You seem to be asserting that to have free will, there must be a god, so this debate is really whether you believe in free will. correct?
Complicating this with other terms should not be necessary from the start.
Randomness may not make freewill possible, but it would be a stumbling block for determinism. That is unless randomness only appears to be random...
As for freewill, we may only have the appearance of freewill because due to the numerous interconnections, each part of the brain doesn't know how the others arrived at their decisions.
As for rationality, I think it still applies because despite not being able to introspect some rather low level stuff, discussions of rationality almost always take place on a level where meaningful introspection is possible.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
No.. that is not what I'm saying at all. I am making no assertion regarding gods or God. Merely trying to get peoples opinion on the debate of whether materialism necessitates determinism/fatalism.
Yes. This is a debate about "freewill"-- but since that is difficult to define, some people would say it is meaningless, I have been trying to interchange it with "choice"
As for your second contention. "Supernatural" was the only word that I felt could describe what I was going for. I mean to only use it in the strictest sense, something that is "perceived as outside of nature" from our current scientific/materialistic perspective. I am sure it is all-together possible that science may discover a method by which a materialistic variable gets entered into the equation of consciousness which, albeit material, does not fully follow universal law--or whose action is not necessitated by past actions.
Thats exactly what I thought. It just seemed to be a bit muddled with some other concepts.
It's funny though that when someone like DG says something about emergentism he isn't told to add a disclaimer (yes I understand that he is far more qualified than I), but I thought it was a fallacy to say the source somehow affects the truth of an idea. I guess everytime any of us post on this site about anything that we cannot emperically prove it should be accompanied by a disclaimer. I thought it was understood that I was only stating my opinion. I am touching the edges of my knowledge on all of this so I guess I will just stop posting on this topic. peace
And to wavefreak, I never thought it was personal. I was just kidding.
Thats cute.
Thats exactly what I thought. It just seemed to be a bit muddled with some other concepts.
*DISCLAIMER - I AM NOT POSITING THAT DG SHARES MY VIEWS*
It's funny though that when someone like DG says something about emergentism he isn't told to add a disclaimer (yes I understand that he is far more qualified than I), but I thought it was a fallacy to say the source somehow affects the truth of an idea. I guess everytime any of us post on this site about anything that we cannot emperically prove it should be accompanied by a disclaimer. I thought it was understood that I was only stating my opinion. I am touching the edges of my knowledge on all of this so I guess I will just stop posting on this topic. peace
And to wavefreak, I never thought it was personal. I was just kidding. The reason the books had such a huge effect on me was due to the fact that I was raised in a fundamental baptist home and school my whole life. My mom let me go to the library to get a book for a book report (I was home school for about 4 years). The book opened my mind to a whole different worldview, it was mesmerizing to me, It made so much sense that after a few years of mental battles I was almost forced to let go of the God concept. And yes it's views on institutions I am very much in agreeance with.
*DISCLAMER - NO I DON'T HAVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP MY POLITICAL OPINIONS*
The only way you couldn't go wrong is to have mord sith as a personal body guard. Any other relationship with them would a be a little "touchy".
Thats cute.
Hmm. I might call him on it depending on the context and the way he makes the claim. But he is VERY good at backing up what he says and very good at stating himself logically.
Don't stop posting on things at the edges of your knowledge. That would suck. That's the BEST way to push the edges back. Sometimes I go overboard looking for precision. On of the draw backs of an open forum is it isn't always clear what a person's intended meaning is.
Never really thought it was. Just wanted you to know it was all good at this end too.
Heh heh. Bringin' the pain!
My Artwork
I don't know how conciousness is generated by matter.
I don't even know if a material explanation will prove satisfactorally.
I am ignornat on this matter. As is everyone else to a greater or lesser degree. But I'm not ever going to propose "magic" as an "answer" to this mystery. I really don't understand why anyone thinks that "magic" is good explanation? When you invoke the supernatural this is exactly what you are doing. You are saying "its magic" that explains conciousness or free will. If you think this is a good explanation then knock youself out but don't come crying when smart people point and laugh at you.
This is what I was trying to say. At least emergentism is a reasonable explanation. I am not saying that it is neccessarily true, nor is it the only possible explanation, but claiming that it is possible is better than goddidit.
Let's say goddidit is the ultimate explanation. How would that further neuroscience? If that is true wouldn't we be better to just stop studying it because it is beyond the physical realm and therefore, like any other supernatural claim, beyond our abilities to examine?
Thats cute.
Even if goddidit is the ultimate answer, why would we stop studying neuroscience? That would be denying an essential part of our humanity - our curiosity. I would spit in the face of a god that told me to stop asking questions.
My Artwork
I don't mean that it would be for a lack of trying to discover more. Once you put it in a category unapproachable through Ontology and on to epistemology, how then would you suggest that we study the unstudiable?
Thats cute.
If something exists, it is approachable through ontology. If something *is being done*, it is within the limits of human knowledge.
IMO.
If godidit is the ultimate *explanation* for something that is being done, i.e. human consciousness. Then, even this explanation would be approachable.
Can a full understanding ever be reached? Don't know.. but that really isn't the point of all these -ologies--"close as we can now" is satisfactory for now, and "closer" is satisfactory objective for later.
IMO.
And now I'm getting all ridiculous... blah.
I think it may be possible that there is some limit to what humans can know about the "ultimate" questions. But for all practical purposes, the universe in which we live is astonishingly varied and I think we will always have plenty of new questions. Sometimes I think this is a major flaw of humanity - that we presume we can grasp "ultimate" answers. We are finite beings. I tend to believe the ultimate will always be beyond us.
My Artwork