In a recent post, Tal Bachman interjected the following criticism of me:

"In this discussion, as before, it has become clear that Goal Number One for you is: protect your sacred cows. They form a tidy little trinity for you - not a trinity of "God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost", but rather, "Freewill, Human Autonomy, and Human Self-determination"."

Today, in another post, he added, "They [my views] include an intransigent commitment to "freewill, self-determination and human autonomy" which several times has led you to dismiss certain propositions a priori. Objecting to that unfortunate habit is entirely legitimate."

Tal is correct in asserting that preserving these "sacred cows," both philosophically and scientifically, is the primary motivation for my participation on this Board. But he is wrong in two important ways. First, they are not just my sacred cows; and second, I can scientifically defend them, and have done so repeatedly; i.e. they are not just a prior intuitions.

As exMormons we sometimes struggle to establish an alternative worldview to replace religion in general and Mormonism in particular. It is both natural and common to take a humanist, anti-religion, position, insisting that we will not be the victims of religious dogma and indoctrination again, and instead will rely upon reason and critical thinking to guide our lives. There are many definitions of humanism, and they all espouse critical thinking and evidence over a motivation based upon any sort of dogma, especially religion. For our purposes, Wikipedia's general definition is as good as any:

"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over unthinking acceptance of dogma or superstition."

Now, if we stopped this post here, and took a poll of Rfm readers, I suspect a high percentage would happily sign on to the above stated humanist worldview. But, let's look at this a little closer. The above definition directly and logically implies what might be called "the sacred cows of humanism," namely, consciousness, freewill, human autonomy, and self-determination. Put more succinctly, humanism *logically* implies that human beings are conscious, autonomous, agents with genuine freewill. So, given such entailment, if you are a humanist, you *must* also believe in the above stated "sacred cows." A humanist who denies that human beings are conscious, autonomous agents, with genuine freewill is involved in a contradiction. This is because the essence of humanism, as both stated above and generally acknowledged, is the idea of "agency;" i.e. the ability of human beings to better themselves, and society generally, by rationally weighing alternative ideas and positions, and by causing positive consequences from rational free choices. So, these are not *my* sacred cows, but are in general humanist sacred cows.

So far, I still do not anticipate many objections. Most of us are intuitively committed to genuine freewill, while maintaining a commitment to science. In fact, science is an important part of our commitment to critical thinking. But, here is the problem. The sacred cows of humanism, i.e. consciousness, autonomy, and freewill, are themselves manifestly "unscientific," by traditional, materialist standards, which is precisely why they need defending. First, they are inherently subjective rather than objective, and second, they entail an assumption that is inconsistent with the most basic foundational assumption of science.

What is the scientific assumption that is at odds with the humanist sacred cows? First, the scientific tradition, including both methodology and theory, encompasses a materialist worldview; i.e. that all of reality is physical reality, and that all explanations of reality are physical explanations. By "physical" is meant simply within the confines of the "laws of physics." According to modern science, the world (universe) is composed of "physical" quantities that are identified with scientific concepts like mass, energy, fields, charge, spin, protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, etc. Ontologically, science tells us that what ultimately "exists," can be reductively explained, at least in principle, by appeal to these basic physical properties and concepts. These ultimate physical facts provide ultimate explanations in physics, chemistry and biology, including anything and everything that is meant by being "human." What is "real" beyond such quantities is a metaphysical question that is either left unaddressed by science, or summarily dismissed as unscientific or as pseudoscience. All this implies "the causal closure of the physical." This means that every event in the universe has a physical cause ultimately involving the basic entities and properties identified above, and thus every such event can in principle be explained by such physical cause, as opposed to a mental cause, or a supernatural cause. This doctrine in turn implies causal determinism, i.e. that everything that happens in the universe is determined. (I am ignoring quantum indeterminism here, which would only muddy the waters without adding anything to this discussion) Science is deterministic by both its background assumptions and methodology. Obviously, if we live in a deterministic universe, and we as humans, however complex and "special," are a part of this universe, the sacred cows of humanism are false. That, in a nutshell, is scientific materialism.

This assumption was expressed rather profoundly by Harvard psychology professor Daniel W. Wegner in his book, The Illusion of Conscious Will, which remains the most cited book expressing the scientific view of freewill. According to Wegner:

"A team of scientific psychologists could study your reported thoughts, emotions, and motives, your genetics and your history of learning, experience, and development, your social situation and culture, your memories and reaction times, your physiology and neuroanatomy, and lots of other things as well. If they somehow had access to all the information they could ever want, the assumption of psychology is that they could uncover the mechanisms that give rise to all your behavior and so could certainly explain why you picked up this book at this moment."

Continuing:

"[Conscious will] is an illusion in the sense that the experience of consciously willing an action is not a direct indication that the conscious thought has caused the action. Conscious will, viewed this way, may be an extraordinary illusion indeed—the equivalent of a magician's producing an elephant from the folds of his handkerchief."

It is beyond the scope of this post to rebut Wegner. The point here is that Wegner's view is *the* scientific view.

Now, if you were to ask typical (non-theoretical) scientists (including Humanists) about all of this, they might say that they are both a humanist and a materialist scientist in the above sense. That just means they are confused, because such a position is inconsistent, for reasons just explained. The scientists, and philosophers of science, who understand these issues, fully appreciate the problem just stated. The response of such people, if they respond at all, has been generally to insist on the traditional materialist scientific thesis, like Wegner, while denying genuine freewill—at least until they leave the office and start living their normal lives. You do, however, get all sorts of "compatibalist" theories, all of which are feeble attempts to reconcile freewill with determinism. After all, the stakes are high. These attempts fall flat, however. In most cases, they embrace a definition of "freewill" that either (1) removes its genuine "agent" causal character as required for humanism, or (2) explains away freewill by conceptual fiat. For example, "freewill" becomes only "the feeling of freewill," or the meaning of "freewill" is associated merely with a lack of human induced constraints.

Back to Humanism, consider the fifth postulate in the Humanist manifesto:

"FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method."

The fact is that the "nature of the universe depicted by modern science," specifically the denial of freewill, undermines precisely the very "intelligent inquiry" and assessment of human needs that humanism espouses. Moreover, taking humanism seriously invites and inadvertently encourages a religious, transcendental, metaphysics, the very thing humanism is emphatically against.

But it is not just freewill that butts heads with traditional science. Consciousness itself, presumably the underlying source of freewill, has no scientific explanation. More particularly, there is no explanation as to how, even in principle, consciousness can interject itself into physical processes through mental causation. The most prominent philosophical response to this dilemma is to deny any ontological status for consciousness; i.e. it doesn't *really* "exit." Or if it is acknowledged, it is deemed "epiphenomenal," which means it has no causal efficacy. It is most often characterized as an "emergent property" of the brain, without further explanation. It is of course a complete mystery as to why consciousness (mind) would arise from physical processes, however complex. But that is just the beginning of the mystery. How might consciousness arise from brain processes—complete with an autonomous self that encompasses genuine freewill, or for that matter, a strong freewill illusion?

So, do you want traditional science, or do you want the sacred cows of humanism? My suggestion is that you start by accepting the sacred cows. Really, what choice is there when your entire life, and all of the values we claim as "human values," depends upon such assumptions. But beyond that, consciousness, freewill, human autonomy, and human self-determination, are the very essence of our intuitive knowledge of who we are. We seem to know such things "a priori." Do we really want to deny them in order to preserve the other sacred cow, scientific materialism?

But then, where does that leave science? Well, here is the trade-off, and the whole point of this post. Science must accept the fact that the above described materialist assumption is false, and some well-known scientists have done just that. But, make no mistake; this is a bitter and consequential pill to shallow. It means that consciousness, mind, and freewill, are somehow a *fundamental* part of reality, existing in some sense outside of the physical world as revealed through science. It means that in some sense there is a "soul" in each of us that has an individual, subjective character, just as our intuitions proclaim. Such souls have causal influence and efficacy over the material world, which makes human autonomy and freewill genuinely meaningful. What is troubling for humanists is that this acknowledgement of a human "soul" as necessary to support freewill, and humanism's other sacred cows, puts religion's foot in the scientific door, even if it does not entail either God or immortality. With the demise of materialism, we now have a clear scientific limitation, with a corresponding expansion of our metaphysical worldview, that dangerously accommodates religious dogma, the very thing that humanism sought to avoid.

In short, science is left *theoretically* crippled. This is not to denounce science, or question its methodology, or undermine its great achievements. It means that there is no "theory of everything," the holy grail of physics, that leaves out mind, consciousness and freewill. Now, that said, we might ask, "Surely there must be a 'God's view' explanation for freewill that could in principle be a "scientific" explanation if evolution had not straight-jacketed our epistemic potential. Maybe science will yet shed light on this issue. On the other hand, maybe this issue is scientifically intractable, as it certainly seems to be. In any case, freewill (and humanism) suggests an expansive metaphysical worldview that is well beyond well-established scientific presumptions, whether we like it or not.

Notice, that as I take up this subject with great interest, and reflect upon the very process of my own personal investigation and deliberation, I necessarily collapse my intellectual uncertainty as to the existence of genuine freewill, into a freewill commitment, which is a necessary element of that very interest and investigation. As I weigh alternative theories, there remains an assumption that I indeed can genuinely deliberate, and genuinely choose a position, i.e. a belief, that resonates with my personal understanding, and thereafter freely act according to that belief. (For example, the deliberation and resultant realization that Mormonism is false, and the corresponding action to distance myself from it.) To deny freewill in the context of such human necessity just seems absurd.

Once one's commitment to humanism is solidified, and one's worldview thereby expanded to include metaphysical possibilities of mind and "matter" beyond science, one should tread lightly when criticizing those whose worldview encompasses beliefs that are based upon subjective experiences and intuitions that are not neatly encompassed by scientific evidence. That is the price of embracing the sacred cows of humanism.

This is part of the reason I don't identify with humanism. I think individual striving is nice and gets us through our life, but believing in human progress, free will, agency, etc., always seems a bit too dogmatic and almost religious to me, along with science used as a means to further those "goals." I don't believe humanity has progressed in any major way, though we have destroyed quite a bit. Sometimes it seems to me almost to amount to human worship ("believe in yourself," etc) or some kind of deifying of humanity. I'd be a nihilist but I do feel some connection to nature (the same nature that we as humans seem so bent on destroying).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2016 01:31PM by woodsmoke.

"This is part of the reason I don't identify with humanism. I think individual striving is nice and gets us through our life, but believing in human progress, free will, agency, etc., always seems a bit too dogmatic and almost religious to me, along with science used as a means to further those "goals."

COMMENT: You don't identify with humanism? Remember, humanism is not just a social or political worldview, it is an individual and personal worldview that encompasses personal freewill and autonomy. There is no question that your actions and beliefs, and everyday navigation of life, *does* identify with humanism on this personal level. The "dogmatic and almost religious" component of this identification (and its non-scientific character) is precisely why I have agreed with Tal in identifying them as "sacred cows." But it is no simple matter to dismiss them out-of-hand.

I disagree. That's like when Christians claim that even though I don't 'admit' I believe in God, he's around me every day or something and involved in everything I do. That's true in that in the West, we are embedded in a Judeo-Christian worldview from birth, and if we go against it, we are 'involved' with it in that we're rejecting it. But you're right that there's also an 'individual and personal' element, and that's precisely where I don't agree. I am involved in humanism politically and socially in that I was raised in a society with those values.

Humanism is, first and foremost, an ethical and philosophical worldview. It has many offshoots but grew in part out of the Enlightenment idea of the individual, which I reject.

A quick dictionary definition of humanism:

"an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

Another definition: "a system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual."

I don't agree with these ideals, particularly the idea of the individual or of human value/agency.

I don't believe in free will or autonomy or the natural goodness of humans. I believe we act with what we've been given but our range of control is very, very tiny in the face of evolution and mob mentality. I think that free will itself or individual agency is primarily a myth perpetuated to serve capitalist interests. I think human progress is a myth and humans are naturally selfish. Therefore, no to humanism.

I identify more with antihumanist, posthumanist, and nihilist ways of looking at the world (Nietzsche and Donna Haraway especially) and theories about interaction. So you're right that I'm 'involved' in it in that the critical theories with which I engage are in part reacting to the long history of humanist ideals in the West, but no, that doesn't mean I accept any of them or work within those ideals.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2016 07:12PM by woodsmoke.

I enjoy science and I value the lack of restrictions science places on curiosity. But I don't *need* science to supply me with all my answers. I can't prove water is wet, but so far no one has ever asked me to. I'm certain there are all sorts of things that water 'is', but no one apparently wants to dispute its wetness.

Insofar as 'humanity' is concerned, it's unfortunate that 'ghawd' has often been too handy a source for answers, and that these handy answers often require, or at least encourage, a cessation of inquiry.

It's usually laughable coming from a stranger, but "I know the church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet!" may well be the worst thing a loved one can say to us. And their efforts, like Tal's, to make us 'believe' as they do, are the stuff of nightmares.

I don't preach to my TBM daughter or her family for a few reasons, one of which is that it would likely alienate them from me. I suppose someone could take, and defend, the point of view that if I loved my daughter enough, I'd take that risk.

<<Today, in another post, he added, "They [my views] include an intransigent commitment to "freewill, self-determination and human autonomy" which several times has led you to dismiss certain propositions a priori. Objecting to that unfortunate habit is entirely legitimate.">>

I think Tal's point is that since freewill, self-determination and human autonomy don't exist, you're bucking the trend by dismissing certain proposition a priori. Quite a feat.

Just a couple of comments on your long (but interesting) post...

I would dispute that Wegner's view *is* the scientific view. It's one of many hypotheses, actually, none of which is accepted "a priori."

I would also dispute that science is manifestly "materialist." It's not. There's more than ample room in science for the non-material...as long as these non-material things, processes, forces, etc. can be demonstrated using the scientific method (which makes no "materialist" assumptions). For example, there's plenty of room in science for the non-material "emergent properties" that may be how "consciousness" comes from a physical brain.

And finally, given both of the above, there is no contradiction between humanism and science. Because that "contradiction" only comes from insisting that Wegner's point of view be accepted, and from insisting that science is manifestly "material." Neither is the case.

I would dispute that Wegner's view *is* the scientific view. It's one of many hypotheses, actually, none of which is accepted "a priori."

COMMENT: O.K. Then what is the scientific view, other than a "confused" inconsistent belief in both determinism and freewill. In other words, how does science accommodate belief in genuine freewill? What is the scientific "freewill theory." In short, there is none. Wegner's quote *does* reflect the scientific view, because there simply is no other scientific account of genuine freewill. The scientific account is that the feeling of freewill is an illusion.
__________________________________________________

I would also dispute that science is manifestly "materialist." It's not. There's more than ample room in science for the non-material...as long as these non-material things, processes, forces, etc. can be demonstrated using the scientific method (which makes no "materialist" assumptions). For example, there's plenty of room in science for the non-material "emergent properties" that may be how "consciousness" comes from a physical brain.

COMMENT: Materialist science broadly includes all things that are scientifically quantifiable. Science cannot escape its materialist history, tradition, and methodology by merely stating the "magic" of non-quantifiable emergent properties. Genuine freewill and consciousness cannot be quantified, or causally explained by the scientific method. Saying that consciousness comes from a physical brain may well be true, but that of itself is not explanation of how mental properties emerge from physical brain states, much less how a self coupled with freewill might so emerge. I do not know of a single scientist in any discipline that thinks consciousness and freewill are explained by applying the scientific method.
You will not find "emergent properties" in any physics textbook, or for that matter, consciousness or freewill. That is because neither can be incorporated into materialist science broadly defined as requiring only some means of quantification.
__________________________________________

And finally, given both of the above, there is no contradiction between humanism and science. Because that "contradiction" only comes from insisting that Wegner's point of view be accepted, and from insisting that science is manifestly "material." Neither is the case.

COMMENT: This manifests the part of my post that said: "Now, if you were to ask typical (non-theoretical) scientists (including Humanists) about all of this, they might say that they are both a humanist and a materialist scientist in the above sense. That just means they are confused, because such a position is inconsistent, for reasons just explained."

You cannot just announce your position. If you are NOT confused, you need to provide a scientific account of consciousness and genuine freewill. "Emergent properties" is no more of an explanation than someone suggesting that God is an emergent property of the universe.

Excellent!

But we don't need Humanism to 'believe' in its 'sacred cows'. We live those cows despite our beliefs. As you say:

"The response of such people, if they respond at all, has been generally to insist on the traditional materialist scientific thesis, like Wegner, while denying genuine freewill—at least until they leave the office and start living their normal lives."


I'm trying to keep up with the scientists who are trying to get past "causal closure". We touched once on a philosopher who attempts the same (Thomas Nagel). And I'm with you, against the science writers who dogmatically insist on materialism, especially when they pronounce 'from the chair', in effect bullying funding foundations to steer clear of this or that research. However:

There's still LOTS that can be learned by going along as things are going along, right? Taking physicalism as a beginning premise still has legs! Not as dogma, and especially not as a world-view, but as a place to start to understand the 'stuff out there'. There's still plenty to do.

At the same time, we should fund people like Stuart Kauffman and Donald Hoffman, and philosophers of science trying to conceptualize what comes next, and (yes) even people going in the direction of Rupert Sheldrake, maybe especially those people and that direction. Thinking about the billions Obama is directing to the brain, I'd say there is plenty of money to go around.

What must stop, however, is the silly pop-science insistence that materialism is the only world view and you're just, in effect, silly or stupid if you don't accept that. We've seen that on RfM over the years. My sense is that this is abating somewhat, and I don't think it played much with actual scientists going about their work anyway. And as you say, even those pop-science insisters get up from their desk and go about their life, freely, autonomously and determined by their own lights.

Human

I'm trying to keep up with the scientists who are trying to get past "causal closure". We touched once on a philosopher who attempts the same (Thomas Nagel). And I'm with you, against the science writers who dogmatically insist on materialism, especially when they pronounce 'from the chair', in effect bullying funding foundations to steer clear of this or that research.

COMMENT: A few philosophers, like Nagel, acknowledge mental causation, but none can explain it. The majority of scientists that believe consciousness is an important part of reality, and have some QM theory of consciousness, including Henry Stapp and Roger Penrose, cannot explain its emergence, and their theories remain essentially deterministic. And this lack of explanation is precisely what makes the majority insist that consciousness is at best epiphenomenal.
_________________________________________

There's still LOTS that can be learned by going along as things are going along, right? Taking physicalism as a beginning premise still has legs! Not as dogma, and especially not as a world-view, but as a place to start to understand the 'stuff out there'. There's still plenty to do.

COMMENT: Sure, but notice that the problem of consciousness arises everywhere in modern science. So regardless of what science achieves, consciousness remains the elephant in the room. Note in Quantum Theory, where it is front and center in the debate about wave function collapse. It is also, of course, center stage in psychology and the human sciences, regardless of how much cognitive scientists try to ignore it. In a systems theory of human cognition, one would think that consciousness would at least be considered as an active component of the system with some degree of causal efficacy. The problem is that once genuine freewill is introduced into the system, its study as a science breaks down because of causation and quantification issues.
______________________________________

At the same time, we should fund people like Stuart Kauffman and Donald Hoffman, and philosophers of science trying to conceptualize what comes next, and (yes) even people going in the direction of Rupert Sheldrake, maybe especially those people and that direction. Thinking about the billions Obama is directing to the brain, I'd say there is plenty of money to go around.

COMMENT: Stuart Kauffman and Hoffman are still determinists (as far as I can tell), even though they are complex systems theorists. Sheldrake is another matter, of course. His research interests (that I am aware of) are interesting, as are paranormal research programs that per se take consciousness seriously. So, yes fund them. But I suspect that result will be a continual undermining of materialist science with not much to replace it.
_______________________________________

What must stop, however, is the silly pop-science insistence that materialism is the only world view and you're just, in effect, silly or stupid if you don't accept that. We've seen that on RfM over the years. My sense is that this is abating somewhat, and I don't think it played much with actual scientists going about their work anyway. And as you say, even those pop-science insisters get up from their desk and go about their life, freely, autonomously and determined by their own lights.

COMMENT: Agree.

The truth is, we're coming up to the edges of Science. There isn't a lot to do and still call it "science" in the old fashioned sense. If it's not falsifiable we cannot call it science, for example.

The 'other' elephant in the room at least got discussed at length:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

We are now to spend billions digging into that three pound mass and trying to see all we can see. (I'm horrified where this might go ethically, down the road or likely happening right now. Arguments may or have already arisen that if there's no 'there there' behind qualia then their isn't a violation etc.)


Which leads to your elephant. Hoffman begins right and is fumbling for testability. You seem to stumble on his fumbling. How can someone say "it's consciousness all the way down" and still be thought of as a materialist? You saw what I saw. The guy is radical. Yes, he accepts the algorithms of Dawkins's "universal darwinism", yes he takes that math, but he completely discards the materialist assumptions, for example that organisms or DNA are actual physical objects in 3D, in space and time. He throws that out the window but keeps the math. The math, it seems to him, is an artifact thrown off of the consciousnesses. But all he sees, ultimately, is consciousnesses. That's why I suggested he talk with Evan Thompson at UBC (yes, a materialist, but fully aware of it's limited explanatory abilities, and well connected to interesting thinkers/scientists/bhuddists/etc working on the subject).

Hoffman is not a materialist. He's trying to find a way of showing that material doesn't actually exist. Something beyond panphysicism because there isn't a 'material' holding consciousness, in his view, but only consciousness itself.

http://meaningoflife.tv/videos/32997?in=24:29&out=35:39

He is literally anything but a materialist, as far away from a materialist as it can get. That's why I said if he's right he's another Galileo. But as he is willing to entertain, he may be spectacularly wrong.


And that's what I admire most, is this willingness to be spectacularly wrong, to just giv'er and go for it. We need that. There are no more edges to nibble at. And the Mandarins of Science have no clothes for all the reasons you have been pointing out for many years now, for which I am grateful. So we need guys like Hoffman (or Sheldrake), if not for their ideas themselves but as examples of the kind of attitude it is gonna take to get to the next level. And quite frankly, it has always taken that kind of attitude. It's odd the kind of scoffing Sheldrake has been subject to by his school (Cambridge) once he went off the beaten path of his field (botany, biochemistry). The cocksure scoffers have always been of the 'Priesthood'. I'm with the guys and gals ever bucking against that 'hood. As always,

Human, ever with the underdogs

Here's Rebecca Goldstein describing her transition from hard-core materialist to 'something else'; from desiring to study the foundations of quantum mechanics to being utterly transformed by "What it is like to be a bat" (Nagel); from being 'in the fold' to finding herself on the 'outskirts'; and enduring the awful name-calling at her thesis defence: "you're a 'metaphysicist'." Oh my!

Because of the problem of consciousness, she says that that swear word is becoming less potent.


http://meaningoflife.tv/videos/33088?in=11:20&out=17:39

Which leads to your elephant. Hoffman begins right and is fumbling for testability. You seem to stumble on his fumbling. How can someone say "it's consciousness all the way down" and still be thought of as a materialist? You saw what I saw. The guy is radical. Yes, he accepts the algorithms of Dawkins's "universal darwinism", yes he takes that math, but he completely discards the materialist assumptions, for example that organisms or DNA are actual physical objects in 3D, in space and time. He throws that out the window but keeps the math. The math, it seems to him, is an artifact thrown off of the consciousnesses. But all he sees, ultimately, is consciousnesses. That's why I suggested he talk with Evan Thompson at UBC (yes, a materialist, but fully aware of it's limited explanatory abilities, and well connected to interesting thinkers/scientists/bhuddists/etc working on the subject).

COMMENT: Well, I would have to revisit Hoffman to respond appropriately, but I am quite sure that even though not strictly a materialist (after all his program is based upon consciousness as fundamental), he does sort of "materialize" consciousness, by suggesting conscious fundamental "units" which are involved in causal relationships with the perceived "physical" world. Moreover, he retains an algorithmic view of the natural order, which means deterministic. So, I fail to see how freewill fits into his theory. Somehow, and somewhere, there needs to be a break in causality to leave room for autonomous agents, regardless of what one takes to be the algorithmic basis for such causal events.

I agree with your problems with algorithms vis-a-vis free will.

But Hoffman is definitely not talking about ultimate reality being the result of "causal relationships with the perceived 'physical' world". There is no "physical world" to have a relationship with. Instead he is saying it is a result of casual relationships between conscious entities only. Rather than materializing consciousness he is dematerializing materiality. In a way, he's saying the physical world itself is epiphenomenal.

Just keep you eye out for him. Demonstrating his ideas is only at the beginning stage. Look again in ten years. We'll see what he can make of them, and you'll remember that you heard it here first ;^)

"We live the values even if we don't believe in them" sounds a little bit like "Heavenly Father loves you even if you don't love him."

woodsmoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We live the values even if we don't believe in
> them" sounds a little bit like "Heavenly Father
> loves you even if you don't love him."


Is this for me? Can't quite tell by the threading.

If so, how does this sound similar? I don't see it.

Also, I said something a little different, I said:

"We live those cows despite our beliefs." By 'cows' I'm not talking about 'values'. I am talking about what Henry called "sacred cows", the subject of his post: "Freewill, Human Autonomy, and Human Self-determination".

No matter what our beliefs, we live as if we are autonomous, self-determined and exercising our will freely. Even if we write a book contra free will, this is true. That is simply how it feels to be alive. And barring some very specific mental disorders etc, that is the feeling even if you don't believe in those concepts.

Do you feel differently?

Yes, definitely, and I think it's a specifically Western way of approaching the world...as if we are autonomous, self-reliant individuals. It's a fairly new concept, actually, stemming from Enlightenment values and capitalist ideals, and in other cultural contexts identity and selfhood are indeed experienced differently and more collectively, if the language they use and have historically used is to be believed.

You're right that we act AS IF we are autonomous and self-reliant, but I think that's a comforting myth just like God is a comforting myth. From Nietzsche to Buddha to poststructuralists, posthumanists, and even Marx to some extent, the idea of humans being "autonomous and self-reliant" is widely critiqued.

Individualism is a theory like anything else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2016 11:53AM by woodsmoke.

I disagree with something specific but agree with you generally.

I think *all* humans experience the self as an entity apart. My reading in Indian Yoga/Veda lit. and then later Buddhist lit. confirms this for me. Their entire literature is about that internal world we call "consciousness" today. They made it a cultural focus of study.

One difference between the proverbial West and East is that they discovered an underlying consciousness beyond their own individual ego, for which they developed all kinds of philosophy and physical techniques to attain that 'place.' They valued that 'place' as something higher than the individualized ego.

The West from the Enlightenment on, yes I agree, almost sacralized the individualized ego.

But the bottom line is no matter where you were born or when, humans experience themselves as a 'self, autonomous etc'. We may aggrandize that experience, and the proverbial East may seek to be released from that experience. In either case, there's lots of 'myth' to go around, comforting or not (I for one am not comforted by Western 'myths' about the ego.)

Human

Certainly, binaries are never the answer. There are many intersections, and dichotomies are never an accurate way to go.

I'm also referring to 1) the permeable nature of identity and the greater "folding in" of the self to the larger community and kinship ties that we can't imagine today; and 2) the near worship of "free will" exhibited by humanism: free will that is both debatable and reliant on many factors outside of our control, from evolution to generational trauma, whether we admit it or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2016 12:15PM by woodsmoke.

Certainly. Never.


Forgive me if I'm reading you wrong, but it seems like you are saying other humans experience their 'what it feels like to be human' experience, at the very basic level, differently than we do in the West post enlightenment. Are you?

We're all human. Yes, our cultures are different, we fold into one another differently, etc. But at bottom we all begin at the same place.

I admit all the factors and more that "constrain" free will etc, but at bottom no matter what the constraints and no matter what ideas we have about it, everyone that goes for a walk *feels* like they chose to walk, at gunpoint or what you will. I think you admitted that "as if" already, but then it seems you are saying something else.

Yes, the "idea" of free will exists on a spectrum, from culture to culture time to time and individual to individual, from zero free will to absolute free will. Yes, that variation will play into how we exercise that free will. But I don't think any of that negates the "as if" feeling that we have it.

What "it" is or isn't, ultimately, may be unknowable in a scientific sense. Nevertheless, we experience it.

Certainly, the "as if" part is correct. On a practical level, I have a problem with humanism because the emphasis on free will and agency leads to and has led to arguments about poverty and racism (you could overcome those problems if you exercised your agency; racism isn't embedded in our society, it's an individual choice) that are dangerous and don't take underlying collective factors (years of archetypes, representations, structural problems) for what we think are purely "our choices" into account. I think of the cycle of childhood abuse, for example.

I am indeed suggesting that what it feels like to be human may be or have been so different in different cultural contexts that, while there are going to be major overlaps, there are such differences in how our consciousness develops and is trained that they are unfathomable unless perhaps we work very hard to understand them. A Hindu monk I knew told me that his idea of "himself" was so different from his students' (he was a chaplain at an American university) that he found it difficult to relate or explain basic concepts because the differences were so fundamental.

Do I think there is some universal consciousness? Yes. Free will and agency are dicier.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2016 12:37PM by woodsmoke.

I have problems with Humanism, too; which makes me Human.

Vis-a-vis your Hindu friend and universal consciousness , I think you might like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Dreaming-Being-Consciousness-Neuroscience/dp/0231137095

Cheers woodsmoke.

Human

What does Tal Bachman stand for? He mostly seems to attack everything. I suppose he supports the virtues of iconoclasm, universal skepticism, and nonconformity?

I normally would not respond to something like this, but it is grossly unfair. Tal thinks hard and deeply about issues, and is not afraid to present his thoughts, knowing that they will likely be challenged, and perhaps ridiculed. Moreover, I always sense that he is genuinely trying to figure things out.

Although I rarely agree with him, personally he has stimulated my thinking on a number of issues, and helped me focus my thoughts and positions.

Tal Bachman is trying very hard through many long posts to make us understand his position, but I am failing to understand it. He attacks religion, he attacks atheists, and he attacks Humanism. I am trying to figure out what is left that he agrees with and likes.

"Once one's commitment to humanism is solidified, and one's worldview thereby expanded to include metaphysical possibilities of mind and "matter" beyond science, one should tread lightly when criticizing those whose worldview encompasses beliefs that are based upon subjective experiences and intuitions that are not neatly encompassed by scientific evidence."

I don't necessarily want anyone to agree with my 'subjective experiences and intuitions' ------ anyone could have them and may but not notice.

However, it is nice to hear 'skeptics' saying what you said versus using words like 'deluded, liars, con men, psycho, etc.' when dealing with people reporting 'subjective experiences'. This coming from myself that is still skeptical/and on many downright critical of about many 'subjective experiences' ------ near death experiences for one and many that involve things I have not experienced for myself or feel I have any insight on.

¿ who was multiple walls of unreadable text ?

Just a few quick thoughts (hopefully later I can respond in more detail):

Jay - I have never argued that free will, self-determination and human autonomy do not exist. Certainly they may. But what I *have* argued against (amongst other things) is Henry's out-of-hand dismissals of propositions on grounds they are (allegedly) irreconcilable with his pet pre-commitments. (And for this reason, we might legitimately wonder if it might be the case that you can take the Henry out of Mormonism, but not the Mormonism out of Henry).

(And let me add here that Henry's big objection that his sacred cows are not uniquely *his*, but are rather shared by many, should have been too embarrassing for him to even type out, as their popularity is a fact known by all, and is, at any rate, entirely irrelevant to my objection to his approach).

SO - the proposition which so upsets Henry is essentially as follows:

"The reason why religious belief and practice have existed in all human societies is because human biology predisposes humans to religious belief and practice".

Let's call that (R).

In my view, and leaving aside for the moment whether (R) is true or not, there is nothing even remotely objectionable about (R) in principle. And in fact, it is held by a growing number of researchers in fields as diverse as neuroscience, evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, cognitive science/cognitive psychology, political science, philosophy and sociology. But to hear Henry tell it, every single word these researchers have written in support of (R) is, in his word, "nonsense"; and seemingly, the most important reason why it must be "nonsense" for Henry is because...(R) threatens his sacred cows.

That's not a good enough reason to dismiss (R). Not even close. What's even weirder is that for all of Henry's upset, he has yet to present any even remotely plausible account of why (R) is necessarily irreconcilable with free will. Evidently, for Henry, mere *fear* that it is, however irrational, is enough to reject the possible truth of (R) out of hand. As I mentioned in another thread, that ain't science; that's religion.

A few more thoughts:

Yes - if one agrees with Einstein that "God does not play dice", and that the universe is deterministic, then it seems as though free will cannot exist.

But is the universe deterministic? Two quick thoughts on this. The first is a thought experiment once suggested by Karl Popper (in defending indeterminism). Popper once asked something like the following: if we knew everything there was to know about Mozart's brain *before* he wrote The Requiem...would we have been able to produce The Requiem exactly as he himself did? Popper says no (and I find his answer intuitively appealing, even though it doesn't really prove anything). Just throwing that out there as food for thought.

The next thought is that indeterminism has a fairly illustrious pedigree (having supporters all the way from Aristotle to Murray Gell-Mann, Christof Koch, Max Born and others). Long story short is that science these days furnishes quite a few reasons to doubt determinism - to allow for the possibility of free will - so that it is odd that Henry should have so gaily skipped over, in his original post anyway, how at least the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics seems to support his Holy Trinity.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2016 04:59AM by Tal Bachman.

By the way, thanks for the kind words, Henry. Although I cannot say I have agreed with a lot of the things you've written, the conversations have gotten my intellectual gears (such as they are) going big-time. I appreciate the time you take to engage.

Heretic: I do not attack "atheism" on here. I myself have no particular theist beliefs.

What I have attacked (and what I believe any thinking person should attack) is rather an inane and pernicious secular humanism which, amongst other things, consistently tries to hijack atheism (a position which is in fact consistent with many different views of the world, and of the phenomenon of religion), and which itself has become a boorish, grating vehicle for myths every bit as absurd and evidence-free as those propounded by any "proper" religion out there.

I have never argued that free will, self-determination and human autonomy do not exist. Certainly they may. But what I *have* argued against (amongst other things) is Henry's out-of-hand dismissals of propositions on grounds they are (allegedly) irreconcilable with his pet pre-commitments.

COMMENT: My commitment to freewill has NEVER been the basis of my arguments against your views, or any other views. My grounds for such dismissal are based upon clear logical argument that such views are not scientifically supportable.
______________________________________________

(And for this reason, we might legitimately wonder if it might be the case that you can take the Henry out of Mormonism, but not the Mormonism out of Henry).

COMMENT: Was this really necessary. It is just stupid and designed to be offensive. If you keep doing this, I will end my discussions with you.
______________________________________________

(And let me add here that Henry's big objection that his sacred cows are not uniquely *his*, but are rather shared by many, should have been too embarrassing for him to even type out, as their popularity is a fact known by all, and is, at any rate, entirely irrelevant to my objection to his approach).

COMMENT: Can't you read a post objectively, Tal. Is that really what I said in this post? Actually, I said just the opposite; that science is dismissive of freewill.
_________________________________________________

SO - the proposition which so upsets Henry is essentially as follows:

"The reason why religious belief and practice have existed in all human societies is because human biology predisposes humans to religious belief and practice".

COMMENT: False and unsupportable statements don't upset me, I just point out how and why they are wrong, which is what I have done with you.
___________________________________________________

Let's call that (R).

In my view, and leaving aside for the moment whether (R) is true or not, there is nothing even remotely objectionable about (R) in principle. And in fact, it is held by a growing number of researchers in fields as diverse as neuroscience, evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, cognitive science/cognitive psychology, political science, philosophy and sociology.

COMMENT: Agree that there is nothing wrong with (R) in principle. It is just false. However, deny that it is held by a "growing number" of such scientists. The trend is against such simplistic explanations of human beliefs and behavior, and towards a complex systems view. It is painfully obvious, that you lack an understanding of such trends, and have a narrow understanding of these matters based upon a limited reading of the literature. Note also, that my views are NOT original. They are shared by "a growing number" of scientists engaged in the study of human behavior, including cognitive scientists.
_____________________________________

But to hear Henry tell it, every single word these researchers have written in support of (R) is, in his word, "nonsense"; and seemingly, the most important reason why it must be "nonsense" for Henry is because...(R) threatens his sacred cows.

COMMENT: Well, not every word is nonsense, but the (R) conclusion, yes. But not based upon sacred cows, based upon evidence and argument; as I have repeatedly pointed out.
___________________________________________

That's not a good enough reason to dismiss (R). Not even close.

COMMENT: Right, which is why I never argued based upon such reasons. What you have done, is turned a rhetorical criticism of your own. (i.e. my "sacred cows") into a straw man argument falsely attributed to me. In fact, I acknowledged that genuine freewill *is* a sacred cow, without scientific basis, which is why I do not use it to support scientific arguments. My post was only designed to show that such "sacred cows" are built in to what it means to be human; not that they serve as premises for scientific or philosophical arguments.
________________________________________

What's even weirder is that for all of Henry's upset, he has yet to present any even remotely plausible account of why (R) is necessarily irreconcilable with free will. Evidently, for Henry, mere *fear* that it is, however irrational, is enough to reject the possible truth of (R) out of hand. As I mentioned in another thread, that ain't science; that's religion.

COMMENT: I never said it was irreconcilable with freewill. What I said was that such views suggest a level of biological determinism, and to that extent should be viewed with suspicion. But, the point is that they are not scientifically supportable. THAT IS THE POINT OF ALL MY ARGUMENTS!
______________________________________________

A few more thoughts:

Yes - if one agrees with Einstein that "God does not play dice", and that the universe is deterministic, then it seems as though free will cannot exist.

COMMENT: You are confused. Einstein's comment was in response to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics; i.e. randomness; not freewill.
______________________________________________

But is the universe deterministic? Two quick thoughts on this. The first is a thought experiment once suggested by Karl Popper (in defending indeterminism). Popper once asked something like the following: if we knew everything there was to know about Mozart's brain *before* he wrote The Requiem...would we have been able to produce The Requiem exactly as he himself did? Popper says no (and I find his answer intuitively appealing, even though it doesn't really prove anything). Just throwing that out there as food for thought.

COMMENT: I find it intuitively appealing as well. But, think about it. What does this say? It says that there is something more to human beings that brains; i.e. than mere biology. Popper is a dualist, one of the few philosophers that respects consciousness. And of course, his friend John C. Eccles, a neuroscientists shares this view. (See Popper and Eccles, The Self and Its Brain.) Your suggestion that freewill might operate in some sense within the constraints of biology. I am O.K. with this; but it also is correct to say that freewill operates, if at all, within the constraints of environmental factors. But both of these postulates fail to cash out what a "predisposition" means, how these, and perhaps other constraints, are related, and particularly how freewill is able to trump such constraints. But, in any event, I have always acknowledged a biological and environmental component in human behavior. Freewill operates within such constraints. But calling such constraints "predispositions" I think misses the mark.
______________________________________

The next thought is that indeterminism has a fairly illustrious pedigree (having supporters all the way from Aristotle to Murray Gell-Mann, Christof Koch, Max Born and others). Long story short is that science these days furnishes quite a few reasons to doubt determinism - to allow for the possibility of free will - so that it is odd that Henry should have so gaily skipped over, in his original post anyway, how at least the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics seems to support his Holy Trinity.

COMMENT: Again, you are confused. Most modern scientists, although not determinists, would undoubtedly deny genuine freewill. Their commitment to indeterminism is based upon the well-established fact of quantum randomness. That randomness does NOT provide per se support of freewill in any way.
___________________________________________

TAL: The tone of your posts is offensive to me. If you don't stop the rhetorical jabs, I will stop dialoging with you. You can take this as a warning. Note also, that you need to know when to take the attitude of an antagonist, and when to take the attitude of a student. By being hell-bent on refuting me, at any cost, you fail to appreciate the force of my arguments, and by so doing fail to appreciate the need to dig deeper into your own position.

That is all I have to say on this topic, which was a substantial departure from my original post, and was already addressed ad nauseam in your previous posts.

without expanding (Owing to time) the humanist (freewill) and Scientific materialist conflict always reminds me of Zeno - an apparent conflict that renders traversing a distance impossible owing to the fact that it can be divided into a infinite number of smaller distances.

Yet, (as i've demonstrated to my 8 year old son) i can easily move my hand between point A and point B evidencing such a movement is possible in seconds - despite the reality that the distance is infinite (in terms of small spaces).

humanism is merely doing things that aid humanity.
there is religious humanism and there is secular humanism.
religious humanists do things to please their imaginary god.
secular humanists do things just because they are good things to do.

Depends very much on what you're referring to. "Humanism" being a synonym for "secularism" is a tiny piece of the constellation of meanings and applications of humanism.

Making a generalization about humanism always aiding humanity is a bit scary to me. If you're referring to science, well, that's been widely deployed for good and evil in fairly equal measure.

looks like you are creating bullshit strawmen again.

I asked you to clarify what you meant by humanism. There are a wide variety of definitions and it's used liberally by various people to mean very different things.

I don't think you understand what a "strawman" is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2016 12:00PM by woodsmoke.