A little while back, my friend UnkleE suggested that I should consider some questions that he believes are problematic for atheism as a worldview. He listed 5 questions, and I want to take them one at a time, so they can each get the focus they deserve.
That said, my initial responses to each of these questions may not be very long. Instead, I’d like to use each of these posts as a launchpad for discussion. I know these are issues that UnkleE (and probably many of you) have thought about at length, and I’d like to consider those arguments as fully as possible without subjecting everyone to my own rambling preamble. So, here’s question 1:
Do we have free will? If so, how? If not how can any choice be based on evidence rather than brain processes?
I don’t know.
I’m aware that a number of physicists and other scientists sometimes argue that free will is an illusion. That was shocking to me when I first heard it, but I now realize what they’re saying.
Imagine you could go back in time to a point where a decision was made on something seemingly insignificant. In 1959, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and the Big Bopper died in a plane crash. It’s said that another musician, Tommy Allsup, was going to be on the plane instead of Ritchie Valens, but they flipped a coin for it, and Valens “won.” If you could go back in time and witness that coin flip without interfering, would anything happen differently? Whoever came up with the idea of flipping for it thought of that for very specific reasons that would still be the same if it happened over again. Allsup flipped the coin at a specific level of force, and it flipped through specific atmospheric conditions. Those things would still be the same if you were watching it happen. Valens called “heads,” which he did for specific reasons, even if they were subconscious. In other words, every single thing that happened, even though they were seemingly random, happened in particular ways for particular reasons. If you could replay it over, there’s no reason to think anything would play out differently.
And every decision you’ve ever made, you made for specific reasons, even if the decision was close. If you went back in time and made the decision over again, but only knew the same things you knew at that moment, could you have made any other decision?
There’s no real way to test this, but the thought experiment leads many to conclude that true “free will” is not really possible.
I’m not sure how I feel about that. I do think that if you could replay decisions, it’s unlikely they would ever change. But that’s not really what I think of when I think of free will. Just because I made all my decisions for specific reasons and was “powerless,” in a way, to do anything different, that doesn’t mean that I had no control over the decisions. Thought processes were still firing in my brain as I calculated a number of factors, considered past experiences, estimated probabilities, and tried to predict possible outcomes. I might always come to the same conclusion in the same circumstances, but my mind is still very active in the process.
[H]ow can any choice be based on evidence rather than brain processes?
I think any choice — any good choice — should be using both. Brain processes deal with information, and that’s all that evidence is, so I see them as being very closely related.
Ultimately, I don’t see how this question causes a problem for atheism. I may have more to say about it in the comment thread, but I’ll need to see the case against atheism filled out a bit more before I can really weigh in on it.
Finding Truth 
AutonomousReason,
That was a very good and clear response, and I not only agree with it almost completely, I also identify, share in and relate very well to your agnosticism, and non-belief in the Christian god – you’ve written it out much better than I’ve been able to.
I also agree with your take on freewill – perhaps even exactly.
Libertarian freewill is too ludicrous and idea to even spend time discussing seriously – to me it’s like giving merit to the idea that a rock would likely float away when dropped from a hand…
…And I just don’t see the argument at all – as in how the discussion on freewill poses any issue at all to atheism or any non-religious viewpoint.
But I don’t feel like I have to get it. Maybe I’m missing the bigger point, but it all just feels like an exercise in spinning wheels in the sand – all this effort for no yield.
I’d rather see the next question that is supposed to pose difficulty.
LikeLike
Hi William,
I think what you mean by “freewill” is what is meant by “libertarian freewill” – i.e. the ability to genuinely choose between options. It doesn’t imply no cause, it doesn’t say that we can choose whatever we like (obviously I can’t choose to fly or be king of England), it doesn’t say that we aren’t influenced or constrained by genetics, life experience, etc – just that we can at least sometimes choose between options and we could have chosen otherwise. Determinism says that, given the physical state of our brain at any time, only one “choice” is actually possible.
The argument is simple. If we are physical and there is nothing more than the physical, then everything is governed by physical laws. There is no self outside those laws, so our self must obey those laws. Granted the state of our brains at a certain time, the next brain state is determined by those laws, and couldn’t have been any different in the circumstances. Of course we may not be able to predict anyone’s choice, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t determined by the laws. The only possible way out of it I can see (and I think most philosophers agree) is randomness (i.e. no determining cause), but even if genuinely random events can occur beyond the quantum scale, they don’t provide choice, as you and others have said.
These “facts” lead many people (e.g. philosophers Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers, and neuroscientist Mario Beauregarde, as well as many theists) to think there is something more than physical to our minds. Nagel & Chalmers think that something is natural, just not physical, whereas some theists think it is supernatural.
Does that explain things?
LikeLike
No. That would only follow if the physical laws are exact, perfect, and complete. They aren’t.
LikeLike
UnkleE,
Thanks for the response.
I agree that we can actually make real choices, while still being influenced by a number of factors. I do not believe that we can only make one “choice” given the specific and immediate circumstances, and that wouldn’t even be a choice at all.
But I disagree that living in a physical world means that we are incapable of choosing. I believe these natural laws and factors are merely guidelines or boundaries that we are forced to choose within – as if life were a road, and the physical laws make us stay on a paved course, and make us stay in motion, but this road has many forks along its course, and we choose which force to take, while still being influenced by things like road signs or bladder size, etc…
I think saying that if we’re physical and if we only exist in a physical state, that we’re essentially programmed robots, is huge leap, and really just a claim that lacks adequate support.
I’ve already stated why I don’t see this as a problem for atheists, and while I won’t beat that horse, I want to say again that the existence of a god wouldn’t remove all of these influences. Each decision we make is based on these influential factors that we perceive, or feel, or that act on us without our knowing – how could it not be? Influence is not coercion.
And the claim that some have made, that the decision you made is the only decision you could have made, even if you could go back to that instant in time 1000 times or more, is just a wild claim, that while interesting, is pure conjecture, and wholly untestable. This extreme type of speculation is nearly meaningless, and cannot be used to prove a point. “Well, if this imaginary thing is true, then this other imaginary thing may be true too,” doesn’t seem like sound argumentation.
And then what’s the result, should we somehow prove that “choice” is nothing but illusion, and that all we’re capable of is a programmed reaction to every part of life, and that there really are no forks in the road, because we’re bound onto one specific course of action, like a single row of dominos?
What then? I think, nothing. Nothing really changes in that case, because those who are convinced by it, had no choice but to be, and those who were not convinced by it, have no choice but not be. Those who want to continue the debate, have to, and those who don’t continue the debate, couldn’t help but leave it – and such would be the case for everything that happened, whether good or bad or neutral, as well as our responses to them…. So to me it feels moot.
And then to say that if there is no god, then there cant be freewill, is also just a random and untestable claim. It starts from a supposition, and appeals to an emotional sense of self – like, “I didn’t come from no monkey,” this one begs the other to say, “I am in control and I do make choices, therefore god has to be real, since in a purely physical world, one wouldn’t have freewill…” it just looks like bad reasoning.
The entire discussion, to me, seems futile.
What’s the next question that presents difficulty to atheists?
LikeLike
No I cannot, but I’m willing to see what other questions may be posed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I want to see what Nate has up his sleeve, too. Where is he? Cooeee! Nate?
LikeLike
william: Not that it matters, because arguments are not settled by polling experts, but on unkleE’s statement about “many people (e.g. philosophers Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers, and neuroscientist Mario Beauregarde, as well as many theists) think there is something more than physical to our minds,” unkleE is cherry-picking, and neglecting to mention that the vast majority of philosophers and scientists are in fact atheists (including agnostics) and naturalists.
And, no, unkleE is incorrect again, and what you seem to mean by “free will” is not LFW, but more like Compatibilism, to the extent that you’ve stated that you reject the spooky, magical, incoherent gobbledygook, although you seem to subscribe to the notion that effectively, there is an ability to make choices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Travis,
“Could you explain what you meant by that?”
I was referring to your discussion beginning with: “Upon receiving the semantic content of P1 (All men are mortal) the network creates a new association between the existing concepts of men and mortality.” I have read a little on how the brain receives new input and decides whether to store it away as a memory or let it go (most sensory inputs are lost, for good reason, because they are of no consequence). To store a memory requires linkages or associations with other memories so it is or can be recalled later when that subject arises. But just creating an association will happen if the topic is considered important, whether the syllogism works or not, so there has to be a little more than you have suggested if the association is going to generate a simple logical argument. So I was just pointing out that it seemed to me that your explanation still didn’t really explain.
But remember this is my minor or preliminary point. My more major point is that the more complex the process that supposedly leads to the ability of our cause-effect brains to correlate to ground-consequence reasoning, the harder it is then to argue that your brain is thinking better (i.e. closer to reality or to logic – it is after all, just a correlation) than mine is, which is inherent in all discussions, especially disagreements, such as is happening here. For if the process by which our brains have evolved is complex and leads us to think differently, how confident can any of us be that the way our brain thinks is demonstrably better correlated to logic than someone else’s?
LikeLike
Hi William, thanks for your response. I don’t think I have anything new to add, so I’ll just make two brief comments to point up where i see the dilemmas for your viewpoint.
“I disagree that living in a physical world means that we are incapable of choosing. I believe these natural laws and factors are merely guidelines or boundaries that we are forced to choose within”
But if the world is just physical, what else is there to choose between those boundaries? How does a new action start in a totally physical world?
“I think saying that if we’re physical and if we only exist in a physical state, that we’re essentially programmed robots, is huge leap, and really just a claim that lacks adequate support.”
I agree. But what else is there?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Eric,
Let’s forgot about the major point for now because if we can’t get to mutual comprehension on the simplest of examples then discussions about scaling up to more complex situations aren’t going to go anywhere.
I don’t follow your response. As best I can interpret, it sounds like what I noted in my previous comment – that you object to the sufficiency of this model on the grounds that associations can be formed regardless of whether they properly reflect real-world associations. Is that the issue?
LikeLike
Hi Dave,
”the framework (which Travis has been theorizing in detail) exists and all that is required is time”
Yeah maybe. I have always said it may be possible. All I am asking is that it be shown to be true rather than another evolutionary “just so” story. But I have since admitted to Travis that even if true, I can see it might be very difficult to demonstrate, so it may be unfair to ask. But I’m still interested to see if it can be shown to be possible for higher forms of thinking, granted that sometimes higher thinking will be antithetical to survival, and many (most?) times instant reactions and many other factors are likely to be far more important. Somehow someone has to show that despite all these counter factors that natural selection will work on, it also selects on the ability of the mind to correlate ground-consequence logic and high level thinking with cause-effect physical processes. I am happy to leave this matter there for now because I don’t think anyone is going to be able to demonstrate this, though perhaps this may be possible at some later stage.
But note, as I have been saying all along, this is just a preliminary problem that I have said I am willing to grant for the sake of argument, and get onto the larger problem as I see it. And it is two-fold.
1. Natural selection usually works in a deterministic fashion. If zebras escape lions and live to breed because they are faster than other zebras, then natural selection will lead to faster zebras without any choice on the zebras’ part. The same applies to the evolution of homing instincts in birds, or nest building practices in ants, etc. So all of our brains must have evolved the same without any choice on our part.
So if our brains are determined, how come we think so differently? We think the same (mostly) about simple maths and logic, but not about more complex questions – even though our brains are supposedly cause-effect machines that have evolved to correlate logical and discriminating (in a good sense) thought, and yet we have grown to correlate in opposite ways.
Take God belief. It is supposedly caused by agent detection, so you might expect that like ants and migratory birds and zebras we’d think similarly about God – after all, we are not making choices, we all have come from the same evolutionary processes and we are all simply thinking deterministically and seeing the results of our correlation between cause-effect and our choices about (dis)belief. So why so different, and fiercely held, views?
2. More importantly, how can we argue? If our brains have evolved the same, as I’ve just outlined, yet somehow we come to such wildly different views on many important matters, how can we say one conclusion is more right than another? Somehow, however we explain it, our respective cause-effect brains have led to different conclusions, and if determinism is true, could never have come to different conclusion, granted the conditions. We will each naturally think we are right (we are determined to do so) but who can say? It is just your cause-effect to ground-consequence correlation vs mine!?
I don’t see anyone explaining how we can even be having this conversation and thinking it is a matter of logic and truth if determinism is true. Of course, if determinism is true, then none of us could have done differently, but it still means that all this is meaningless.
”Call it choosing or initiating or a judgment, but what is the source?”
The concept of choice is a difficult one and has exercised far better minds than mine, so I don’t pretend to be able to answer every question about it. But I think you are approaching this in too binary a fashion – either cause which equals determined or random. But we all experience choice all the time, and we know what it is even if we cannot fully explain it.
Choice has elements of both cause and random, and maybe something more, which we might call judgment (though maybe not, I’m still thinking about that). Let’s choose the example of believing in God again. I have known people come to sites like this with open minds about God. They read the various arguments and they will informally assign some sort of weighting to each one. They may choose to check some facts, or they may not. They may mull over the arguments and change the weightings they originally assigned. They may then choose to think they have enough information and they make a choice about their belief, or they may put off that choice (which is in itself a choice).
If determinism is true, then there is only one possible future world, and their final “choice” that creates that world was determined, but if there is libertarian free will, there are several possible future worlds, and their decisions described above decide which of those possible worlds is actualised. Anyone who has made a decision to give up the christian belief they were brought up in (as Nate and others here have done) or anyone who chose christian belief without a christian upbringing (as was the case for me) is familiar with the process of working through issues and making choice.
Now I submit to you that (1) most of us are familiar with such scenarios, so we do indeed know what choice is, and (2) the whole discussion on this blog ever since Nate deconverted would be nonsense if there wasn’t any real choice.
LikeLike
ALL: Ya we agree A exists
Unklee: A exists, B cannot explain it
Travis: B exists, and here’s the most advanced theories we have on how A came to exist. We’re still not sure but we’ll continue searching!
Unklee: Right, but whatever you explain about A using B will never be about the real A, which exists no matter what B is, or even despite B existing. Because when I die, my A will still exist, QED.
LikeLike
Travis: More confusion, from unkleE, which cries out for clarification. It seems that there’s an inexhaustible supply of confusion coming from unkleE. (Hey, I’m not being “ragey,” just callin’em as I see’em.) 🙂
Not true in general, only true in the case of associative memories. In biological brains (and in many ML paradigms), memories are formed by strengthening synaptic connections which may or may not be associated to other memories. Memories are distributed throughout a network or sub-network and they may or may not overlap in “physical space” without being related at all in “semantic space.”
In the specific case of associative memories, they are related in semantic space. Associative memories are “close” to one another in semantic space. For example, search engines like Google work in associative semantic space. When you enter a few search words, like “jaguar” and “horsepower,” the search engine generates a semantic query “vector” and retrieves those associative “vectors” whose angles are close to the original semantic vector (in an abstract semantic space which was automatically “learned” by the network), so you find documents that talk about the Jaguar automobile. If you entered “jaguar” and “big cat” it will generate a completely different semantic vector, pointing in a completely different direction in semantic space, that refers to the animal, not the car. Try this out on Google if you’d like. BTW, there’s no “magic” involved here at all, only well-understood physical processes which map to semantic meaning. This is the point.
Nope. A syllogism (or any arbitrary “mapping” from inputs to outputs, regardless of complexity) can be encoded (with “training”) also via synaptic strengths. If you enter the premises, the conclusion will be “retrieved” just as in the case with associative memories. In the case of ML paradigms (which are closer to how biological brains work than digital computers), there may be some error in some cases, and some disagreement among similarly-trained systems, but the error can be made arbitrarily small with more training. There’s no requirement here for a “little more” to be snuck in through the back door (which will later turn out to be a WHOLE LOT MORE, like magic, gods, Yahweh, etc.) 🙂
I only need a single, fairly brief-ish comment to see the dilemma in your viewpoint.
You believe in a man-made, genocidal egotistical despotic deity called Yahweh found solely in an ancient text, of which you largely base your worldview upon
You believe Yahweh later manifested as a human being after impregnating a 14 yr old Jewish virgin in a piss-poor, largely illiterate part of Palestine and grew up in a (then) non-existent village.
You believe that Yahweh in his human form – Yeshua – grew up to cure lepers, change water into wine, walk on water, talk to the weather, allowed himself to be crucified as a blood sacrifice necessary to redeem all of your sins, came back to life ( but he didn’t really die) and eventually de-materialize and disappear into the sky to a place called Heaven.
You believe that, after having confessed that you are a dirty rotten sinner and need Yeshua to forgive you, you will eventually go to Heaven because you believe all of the above is fact .
Meanwhile, you believe that all non-believers will very likely be going to a place called Hell.
You believe this message or a version of it needs to be spread to all of humanity lest when Jesus returns to judge us all we might end up all going to Hell.
All of the above is what YOU believe, unklee.
Notwithstanding all of the above, you also probably consider yourself a reasonably intelligent and erudite person.
I believe that, anyone who believes that this is fact is very likely suffering from some form of (treatable ) mental illness and, considering the damage done to so many youngsters should not be allowed access to children.
I am also reasonably confident in the belief that while my views of you and your religion etc might be considered a bit harsh, the majority here will likely agree with my ( tempered) views rather than give any credence whatsoever to yours.
And finally, as respectful as many try to be towards you, most will harbour the belief that to hold such nonsensical views in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the 21st century strongly suggests that you are nothing but a bloody fool.
Amen?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave: More of the same recycled canards from unkleE:
unkleE’s “argumentation” in a nutshell: It’s not possible for “cause-effect” physical processes to generate “ground-consequence” logic. Oh, Machine Learning, darn! Well, maybe it is possible, but Natural Selection only works with herky-jerky fast reflexes, not “higher” cognition, so it couldn’t have selected for it. Well, OK, maybe “higher” cognition can be advantageous for survival sometimes, but how could we “disagree” if it’s only cause-effect? Since we disagree, it couldn’t be because of “cause-effect” physical processes, so it’s not possible for “cause-effect” physical processes to generate “ground-consequence” logic… Repeat over and over and over.
And don’t forget to sprinkle with “Evolution is just-so stories” (never mind what his “magic” stuff is), big dollops of recalcitrant incredulity of well-substantiated science, over-reliance on “introspection” and “feelings,” arguments to consequence, and an absolute lack of facts or alternate theories of any kind as to how his “magic” can be put to work to solve any problems, and we’re back to square one. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE,
again, I appreciate the comment. I agree, I also dont have much else to say on it, but like you, will just leave a few more thoughts.
“But if the world is just physical, what else is there to choose between those boundaries? How does a new action start in a totally physical world?” – UnlkeE
Options, and the fact that not all can be taken – the new action starts when we decide, based on many factors, which option to take.
Gravity has something to do with mass, but I couldn’t adequately explain exactly how mass attracts and pulls on other mass. Similarly, I realize that I cannot explain any better why or how we think, we reason, and we choose in this physical world – we do this whether there is a God above, or there isn’t.
You seem to be saying that the only way we can actually decide between options, is if there is some deity that allows us to override the physical, yet we even then we and you still make your decisions based and supported by these physical influences, not outside of them.
“’I think saying that if we’re physical and if we only exist in a physical state, that we’re essentially programmed robots, is huge leap, and really just a claim that lacks adequate support.’
I agree. But what else is there?” – UnkleE
The opposite and everything in between.
LikeLike
Hi AR,
I think you’ve made a lot of good points in your comments that have gone unanswered and I just wanted to point that out. In one of your comments, “Why Randomness is Real” you described how rolling dice may ultimately have determined results due to classical physics, but is effectively random due to all of the factors and variables involved.
I’m wondering if we could use this reasoning and apply it to free will which may be helpful to anyone struggling with determinism. The number of factors and variables involved in our decision making is so high and the process is so complex that for all practical purposes we could say that we effectively have free will. Dwelling on the idea that everything is determined and we have no control over the future is absolutely futile. It’s like getting upset that our universe is too small because it does not occupy an infinite amount of space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Eric,
Because our brains don’t develop in a vacuum being fed the exact same pieces of information.
It appears you are appealing to mystery, that the origin of the choice “cannot be explained”, rather than providing an example of a choice that is made for a non-random, non-determined reason. For myself, I can see only two options for the source of any given choice: determined or random, this may seem binary, but it is because I cannot think of any counter examples. And if we are making LFW choices every day as you say then an example should be easy to come by, right?
You’ve provided the example of the “God question” which is probably one of the most complex decisions we make within our lifetimes. It is probably not the best example to use because it involves a long series of separate, distinct choices. If we break it down and look at each choice separately we might get a better idea of what the origin is for each choice. Let’s take a look at fact-checking for instance. A choice is made to NOT look for other sources to corroborate a presented fact. Why? What is the source or reason for this choice? Is it a tendency to be lazy (energy conservation instinct)? Is it due to prior research already conducted (stored in physical memory)? Do we just trust the person presenting the fact (prior fact-checking of person was always successful)? So far, all of these reasons could be explained by physical (determined) memories or instincts stored within our brains. Can you think of a choice (judgment) that comes from a non-random, non-determined source?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The God question may only boil down to a human’s desire to have an answer. “God” may just be a catch all that satisfies the difficult questions enough for us to move on to something else.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Eric,
Shortly after I asked for further clarification, you said the following to Dave:
I am also willing to move on to “the larger problem” but it’s pretty important that we first agree on what it is that you are granting. From my perspective, the framework being granted is that there are viable cause-and-effect models of learning networks that are generalizing prediction engines which build probabilistic associations from inputs (evidence) to produce outputs (predictions) which tend to agree with reality. Is this what you’re granting, even if only for simple cases?
The other piece that you may or may not be granting has to do with the relationship between this framework and ground-consequent logic. Your statements that the model “correlates” with logic lead me to think (again) that you are assuming logic to be a separate, transcendent entity rather than something that naturally arises in the framework do to its reliance on associations. I know you have previously denied this assumption but I see it here again.
If you are granting the two points above, then I propose that the onus is on you to explain why the model becomes unreliable as it scales to more complex issues, which amounts to there being a larger network consisting of more inputs (including recursive inputs that come from the model itself), more associations, and more outputs. I agree that it becomes less reliable – each addition of a factor adds a new source of variation that is harder to fit into a generalization – but I don’t see why we should leap to ‘unreliable’. Perhaps ‘unreliable’ needs to be defined?
Lastly, I also want to clarify that I am admittedly overselling the reliability of our reasoning faculty under this model because that aspect – the reliability – is under debate. I fully accept that there are lots of ways our reasoning can fail to reflect reality. I don’t see that this undermines anything because there is still a general principle (predictions based on probabilistic associations based on real-world inputs) which supports the capability to generate outputs that generally correspond with reality. If a model is going to be taken seriously then it needs to also support the clear observation that we are sometimes wrong, so there’s nothing specific to a physical cause-and-effect model in this regard.
FYI – I’m heading off into the woods again soon and probably won’t be able to respond for a few days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Travis, I’d love to hear sometime about your woods adventures. But I’ll probably delay replying for a couple of days, just to ease my load at a busy time. Have a good time! (I’m also going on a week away in a few days, but I should be in internet contact.)
LikeLike
Oh, joy!
LikeLike
Hi William,
It looks to me that you are saying you believe we have genuine choice among options, which sounds like libertarian free will. i.e. you are saying that even if the world is nothing but physical, and thus everything is controlled by physical laws, nevertheless we can choose between options and that choice is real. So I just want to check. Is that what you think?
LikeLike
Dave: Thank you. Yes, I would agree. The number of factors influencing our decision-making is virtually infinite. Between the many factors underlying the workings of our minds and the virtually limitless contingencies that the external world throws at us every instant, it’s perfectly understandable for us to have a “feeling” or “introspection” of having free will, because effectively we do. But that does not mean it is “Libertarian” in the sense that there is something non-physical and non-random going on, some sort of “magical,” “miraculous,” or “spooky” force outside of the physical world, “pulling the strings” of, or magically interacting with, the physical world. Not only has this never been observed (regardless of what “feelings” we may have, as those are largely irrelevant to ascertain objective truth) and may well be impossible to verify (because the tape can’t be “re-played”), but there are very good reasons to conclude that it is almost certainly not there. This is what “Compatibilism” is all about.
LikeLiked by 1 person