Answer to the Problem of Evil

[Tassman]

Memories are created from external stimuli also. So far, you are not describing anything other than a computer. Given a specific state, the output will always be the same.

Well yes one IS describing more than a computer. Computers are manufactured identically whereas the human mind has variations depending on it's genetic make-up and socialization etc.

Free will is a religious concept which suggests that somebody can exceed their programming and make alternative decisions.

Are you suggesting humans comprise a non-material component that can rise up above their material body and make decisions NOT grounded in the physical activity and programming of the living brain.

 

[GDon]

The “idea” of free-will is that we are agents capable of libertarian free-will choices when in actuality we are governed by genetic programming, subconscious memories and environmental pressures.

Everyone accepts we are influenced by those things, but not governed. There is also a "will" component. A drug-addict may overcome their addiction through an act of will. The question is how free that "will" is.

The” illusion” is as described above.

The issue is proving that having "free will" is an illusion. If free-will -- the ability to select between two choices at time t through an act of will -- is a biological function, then it is not an illusion.

 

[psionl0]

But God supposedly knows every bad thing that is going to happen, has the power to stop those bad things and is maximally benevolent and the source of all “good” -“evil” should not exist in this world if those three things are true about God.

Evil exists; therefore, there is no God as described in, at the very least, the Abrahmic religions.

But the bible says the exact opposite. According to Jesus, not only does evil exist but it will increase towards the end-times and this "must" happen.

Part of the explanation of evil is that humans can make "evil" choices (and did so very early in the piece). God's plan was not to simply create an environment where humans can live temporarily then die forever more.

 

[psionl0]

Are you suggesting humans comprise a non-material component that can rise up above their material body and make decisions NOT grounded in the physical activity and programming of the living brain.

Yes, that is what this hypothetical is all about.

 

[Tassman]

The issue is proving that having "free will" is an illusion.

No, the issue is to demonstrate how we are able to exercise libertarian free-will as free agents by overriding acknowledged programming by genes, subconscious memories and environmental pressures. We cannot. Some believe they have an immaterial inner essence (or soul) which can bypass our material living brain’s programming but there is no evidence of this. This is the “illusion”.

If free-will -- the ability to select between two choices at time t through an act of will -- is a biological function, then it is not an illusion.

If making choices is a “biological function” then this is material causal determinism. And libertarian free will is incompatible with causal determinism.

 

[Tassman]

Yes, that is what this hypothetical is all about.

It is a logically incoherent hypothetical. An 'immaterial' entity such as a soul has no means of interacting with a 'material' entity such as the biological brain. There is no nexus .

 

[psionl0]

It is a logically incoherent hypothetical. An 'immaterial' entity such as a soul has no means of interacting with a 'material' entity such as the biological brain. There is no nexus .

You are attempting to bring science into this. Like oil and water, they don't mix.

Many people say "if God exists then . . .". Usually it is an attempt to prove (by reductio ad absurdum) that God can't possibly exist.

I am just exploring this hypothetical a little further. IF God exists then the usual limitations of the physical world don't apply.

 

[GDon]

No, the issue is to demonstrate how we are able to exercise libertarian free-will as free agents by overriding acknowledged programming by genes, subconscious memories and environmental pressures. We cannot.

Sure we can. Let's look at an example: a man goes on a hunger-strike for a cause, he doesn't eat and eventually dies. Does that fall under genes, subconscious memories, environmental pressures or will? I'd say it is a clear example of "will", which suggests we are not governed by those other pressures. Influenced, yes, but not governed.

Some believe they have an immaterial inner essence (or soul) which can bypass our material living brain’s programming but there is no evidence of this. This is the “illusion”.

That is an unproven assumption, not an illusion. I don't see the ability to make free-will choices requires an immaterial essence. I believe that when we build AI complex enough to be self-aware with the ability to make its own choices, it won't require an immaterial component to work.

If making choices is a “biological function” then this is material causal determinism. And libertarian free will is incompatible with causal determinism.

Yes, many people do say that.

 

[Tassman]

You are attempting to bring science into this. Like oil and water, they don't mix.

Many people say "if God exists then . . .". Usually it is an attempt to prove (by reductio ad absurdum) that God can't possibly exist.

I am just exploring this hypothetical a little further. IF God exists then the usual limitations of the physical world don't apply.

If God exists then NO limitations of the physical world apply. But it's a big "if".

 

[Tassman]

Sure we can. Let's look at an example: a man goes on a hunger-strike for a cause, he doesn't eat and eventually dies. Does that fall under genes, subconscious memories, environmental pressures...

Yes! What else could it “fall under”?

I'd say it is a clear example of "will", which suggests we are not governed by those other pressures. Influenced, yes, but not governed.

In what sense is this an example of “will” not ultimately governed by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. How does one discern what decisions have been “influenced” by “those other pressures” and what are clear examples of will?

That is an unproven assumption, not an illusion. I don't see the ability to make free-will choices requires an immaterial essence.

Biological functions such as decision-making require the evolved material brain – the only alternative to a material brain is an immaterial one which some refer to as the ‘soul’.

I believe that when we build AI complex enough to be self-aware with the ability to make its own choices, it won't require an immaterial component to work.

There is absolutely no evidence for free-will choices beyond the physical activity of the programmed material brain - either for humans or, in the future, programmed AI.

 

[psionl0]

It is a logically incoherent hypothetical. An 'immaterial' entity such as a soul has no means of interacting with a 'material' entity such as the biological brain. There is no nexus .

Maybe it's a miracle.

 

[Tassman]

Maybe it's a miracle.

...or maybe souls don't exist.

 

[shuttlt]

There is absolutely no evidence for free-will choices beyond the physical activity of the programmed material brain - either for humans or, in the future, programmed AI.

Beyond that, supposing there was some mystical thing outside of ordinary matter and physics influencing things.... By what mechanism would that "free will" operate. How would it come to decisions? Would it be deterministic? Would it be determinism + some element of randomness? Is that what we mean by "free will". It feels like all miraculous answers just move the same problem somewhere else.

 

[GDon]

In what sense is this an example of “will” not ultimately governed by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. How does one discern what decisions have been “influenced” by “those other pressures” and what are clear examples of will?

I have a choice between an apple and an orange. I choose to eat the apple. An "act of will" is an emergent property that arises from a conscious act made by a self-aware creature. If a robot was self-aware and made a conscious act, I'd also call that an act of will.

What would you call a conscious act made by a self-aware person, other than an act of will?

 

[shuttlt]

I have a choice between an apple and an orange. I choose to eat the apple. An "act of will" is an emergent property that arises from a conscious act made by a self-aware creature. If a robot was self-aware and made a conscious act, I'd also call that an act of will.

What would you call a conscious act made by a self-aware person, other than an act of will?

Typically we are conscious of deciding after our brains have already decided. Consciousness and "free will" are more of a processes of post-hoc rationalisation for the decisions a brain makes. Is that really what we are meaning by "free will" in this debate?

 

[GDon]

Typically we are conscious of deciding after our brains have already decided. Consciousness and "free will" are more of a processes of post-hoc rationalisation for the decisions a brain makes.

If you mean Libet's famous free-will experiments in the 1980s, then you'll find that they have been misrepresented. According to the Wiki entry on Libet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Libet found that even after the awareness of the decision to push the button had happened, people still had the capability to veto the decision and not to push the button. So they still had the capability to refrain from the decision that had earlier been made. Some therefore take this brain impulse to push the button to suggest just a readiness potential which the subject may either then go along with or may veto. So the person still has power over his or her decision.

For this reason, Libet himself regards his experimental results to be entirely compatible with the notion of free will.

If you mean other experiments, I'd be interested in seeing the information on those.

Is that really what we are meaning by "free will" in this debate?

I think we are still at the stage of deciding what constitutes "will". "Free-will" is down-track from that.

 

[Olmstead]

This is a fun one (split brain patient):

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/123/7/1293/380106

The patient was shown two pictures, one exclusively to the left hemisphere and one exclusively to the right, and was asked to choose from an array of pictures placed in full view in front of him those that were associated with the pictures lateralized to the left and right brain. In one example of this kind of test, a picture of a chicken claw was flashed to the left hemisphere and a picture of a snow scene to the right hemisphere. Of the array of pictures placed in front of the subject, the obviously correct association is a chicken for the chicken claw and a shovel for the snow scene. Patient P.S. responded by choosing the shovel with the left hand and the chicken with the right. When asked why he chose these items, his left hemisphere replied `Oh, that's simple. The chicken claw goes with the chicken, and you need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed'. Here the left brain, observing the left hand's response, interprets that response in a context consistent with its sphere of knowledge—one that does not include information about the left hemifield snow scene. We called this left hemisphere process `the interpreter'.

 

[shuttlt]

Split brain patients are terrific. You can get totally fabricated explanations about why some action was taken.

 

[shuttlt]

If you mean Libet's famous free-will experiments in the 1980s, then you'll find that they have been misrepresented. According to the Wiki entry on Libet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet



If you mean other experiments, I'd be interested in seeing the information on those.

I skimmed the wikipedia article and I don't see what the experiment fundamentally has to say about whether free will exists, unless one means very specific kinds of free will. I think I saw a definition of free will earlier, that so long as your brain makes the decision, it's free will. That certainly isn't ruled out by this.

I think we are still at the stage of deciding what constitutes "will". "Free-will" is down-track from that.

Maybe. The whole thing seems either incoherent, or trivial to me.

 

[Tassman]

Beyond that, supposing there was some mystical thing outside of ordinary matter and physics influencing things.... By what mechanism would that "free will" operate. How would it come to decisions? Would it be deterministic? Would it be determinism + some element of randomness? Is that what we mean by "free will". It feels like all miraculous answers just move the same problem somewhere else.

That’s precisely my problem with the notion that an immaterial ‘soul’ can interact with a demonstrably material entity such as our evolved brain and ultimately detach from it after it dies and survive for ever and ever.