Why materialism ?

[Belz...]

Why materialism ?

Well, a few days back our esteemed member UndercoverElephant implied that I cannot accept this dualistic ideas because I'm a materialist. Well, that's tautological, but what he actually said is that I cannot accept the idea that there is something as "free will" because I'm a materialist.

So, let's see why I'm a materialist, and how the way I see things affects my view of free will, shall we ?

Now, in order for one to reach any conclusion whatsoever, one needs to make a few assumptions. I think anyone, espousing any metaphysics, will agree with my basic assumption: Something exists. It would be hard to claim that nothing exists, for even if what we observe is an illusion there is the illusion. So now we know there is some sort of universe we think we observe, but we don't know at this point what it is or how it works.

I also think we'd all agree to say that something cannot exist and not exist at the same time, or rather, that something and its opposite cannot both be true simultaneously. The glass is either full or it isn't, the engine is either running or it isn't, and an event is either caused or not. But it can't be both or neither. That's very important because we have to be able to draw definitive conclusions based on observation. Once a proposition is known to be true, it can't be false, and vice-versa.

So we know something exists, and we know we can reach conclusions about various aspects of it.

Now, we can only draw conclusions about we can observe. However, there are several possible conclusions to our observations. Since I assume we prefer knowing the truth than the lie, drawing the correct conclusion is crucial. Otherwise there's not much we can use this conclusion for except mental exercises.

Solipsists claim that we can only ever be sure about our own thoughts. Funny they say this, because I don't think we're that sure about them. Idealism is broader but basically makes the same claim: that all is mind. It's not a very useful claim, I think, because whether or not it is true, the universe behaves in the same way and our observations still work. If all was mind (mine or all of them) I'd expect it to be slightly less consistent: without exception, every other manifestation of my mind (thoughts, delusions, hallucinations, dreams, etc.) is horrendously unreliable and inconsistent, to the extent that we often notice it even in their context. There's never such a problem with observable reality. It remains the same no matter what I wish, and no matter in what state we are. And even if your perception itself can be altered, in its "neutral" state things go right back to what they were.¹
So, if idealists are claiming that mind actually generates reality, they are making a claim that is inconsistent with observation. If not, they are making a claim that is indistinguishable from materialism, under which reality is independent from the observer -- or rather, the observer belongs to reality, and not the other way around. Dualists have an even harder time, because if "souls", or whatever other similar entity they posit, is immaterial, then it cannot interact with the material, and so both sides of the dualism will never affect one another. If they CAN interact, then we can, even if only in principle, detect their influence, because the event itself isn't caused by observable causes. But that never happens.

What we're left with is materialism. And so far, I call it very successful, indeed.

The amusing thing is, however, that under ANY of those metaphysics, free will doesn't make any sense. So me being a materialist has nothing to do with it, because the logic that makes free will inconsistent doesn't depend on it. Why is it inconsistent ? As I said, something is either true or not. Events are therefore either caused or not. If they're caused, then they are wholly constrained by the causes. If they are uncaused, then they have no discernable prior state and no predictable outcome, and are therefore either random or indistinguishable from being random. A combination of both caused and uncaused doesn't solve the problem.

So that's pretty much how I see things. Objectivist, materialist. And unrelated to that, a non-believer in free will.

Thoughts ?

1: I know there are "arguments" around this. We're never 100% sure about anything, anyway, right ? But since I'm a very "for all intents and purposes" kinda guy, I usually ignore the extremely improbable and frivolous claims. It's easy to dodge problems when you make unwarranted assumptions, but I'm justifiably wary of claims whose truth value we could never ever know, even in principle. Falsifiability and Occam's Razor, and all that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think you may be using a definition of materialism that is something like "however things are, that's materialism." In which case, of course, who can argue? Not me, that's for sure.

But philosophers have to nuance the definitions of materialism, idealism, neutral monism, etc., in order to distinguish them and have anything to talk about. Someone nasty once said that when all the science was pulled out of philosophy and made into science, the philosophers rallied 'round to make sure that what was left did not include anything that anyone else would ever want to pull out. It may be that philosophers will one day discover something that clearly selects among all the metaphysical models, but personally I think they have put themselves in a position where that is not possible. All the models, down deep, are equivalent when the light of reality is shone upon them.

~~ Paul

 

[Correa Neto]

Yep, sometimes I think there are too much "-isms"...

Well, its my personal opinion that free will is usually poorly described or defined even by those who believe its real - maybe because its not real.

"-isms" apart, I think free will is not real, we only experience the illusion of having it (and I'm OK with that). The number of choices available is always limited; within the group of available choices, there is always a preferred subgroup, defined and ranked by many variables (cultural background, profit/gain perspective, risk evaluation, emotional state, external pressures, etc.). This certainy makes a deterministic prediction of the outcome difficult in many cases. But I believe a statistical approach is theoretically possible - one could derive the probability for a certain decision being taken. This assumes that we will be able someday to build a model for the decision-making process and feed it with the required data. Call it a leap of faith, if you will. The fact that we can't do it or fully understand it nowadays doesn't mean in the future we will not. Many of yesterday's gaps are filled today...

 

[Psi Baba]

Calling Interesting Ian . . .

 

[Belz...]

Calling Interesting Ian . . .

Is that directed at me ? I certainly don't see things the way he did.

 

[fuelair]

Or, as I like to say, it does not really matter what reality is because if I step in front of a fast moving truck I am no longer in this one (at a minimum).

 

[Belz...]

There's that, too.

 

[Robin]

Or, as I like to say, it does not really matter what reality is because if I step in front of a fast moving truck I am no longer in this one (at a minimum).

It must be a terrible decision for a philosopher in the path of a speeding truck - whether death is worse than committing a naive inductive fallacy.

 

[Z]

I've often said free will is non-existant, in an absolute form, under theism or under materialism (by theism, I'm referring specifically to those who believe in a timeless, omnipresent, omniscient creator god). I myself am a dualist, but I think dualism is an irrational and illogical stance to maintain.

Free will is the stumbling block many people have. Some think that their God gave them free will as some kind of magical, special gift (sounds more like a vile curse, to me). Some can't accept the idea that their decisions are already set in stone, so to speak, over the course of their lives. Maybe that's one of the bad side-effects of our new rational way of thinking. We've set aside antiquated notions like fate and destiny, not realizing that, in a way, those notions are more relevant now than ever. After all, fate and destiny are merely ways of realizing that free will IS just an illusion.

As Roland would say, 'Ka.'

 

[Belz...]

I myself am a dualist, but I think dualism is an irrational and illogical stance to maintain.

I seldom meet people who claim to be irrational

 

[Z]

I seldom meet people who claim to be irrational

Oh, I claim it all the time. I fully accept my underlying belief system is irrational. That doesn't stop me from jumping in to a rational discussion with both feet. I can be fully rational and logical for the sake of discussion, and still believe that there's an unseeable dragon near my home.

"The woo is strong in this one..."

 

[Psi Baba]

Is that directed at me ? I certainly don't see things the way he did.

No, no, it's not directed at you. I just couldn't help thinking that if he were still around, he'd certainly have a few things to say. (Few people see things the way he does)

So you are saying that you simply don't believe in free will and that it has nothing to do with whether you are a materialist? Is that correct? Was UE trying to say that materialism precludes free will, or was he attempting to ascribe that position to you? I'm not sure if I'm understanding the first paragraph in your OP.

Are you saying that there is no free will because an event presumed to have been brought about by free will is therefore uncaused and as such is a contradiction? If that's the case, what about the possibility that, individually, we have free will, but collectively the so-called choices of humans is more like a quantum foam, so that what seems random on a micro scale, tends to even out when viewed on a macro scale. Or maybe it's other way around--individuals make random choices which when humanity is taken as a whole, emerge as having an ordered structure.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you are saying that you simply don't believe in [libertarian] free will and that it has nothing to do with whether you are a materialist? Is that correct?

Yes.

Are you saying that there is no free will because an event presumed to have been brought about by free will is therefore uncaused and as such is a contradiction?

It's not that an uncaused event is a contradiction, it's random.

If that's the case, what about the possibility that, individually, we have free will, but collectively the so-called choices of humans is more like a quantum foam, so that what seems random on a micro scale, tends to even out when viewed on a macro scale.

It seems that you are equating free will with randomness. I don't think that's of any comfort to the libertarian free will-ist.

~~ Paul

 

[Belz...]

So you are saying that you simply don't believe in free will and that it has nothing to do with whether you are a materialist? Is that correct? Was UE trying to say that materialism precludes free will, or was he attempting to ascribe that position to you? I'm not sure if I'm understanding the first paragraph in your OP.

I'm saying that the concept of free will is incoherent in any metaphysics.

Are you saying that there is no free will because an event presumed to have been brought about by free will is therefore uncaused and as such is a contradiction?

No, it's because an event is either caused (deterministic) or not (random), and in both cases there is no "freedom" involved in the libertarian sense.

 

[Beerina]

I've often said free will is non-existant, in an absolute form, under theism or under materialism (by theism, I'm referring specifically to those who believe in a timeless, omnipresent, omniscient creator god).

Quite the opposite. Free will is the freedom to make choices. Making choices means weighing options in a manner flavored with your personality and your current context vis-a-vis external reality.

Free will can thus only be a deterministic process. Of course you can throw in a few true, quantum-random particles from time to time to scramble it a bit, but that doesn't really affect the core nature of free will.

I have yet to see a definition of how some mystical spirit-essence would arrive at a decision that does not boil down to this. It would have to have some kind of effect on the process that is neither deterministic nor truly random. Not exactly sure what this is, or how it operates, or how it could even exist.

Can anyone provide me a descriptive property of said "spirit" entity plugin, for lack of a better term? It makes decisions which are neither deterministic nor random. By this I mean...???



Leave aside for now the idiocy of trying to sway such a thing by threats of punishment or promises of reward, which are clearly deterministic* inputs.






* And sometimes capriciously random, too, according to how Yahweh operates in the Bible.

 

[Psi Baba]

I'm saying that the concept of free will is incoherent in any metaphysics.



No, it's because an event is either caused (deterministic) or not (random), and in both cases there is no "freedom" involved in the libertarian sense.

So the claim that an event is the product of free will is basically a claim that the event was neither caused nor random, and therefore impossible, then. Is that it in a nutshell?

Paul, thanks for your clarifications. I'm not sure I meant to equate free will with randomness, but I was thinking that perhaps it's possible that one gives the appearance of the other. But in which direction?

 

[rain]

I have lots of problems with materialism for a number of reasons. One reason that I have doubts about materialism is that there is evidence that material itself as we think of it at one point did not exist. The fact that the Big Bang was itself what created matter and space and time seems to imply (under normal intuitive logic) that there was a vast pool of energy that must have created it. If you look at the very beginning of finite time based on the mathematical calculations, there appears to have been infinite temperature and density from which all finite mass and space expanded itself from. To me, this process implies the paradox that our finite material reality was created from a greater infinite energy reality. However, as so many atheists are quick to point out, the chain of causation (time) did not exist before the Big Bang so it is supposedly improper or meaningless to make any such assumptions because the idea of "before" the Big Bang makes no sense in an absolute way. But personally, I believe that this does not mean we have to throw out all ideas of what exists "before" the Big Bang, but rather if something like cause and effect did exist "before" the Big Bang, all it means is that this cause and effect was not subject to our normal rules of physics. Therefore, it can be argued that there is some sort of energy and momentum that transcends our material laws in which our material existence is subordinate to this greater energy.

I'm not saying this greater energy HAS to be interpreted as spiritual (maybe the Big Bang was caused by two branes colliding as some string theorists suggest). But my point is, accepting materialism is often just as faith-based as rejecting it. As far as the existence of two or more states being possible simultaneously, this is still a controversial subject. But I do believe it might have some bearing on the nature of free will since some scientists have speculated that consciousness may be the result of a quantum mind. Quantum physicists still can't entirely agree whether or not superposition truly exists or whether the idea is the result of a flawed understanding. Nobody really knows how quantum physics affects the big picture of the reality we perceive, but it does underly the nature of all physical reality, and so the fact that it is so unintuitive and at times paradoxical should give us pause before we start to assume that the normal material reality necessarily represents the full and absolute truth.

For a bit of wild speculation based on nothing more than my personal experience: If free will exists, I think it might manifest itself as the ability to choose between going with the flow of materialistic instinct to survive for as long as possible (in spite of intellectually knowing that you will eventually fail) or rejecting it by being able to achieve a state of blissful detachment such as monks of some major religions claim to experience.

 

[Belz...]

So the claim that an event is the product of free will is basically a claim that the event was neither caused nor random, and therefore impossible, then. Is that it in a nutshell?

Yes.

 

[Belz...]

I have lots of problems with materialism for a number of reasons. One reason that I have doubts about materialism is that there is evidence that material itself as we think of it at one point did not exist. The fact that the Big Bang was itself what created matter and space and time seems to imply (under normal intuitive logic) that there was a vast pool of energy that must have created it.

Seem to imply under normal intuitive logic. You don't seem very sure.

"Material" doesn't mean "atoms" and "quarks". Material as in "materialism" includes energy and all that is observable.

Otherwise the rest of your post sounds like "I don't understand the physics behind all this, so I'd rather believe differently".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, thanks for your clarifications. I'm not sure I meant to equate free will with randomness, but I was thinking that perhaps it's possible that one gives the appearance of the other. But in which direction?

The trick is to come up with a method for making free decisions that, although it might look random, is in fact neither random nor deterministic. I don't think there is any logical room for such a beast.

~~ Paul