This is a thread to allow discussions about how those lucky enough to have free will make decisions.
As materialism doesn’t explain squat, this thread is a place for explanations from those that presumably have them.
And if they can’t provide them, well, this will be a short thread.
So do phoodoo, mung, WJM et al care to provide your explanations of how decisions are actually made?
I’m inclined to think of them as mathematical abstractions. But I don’t see any “save the appearances” there.
Mathematical abstractions only exist in minds.
Minds are abstractions, too.
Mung says:
The modern conception of matter is that no one knows what it is. And no one knows what energy is either.
Neil Rickert says:
I’m okay with that. I don’t see it as a problem.
FMM says
And the materialists here think we are not curious because don’t have a detailed algorithm for exactly how consciousnesses and matter interact.
That smell you smell is the pungent aroma of hypocrisy 😉
peace
if minds are abstractions they exist only in minds
It’s revelation all the way down
peace
Abstractions exist in thought and speech. In my opinion, it’s a mistake (a reification) to invent “minds” as containers of such thought and speech.
thoughts and speech (revelation) are what minds do
what else qualifies as a container in our general experience?
certainly not matter or rivers would decide which path to take to the sea
certainly not brains or corpses would decide whether they like the casket they are in
certainly not “alive brains” or the comatose would decide what color of hospital gown they prefer.
The only thing left in our general experience AFAIK is minds
peace
Where is the main cite to keep in touch with Intelligent Design Research Program? Is this the main cite or is there a better one?
Rather than think about “minds” as entities that bear some hard-to-explain relation to “matter”, I prefer to think of mental acts or states — perceiving, wanting, thinking, acting — as features of animals. An animal does not have a mind but is minded as a living animal.
The kinds of mental states that we ascribe to it are determined by its behavioral complexity and causally explained in terms of its neurophysiological complexity.
(The relation between neurophysiology and mindedness is therefore not one of identity but of explanation. We do not need to say that “conductivity” is identical to “interlocking configuration of electron orbitals” in order to say that the latter explains the former. Likewise, we do not need to identify mindedness with brains but explain mindedness in terms of causal feedback loops between brains, bodies, and environments.)
Thus the single question of “how does mind relate to matter?” is to be rejected in favor of the following questions:
Under what conditions do organisms come into existence from other kinds of complex systems?
Under what conditions to organisms come to display mindedness? (I cannot fully endorse Thompson’s thesis, in Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind that all life displays mindedness, but I think he does a good job of pushing more conservative thinkers — like myself — to be clear about what makes animals distinct from other kinds of life-forms.)
Under what conditions do minded animals come to display reasoning, as exemplified in acts of judging, inferring, and asserting?
It is conceivable that one might be tempted to add a more ontologically fundamental question:
Under what conditions will a universe come into existence that has the requisite physical parameters for the emergence of organisms, minded animals, and rational minded animals?
Given these questions, the scientific metaphysician is making a wager that we will not need to posit entities that are not themselves susceptible to public criteria of verification in order to answer (1), (2), and (3), to the extent that they can be answered at all.
However, I see no way that the scientific metaphysician, if she is true to her principles, can answer (0) at all. This is why I have maintained that scientific metaphysics must be agnostic — both traditional theology and the anti-theology or atheology of modern physicists go beyond the possibility of experimental confirmation.
My own work is focused on giving an answer to (3), and the key to resolving it lies in a keen appreciation of the fundamental role of social practices in human life, and in particular the ways in which social practices are glued together by patterns of intersubjective recognition. One becomes a rational animal in part by being taken as one; if you like, one becomes human by being treated as a human being ought to be treated.
The trick is to understand how social practices of recognition emerged from more “primitive” kinds of primate sociality.
I think that a big part of the answer there lies in understanding how inference functions in markedly different ways in great apes and in humans (a difference that is manifest from infancy onwards): humans are born imitators. Chimpanzees can imitate, but not very well and not very precisely. If a chimp sees another chimp perform an action in order to obtain a snack, and the first chimp wants that kind of snack, it will perform the same action. But, as careful experiments have shown, it will not imitate that action — it will only execute whatever components of that action it sees as causally efficacious to obtaining the goal. If the action has any extraneous component that doesn’t contribute to the goal, the chimp won’t copy it. But children, even very young children, will imitate the extraneous component as well.
This is a cognitive mechanism that makes human being evolutionarily adapted for a far higher degree of sociality and interdependence than any ape, and it underlies our ability to engage in forms of cooperation that no other ape can. (For a few years it was thought that “mirror neurons” had something to do with this capacity, but there’s an emerging consensus that this can’t be the whole story; see The Myth of Mirror Neurons.)
We know that chimpanzees and other great apes can infer. They can reason. They can even, amazingly enough, make inferences about what other apes have and have not inferred. But they fall short of doing the one thing that we are extremely good at: they do not share their inferences. They do not express their inferences to each other, they do not correct each other. They quarrel but they do not argue. No chimps could engage in the kinds of discussions that one finds in hunter-gatherer tribes about where to hunt or camp, or what laws ought to be implemented, or what metaphysical doctrines offer the best explanatory coherence.
The best I can do right now is pursue the following suggestion: imitation is the cognitive mechanism that underpins recognition, and recognition transforms individual inference into norm-governed collective inference, i.e. rationality, such that inferential performances are transformed into inferential practices.
Are you curious about it? And are you saying Phoo is hypocritical as well?
We have no need for a container. It is better to talk about thinking as a behavior or activity.
Are you saying there’s no such thing as a rund that does the running, or an ead that eats?
AhmedKiaan,
There is no “Intelligent Design Research Program”, just various weak criticisms of evolutionary theory.
I think you want either Uncommon Descent or Evolution News and Views.
Most of the people here at TSZ do not think that intelligent design is a genuine research program at all.
Well is there a cite where I can see what the Intelligent Design scientist do that is not talk about evolution science?
I tried comment on Uncommondesent.com three time but my comment never shows up.
Actually, it’s that you don’t have any basis from which to explain anything about consciousness or decisions at all. Your lack of details is the least of it, you lack any sort of ability to provide a meaningful causal explanation.
As to what matter and energy are, we are curious, but are well aware that we may hit an end to answers. And, for the time being, what energy/matter really are seems to be one of those ends.
We recognize limits. You refuse to step outside of your enclosed system to ask about its origins, or whether it even has any relation to reality.
Glen Davidson
We don’t know of any.
I’m not kidding, snarking, or doing anything of that sort, either, we simply do not know of any ID source that isn’t primarily about trashing evolutionary theory.
Glen Davidson
That’s kind of typical of the commenters here.
Glen Davidson
fifth,
We’re asking for an explanation, not an algorithm. How many times must I repeat that?
I can explain how my computer communicates with my router without getting into the details of the Ethernet protocol.
Where is your explanation — not an algorithm — of how non-physical consciousness interacts with the physical world? It’s pretty clear that you don’t have one, or we would have heard it by now.
The “you’re demanding an algorithm!” excuse won’t cut it any more, fifth.
There’s http://www.intelligentdesign.org and http://www.discovery.org/id/
I am sorry you had that experience. They are not very welcoming there. I suspect it is because your name seems Arabic. That’s going to be a problem with Uncommon Descent. They are mostly conservative American Christians. Waging a holy war on decadent secularism and on the Islamic State from the safety of their laptops.
AhmedKiaan:
When you first register, your comments are not published. They go into a moderation queue and must be approved by an Uncommon Descent (also known as UD) moderator. Once the moderator decides that it’s “safe” to do so (if ever), your commenter status will be changed and your comments will appear automatically without moderator approval.
Be aware that UD is one of the worst sites around in terms of censorship. Comments are often censored and commenters are banned right and left.
Substitute “agent” for “container” if you like.
peace
I’m beyond curious about it.
I spend way way to much of my free time thinking about it.
We are all hypocrites. I think it’s a fundamental part of human nature.
peace
Do you think that the only “meaningful causal explanation” is limited to materiel causes?
What about form, agent or end?
Apparently you don’t.
If you did you would not expect an immaterial thing (decision) to have a materiel cause
peace
How about explaining how a mother communicates with her son.
If you could do that did I might have an idea what you are looking for here.
peace
I would say that folks seriously looking into ID are not on the internet too much. You will find them looking into communication theory and the like. Those guys would most likely not even call their research ID.
General the folks here are simply atheist critics that mistakenly assume that ID is a secret plot to make the girls wear long pants.
peace
You’re one of those who keeps on about “materialists.” I didn’t bring it up, as I think empiricism is the real issue (what’s “material” or “energy” anyway? That ought to clue you in, but…), however, I’ve tired of saying so, hence I haven’t done so here (in the current discussions, more or less) until now.
None has been shown to be a cause except as it may arise from other causes.
Apparently you lack any sort of decency.
Oh, so it’s your strawman that matters, is it?
I didn’t ask for a material cause at all, but a meaningful one. You just made up “my position” in order to fit your ignorance of philosophy/epistemology, let alone of anything I’ve ever communicated. It’s a wholly indecent response.
Glen Davidson
In an essay that I would advise anyone who is interested in the subject being discussed here to read, Stephen Talbott gives good reasons why we should agree that Causation Is Not Bottom-up
He goes on to examine the consequences of explaining thinking in terms of material “things”:
CharlieM,
So that’s it for Epicurean physics, is it?
Oh no!
Glen Davidson
It’s interesting that such derailment always happens in the discussions in which you participate. Perhaps you could do an experiment and park your priors at the door.
Just like slavery is acceptable because it’s “temporary and local”.
The consequences of your religious beliefs are vile.
According to the definitions you agreed to, material processes can make decisions. Please provide your amended definitions that support your statement.
You could try posting under a nym that sounds female. I hear they’ll put up with you a lot longer if you trigger their
misogynisticwhite knight instincts.Actually, we’re people who read the Wedge Document and other intelligent design creationist papers. We know exactly what they want.
sometimes I despair of you ever following a conversation.
once again into the breach!
If according to those definitions material processes can make decisions then rivers decide which path to take to the sea.
If you disagree that rivers decide which path they take to the sea you need to explain what is the difference between rivers and material processes that are capable of decision making.
Hint: You can’t say complexity is what makes decision making possible or the earth which is vastly more complex than a brain or computer decides where a hurricane will strike land.
I will be waiting
peace
IYO can anything be shown to be a cause if it is not empirical
Again you did not specify what sort of thing qualifies as a cause in Glen Davidson’s opinion.
You need to spell it out and explain why the rest of the world should care.
peace
Can you show anything to be a cause non-empirically? There are logical relations that can be shown without empiricism, but what generally is called a “cause” (not the “aition” of Aristotle, which is more like a “reason” than the sort of “cause” we recognize) seems to have an empirical component, at least. But if you know of another way of showing causes (with revelation not being reliable enough for courts, it’s at least as unreliable for science and philosophy) that actually works, go right ahead.
Look, I don’t appreciate your insinuations that I somehow have some solid opposition to unproven possibilities. Empiricism works, it remains to be seen if anything else does. And it’s time for you to back up your claims rather than blandly repeating them.
I was leaving the matter open. It isn’t my opinion that matters, necessarily, and it’s bizarre for you to pretend that it is when it’s clear that you care little about anything that goes against your many biased opinions.
If you knew enough to get into these matters properly, though, you should be able to recognize that I have a fairly standard epistemologic stance, if tilted more toward the phenomenological position, since I don’t see the point in haggling over “materialism,” “naturalism,” or “realism.”
No I don’t need to do that, since I’m part of the evidence-based community. It’s not “my position” that matters, as there’s nothing strange or odd about my stance at all (I disagree with “methodological naturalism,” but that’s because it’s meaningless to actual epistemologic concerns). What is a problem is that you care so little about evidence-based scientific and philosophic positions that you don’t understand that they’re not based on your appallingly ignorant misapprehensions about non-theists.
Get a grip, and quit making up what you think others must believe. You don’t know because you’re generally ignorant of how to justify any sort of claim, but that’s no excuse to just assume others are as careless with these matters as you are.
Glen Davidson
yes I can.
Can you show anything to be a cause empirically?
Keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation
1) Are you saying that you are evidence based or that you accept evidence based explanations.
2) What evidence do you have that you are part of the “evidence-based community”?
3) What evidence do you have that folks that are part of the “evidence-based community” don’t need to provide a reason why their opinions about causes should be valued?
peace
Ever hear of witness testimony?
Witness testimony is revelation and it is pretty much the only way to show causes that is recognized by the courts
peace
What empirical evidence do you have that I’m insinuating anything?
Please be specific or kindly withdraw your serious charge.
thanks
Well, you never have.
Wrong, it may very well do so. F=ma works.
What a dumb question.
What evidence do you have that you ask meaningful questions?
Dumb.
Didn’t say that. Quit making shit up.
Glen Davidson
Have you ever thought about it, and what its rationale is?
Wrong on both counts. Only in the broadest sense could it be called “revelation” at all, and it’s fully subject to question and refutation, unlike your “revelation.” Your equivocations are inappropriate.
And a variety of material evidence, including forensics, plays a strong role in many trials.
Glen Davidson
You completely made up my position on your cause having to be a material cause. Your lack of regard for relating true facts is obvious, and you continue to insinuate things in your stupidly pedantic manner. I don’t have to back up what’s obvious, let alone specifically, since insinuation is the opposite of being specific.
Do you understand these things and demand impossible specifics because you don’t care if you relate anything true, or are you just that unintelligent?
Glen Davidson
Odd then you point it out in others
fifth:
newton:
The stench must have been coming from fifth when he wrote this:
fmm,
Perhaps you are smelling yourself. When have I asked for a detailed algorithm? I’m just asking how decisions work in phoodoo world. Perhaps there is no need for an algorithm due to the nature of the process. If I knew, I’d not need to ask.
But now you have admitted you don’t actually have any idea but you think consciousness and matter obviously interact, a follow up question.
How do you know consciousnesses and matter interact at all rather then it being just matter?
I mean, if you don’t know how do you really actually know if at all?
How do decisions work in a Phoodoo world ? Did he say?
sure I have, I have shown you that I am conscious.
I know this because you treat me as if I am a mind and not just a brain.
The evidence that you often respond to them as if they are meaningful
Not in the broadest sense in the only sense. Testimony is revelation it’s what the words mean.
All revelation is subject to question and refutation. It’s called communication and it’s what minds do
all materiel evidence is communicated through witness testimony. It does not stand on it’s own but is meditated through expert witnesses that are acceptable to both sides.
peace
OK here it is again
decisions in a phoodoo world work like this
A persons weighs his options and chooses which course of action he will take.
It’s really pretty simple and I have answered your question similarly many times already.
What is it about the explanation that you find to be unsatisfactory?
peace