Re: Science, God, and Free Will

On Oct 7, 5:19 pm, Alexander <alexanderhud...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:32 pm, urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Me: I believe that free will and God's effects (for lack of a better
word) in the universe are neither predetermined nor chance based. This
is not to say that the rules of physics are in any sense broken or
bended. Rather, I think that seemingly chance events can be secretly
driven by free will or God.

If it's 'secret' or driven by God it's not free will is it? Free will
has to be a conscious choice otherwise it's not 'free'.
By secret, I obviously mean secret in the sense of not scientifically
observable.


PM: Could you describe the type of chance event you're referring to
which would allow "free will" or "God" to creep in?

Me: The neuroscientist Sir John Eccles (along with other scientists
such as cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller) argues for a scientifically
informed, updated version of dualism that accounts for modern
developments in physics and neuroscience. Here is a brief summary of
Eccles's philosophy of mind:

A brain's nerve cells fire when ions accumulate at a synapse, causing
it to release neurotransmitters. But the presence of a given number of
ions at a synapse does not always trigger the firing of a neuron. What
we have in this situation is a quantum superposition of states. In
some states, the neuron discharges and in others it does not.

Eccles, because of his philosophical leanings, would argue that free
will could cause a neuron to fire. The specifics of his philosophy of
mind center around the fact that because these neurons are networked
into groups, which are in turn all networked together with other
groups forming a whole, a conscious will is able to act through the
brain.

Eccles had a very specific theistic bias and favoured dualism.
Nothing wrong with that as a philisophical stance but the evidence
does rather contradict the assertion that the mind/brain division is
something other than biological.

The evidence doesn't contradict this stance.

Experiments on ho we process activities associated with attention and
how we process information show how the Dorsolateral Pre Frontal
Cortex and Anterior Cingulate Cortex are active as specific
predictions believed they would be. The biological basis of mind is
quite clear.

"The biological basis of mind" is not the best way to put it. Science
has shown that the mind is created by the brain... if by "basis"
you're suggesting that the mind *is* the brain, then you're speaking
philosophically, not scientifically.

Simple things such as agnosia and unilateral spatial neglect strongly
indicate how lesions and specific brain damage can impact on this
process - never mind things such as memory. You can go back to
Luria's study with Dr P or a host of other medical observations since
then in order to see the link between the biological process and our
sense of self.
I'm not denying that the mind is created by the brain and completely
correlated with its chemical states.



PM: But wait, if Eccles were correct, we would expect to see a
deviation from our expected statistical models of neuronal firing. In
other words, if such a thing as "free will" existed, we would be able
to see a statistical difference in the firing of neurons associated
with what they "willed."

Me: I disagree. It can be demonstrated that decisions can hide behind
statistical averages. For example, let's say we create the following
game:

I must pick 3 cards from a deck of cards. The rule is that they must
have a statistical mean of 7, with face cards and aces all equaling 10
for purposes of simplicity.

Now, needless to say, I could pick a huge number of combinations
without deviating from the determined and expected statistical mean of
7:

* 5, 7, 9
* 5, Jack, 6
* 4, 8, 9
*etc..

In other words, if I wanted to pick a 5 in my set of 3 cards, I could
do that without violating any of the game's rules, so long as I
balanced it out with other cards to make the mean be 7.

If we are to carry over the logic of this game to the realm of
neuroscience, we can see that acts of free-will (aka, certain firing
patterns) could potentially exist so long as they are balanced out
over the long term by other firing patterns that maintain statistical
averages.

If we are to carry the arguments I've made about neuroscience over to
theology, we can see that God could influence processes driven by
chance events without ever breaking the rules of physics.

Yes He could - but what kind of God is that? You've effectively made
God indistinguishable from natural processes. Also if He interjects
in this way we are still effectively denied free will due to His
influence. In addition he's kidding the faithful by denying the
experience of epiphany - if your only revelation is that nature is in
fact God then you might as well start hugging trees (nothing wrong
with that - but how many Christians want to declare themselves
panentheists?).

Such a God could play a huge rule. There are quantum superpositions
of states that can determine whether there will be a mutation in DNA.
Kenneth Miller discusses how God could have guided evolution towards
humans based on such chance events.

God being able to play a role in this sense does not deny us free
will. I do not believe that God interferes with free will.

Lastly, I don't see how you can make the claim that I see nature as
God. I don't. I was arguing that it's not a violation of the rules
of physics for God to change the outcomes of chance events.

Lastly, I'm not Christian, as the Jesus story contradicts science and
also because historical fact shows it to be fraudulent.


PM: Doesn't agreeing with your view of free will require that a
"ghost" enter the human body at the beginning of life, and that some
sort of "ensoulment" (as scientifically uninformed theologians would
say) occurs?

Me: No, it doesn't. In following with modern neuroscience, I recognize
that the mind emerges from the brain. What I am arguing is that this
mind is able to exert a free-will through the brain, not that some
"holy ghost" enters the brain out of nowhere at birth.

Then what's your point?

That the mind-- a self-- emerges from the brain and is able to act as
an agent making decisions for itself with the brain my manipulating
quantum superpositions of states.

PM: But your argument for free will and God has no more evidence for
it than the materialistic explanation! Also, how could anyone in their
right mind see your crazy philosophizing as any sort of science.

Me: I never said my position had more evidence for it than the
materialist one. All I'm saying is that it's one of many reasonable
philosophical positions that one can take on the subjects of free will
and the existence of God as a force effecting the world.

Actually the materialist view has a lot more going for it than your
take on dualism. We can show how changes to the chemistry and
physical structure of the brain can impact on everything as diverse as
mood, emotional expression, memory, perception and awareness. We can
even show you those changes ... with pictures from fMRI.

I never disagreed with the claim that the mind is rooted in brain
chemistry. I'm aware of all the research which has demonstrated this.
[snip]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... driven by free will or God. ... Eccles's philosophy of mind: ... direct correlation between biology and 'mind'. ... has shown that the mind is created by the brain... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... God has certainly limited our ... as the function of mind is ... that Materialism doesn't explain the facts, ... physics when we don't look. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... Children don't have a theory of mind until about 4 either - why do you ... Generally health seems to be better if someone's happier. ... If God is 'involved' then we don't have free will - see my comments ... of physics for God to change the outcomes of chance events. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... driven by free will or God. ... Nothing wrong with that as a philisophical stance but the evidence ... brain duality then why do lesions and other forms of brain damage ... chance events without ever breaking the rules of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Poets of the New Reality.
    ... The Non-Local Universe - The new Physics and Matters of the Mind ... Poets of the New Reality. ... that this Community, which consists of God and men, is the foremost ...
    (soc.culture.israel)