Re: Science, God, and Free Will

On Oct 8, 12:02 am, urthogie <urtho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

I'm afraid I'm not very good with Zen koans - can you give me an
example of what you mean?

To be honest I'm sure you're making a reasonable philisophical point
here but I can't currently see it - would you mind elaborating?






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.

Yes it does. If you are saying that there is evidence for duality
then please provide it. Otherwise the physical evidence points to a
direct correlation between biology and 'mind'.


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.

No - I'm speaking based on evidence. If dualism was a real and
substantial basis for defining what we consider to be mind then why is
it that lesions and brain damage affect things like mood, memory and
other cognitive functions? More importantly very specific parts of
the brain impact on behaviours in a similar or identical way in
different people.


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.



Just up above you've pretty much contradicted this statement - I
really don't see what you're driving at.




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.

Then a 'quantuum' god is no god at all. This is a very Enlightenment
view of Deism where you have a 'prime mover' of some description -
things set in motion but no other role to play.

This implies (in an almost Gnostic kind of way) that god is no longer
involved in the affairs of man. If god is involved and still
influencing behaviours then we don't have free will - even the
manipulation of the environment we live in constrains and limits what
we can and can't do - defines the available choices for us.

For us to have free will not only does god have to be a prime mover
but he could not have defined the precise parameters for our evolution
(to do so would mean, again, some form of determinism). If we were
'kick started' along a certain evolutionary path and god does not play
any current role in our lives then ok - but you're running into some
interesting theological issues here and about as far as you can get
from contemporary religious views and heading out toward more Taoist
conceptions of spirituality.

The 'quantuum god' thing is interesting as it pushes god into about
the smallest gap possible. In addition this just comes back to my
point in that if 'god' is just an obervable phenomenon (albeit a
fairly weird one) then he is not 'god' in any current understanding of
the word. God is a phenomenon we can study which deconstructs the
whole supernatural thing.



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.

Then we don't have free will.

If you are using a Skinner box to test for operant conditioning in
rats then sure the rats have 'free' will but if they don't eat, they
die. What food they get and how it's delivered is entirely down to
us. Sure, they don't _have_ to run around a tiny maze trying to get
the pellets of food so do they actually have 'free' will in this?
We've set the parameters of their environment a certain way and this
delimits the choices and available options.

Your god is the same - by establishing parameters for any sort of
controls or interference we are like the rats in a Skinner box
constrained by the maze that God has established for us. It doesn't
have to be a specific maze or set of rewards - it could be anything
but the fact that god has defined the edges of our confinement still
means we have been constrained.


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


All I will say to that is that it could be true in the same way that
the stories of Gilgamesh, King Arthur or Odysseus are true. All are
probably based on some semblance of historical fact - but this is not
the same as saying the subsequent retelling wasn't slightly (ahem)
embellished.



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.


Well ok - but this is still not duality - neither is it evidence for
any sort of god (at least - not as we would define it normally - an
entity outside of naturalistic processes).

It's also more likely that 'mind' is an artefact of very distinct
survival processes that enforce and regulate our sense making
functions. If we look at 'theory of mind' constructs this does allow
us to evaluate what we might need in order to consider something as
being capable of constructing 'mind' within itself. Most children
don't appear to develop a theory of mind until about the age of 4 -
this again suggests that what we are looking at is a purely biological
function of how the mind is gradually constructed and with it a sense
of self and our environment. We are certainly not born with this
ability.

If we introduce your concept of 'quantum superposition of states' how
does this materially effect our observations about both the biological
foundation for the construction of mind and what we observe,
behaviourally, in animals and people as they try to hold a 'theory of
mind'?

What, exactly, are we looking for and why? Will this observation
materially alter our understanding of how the 'mind' is constructed
and how we perceive ourselves and the world around us?



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]

All of it?

Wow.

I'm lost then - in one breath you seem to be arguing for some sort of
quantuum god capable of intervening in the world (but in a non-
deterministic way) but now you're saying that the evidence indicates
that the mind is a product of the brain.

You also need to specifically address the issue of how the impact of
brain damage on the biological functions of the brain changes how we
think, perceive and behave. If there is something going on that is
'other' than biology then lesions shouldn't make any difference to how
we perceive ourselves and others.

I do think you are trying to make a sincere point - but I'm afraid I
really don't follow your argument.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... If it's 'secret' or driven by God it's not free will is it? ... developments in physics and neuroscience. ... Eccles's philosophy of mind: ... has shown that the mind is created by the brain... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • good quotes
    ... a religion or even a sect thereof. ... God is the thread that runs through all of them; ... "I do not want to get material life, do not want the sense-life, but ... and leave no place in the mind for anything else. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: the final night
    ... > audible voice of God, and 2) God breaks in on a ... ie. not being directly led by another Christian. ... >> turn become violent myself, I made a vow to turn away from it the day I ... >> naturally logical mind. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: OT: Memes Vs. Free Will
    ... The mind is an emergent property of the material brain. ... > memes, and our memes mold our relationships and culture. ... >> to invent God, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Thoughts . . .
    ... I personally prefer a more thorough eclectic education to the very narrow catholic. ... 'Don't despair of my failings; God ... ready logic of mind, purity of heart and zeal; ... betokens an inexhaustible wealth in the nature which can invent, learn, ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)