How many here are atheists?

[dalebert]

Now you're just using a new word for something that has yet to be defined. "Free agency" instead of "free will". I don't see free will as a prerequisite for accountability. Whether there is free will (whatever that is), people are constantly changing from gaining new information and experiences. Someone may become a "better" decision maker after new experiences or learn from the consequences of a bad choice and not make a bad choice again. That doesn't have to involve free will.

Consciousness doesn't necessarily have to involve free will. Everything that I do, I either do it out of reflex or instinct, or I make a conscious decision to do it. In the first case, it doesn't seem like free will for obvious reasons. The action was not very conscious. In the second case, I can explain the criteria I used to make the decision. I can think of a lot of decisions I've made in the past that I would not make now as a different person who has been changed by my experiences. I AM my decision making processes. I am experiencing the decision making. I'm aware of decisions I'm making, and I can largely analyze that process. And even that decision to analyze the process is a reaction to information, i.e. this conversation and others like it.

I heard something that I dismissed at first, but that I later reconsidered and it kind of made sense. Our boundaries are not as clear as we tend to think. We tend to think of ourselves as being our physical bodies. But really, it's kind of amorphous. We are a part of the environment. We interact with it. It affects our decisions. Does my being stop at the extent of my senses? Then does that include all the area within my range of sight? Just out to my skin? Is my hair a part of me since it's actually dead? Are my limbs even a part of me or is "me" just my brain? Is it just the conscious part of my brain or also the parts that keep my heart beating and my digestive system going, etc.? Is the part that creates my dreams part of me? It seems I'm experiencing something in dreams that someone else created. I dream of things I've never literally experienced.

This isn't disturbing to me. Of course I "feel" like I have free will. If I AM my decision making processes then it's ME making the decisions, but then "me" is the amalgamation of (at the moment) 40 years of experiences and the results of 40 years of decisions and their consequences. As my mind becomes more complex, the decision making process also becomes more complex. That complexity can create the appearance of an element of randomness. My existence feels very purposeful. I don't want my existence to be random. I don't feel like I'll be dead when my physical body dies because I have interacted with the universe and made impressions that will go on. I've shared my consciousness with others by speaking with them, writing things they have read, changing the kinds of decisions they will make- hopefully for the better, all in ways that will have lasting impact. My very specific thoughts will die but I won't experience death. I will only experience my decisions up to the moment of my death. Meanwhile, much of who I am will live on, particularly the parts I thought were important enough to try to preserve somehow, like my views on a creating a society without violence. I believe in a collective unconscious, a kind of growing network of information that each of us is contributing to, and not with anything magical or telepathic, but just with the tools for communication that we have developed, both technological and simply cultural constructions.

[Caleb]

Now you're just using a new word for something that has yet to be defined.

It doesn't need to be defined. Practically every word of your response addressed some facet of the concept of free will that you were challenging. I have no doubt that you understand quite well exactly what I mean:  everything you say confirms it. You aren't having a problem understanding the concept.

"Free agency" instead of "free will". I don't see free will as a prerequisite for accountability.

They are the same thing. And it is a prerequisite for accountability. I notice that people don't tend to chastise chemicals when they react. They can't do otherwise. We may get frustrated with our computers, but we don't blame them, because blame assumes agency. This isn't hard stuff.

Whether there is free will (whatever that is), people are constantly changing from gaining new information and experiences. Someone may become a "better" decision maker after new experiences or learn from the consequences of a bad choice and not make a bad choice again. That doesn't have to involve free will.

input in + algorithm (which is itself an effect) = self
but then again, the inputs are also deterministic, because they are all part of the chain of cause and effect in the materialist world. So basically, the challenge of freedom is to explain how something which is, and must be, a wholly determined effect can ever give rise to autonomy.  You can say that there is freedom, but you can't account for it. that's why (I suspect anyway) you want to make freedom such a fuzzy concept. You understand it alright, but you don't want to go to the inevitable conclusions of your presuppositions.

Consciousness doesn't necessarily have to involve free will.

Well, I'll concede that we haven't quite got there yet in our discussion.  They are ultimately the same thing though, because to perceive is to act (or more appropriately to interact), you cannot separate conscious experience and freedom either in theory or in practice. Notice that we never speak of the one without the other. Neither is ever defined without recourse to the other. Consciousness would be the passive role, freedom the active, but that is a false dichotomy, we are never acting in either an explicitly active or passive role: we instead act in an interactive way that is inclusive of both concepts.

Everything that I do, I either do it out of reflex or instinct, or I make a conscious decision to do it. In the first case, it doesn't seem like free will for obvious reasons. The action was not very conscious. In the second case, I can explain the criteria I used to make the decision. I can think of a lot of decisions I've made in the past that I would not make now as a different person who has been changed by my experiences. I AM my decision making processes. I am experiencing the decision making. I'm aware of decisions I'm making, and I can largely analyze that process. And even that decision to analyze the process is a reaction to information, i.e. this conversation and others like it.

Ok, we're not quite there yet. We need a new way of viewing causation, but that's a separate book that I don't have time to write tonight. The idea of freedom presupposes that I am at least partially autonomous, that I exist for myself, instead of as an effect of some other cause. But at what point do you postulate the self? At what point (and, crucially, why and how) does an effect step forward and take self-ownership and remove itself from being determined by its cause and define itself? If there is no point, then you have no freedom. If there is such a point, it is inexplicable in terms of cause and effect. The more you presuppose a reductionist version of the physical world, the more you trap yourself in a quandry where you can only talk about the appearance or illusion of freedom ... but just what is being deceived? This is why it's interesting that a lot of process philosophers tend to speak of materialism as just being "closet dualism" ... ultimately, a materialist may not overtly state that he presupposes a "self" that exists somewhat autonomously from the chain of cause and effect, but every argument ultimately presupposes just that state.

Something interesting that I read from David Ray Griffin was this:  He was talking about how materialist have an underlying thought that really makes sense, but that we should turn it around on them. What the materialists say is this, "Hey, shouldn't we presume the universe to be uniform? If everything is ultimately explicable by the physical laws of nature governing the interaction of matter and energy in our space/time reality, wouldn't it be strange if mind was something altogether different?"

Griffin turns it around:  Given that freedom is the ultimate experience in the only place where we have direct experience (our own selves) wouldn't it be strange if the universe was something altogether different?

I heard something that I dismissed at first, but that I later reconsidered and it kind of made sense. Our boundaries are not as clear as we tend to think. We tend to think of ourselves as being our physical bodies. But really, it's kind of amorphous. We are a part of the environment. We interact with it. It affects our decisions. Does my being stop at the extent of my senses? Then does that include all the area within my range of sight? Just out to my skin? Is my hair a part of me since it's actually dead? Are my limbs even a part of me or is "me" just my brain? Is it just the conscious part of my brain or also the parts that keep my heart beating and my digestive system going, etc.? Is the part that creates my dreams part of me? It seems I'm experiencing something in dreams that someone else created. I dream of things I've never literally experienced.

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

I'm not quite ready to go on to prehension ... but you're getting there ...

[Russell Kanning]

They are the same thing. And it is a prerequisite for accountability. I notice that people don't tend to chastise chemicals when they react. They can't do otherwise. We may get frustrated with our computers, but we don't blame them, because blame assumes agency. This isn't hard stuff.

Caleb is very consistent on this subject. When it snows he blames God for the slick road conditions, since he knows who is the agent of change .... and slippage.

[dalebert]

"Free agency" instead of "free will". I don't see free will as a prerequisite for accountability.

They are the same thing. And it is a prerequisite for accountability. I notice that people don't tend to chastise chemicals when they react. They can't do otherwise. We may get frustrated with our computers, but we don't blame them, because blame assumes agency. This isn't hard stuff.

Maybe we shouldn't get so frustrated when people make mistakes. Maybe it's inconsistent to think we're different on a fundamental level. Maybe that's the first step at actually changing for the better. I feel more at peace ever since I let go of my notions of revenge and punishment. As a libertarian, I believe in correcting harm done and preventing further harm. That's the accountability of which I speak. If a temporarily insane person is going on a rampage and about to kill me, I'll kill him if I have to because I acknowledge no right of his to kill me. It doesn't matter that it's not his "fault". Once the danger passes, whether some temporary insanity fades or whether a criminal realizes he was wrong and decides to stop committing crimes, it makes no difference to me. Both are flaws. One was a physical flaw and another was a flaw of the mind. Perhaps it would be better to think of it as immaturity or ignorance, a failure in upbringing.

You can say that there is freedom, but you can't account for it. that's why (I suspect anyway) you want to make freedom such a fuzzy concept. You understand it alright, but you don't want to go to the inevitable conclusions of your presuppositions.

This is a straw man. I don't think it's purposefully deceptive on your part, but you're defining freedom in a way that I don't necessarily define it and then making an emotional appeal to my desire for freedom. I'm not sure I believe in the kind of freedom you're talking about. I just said that I don't see myself as being completely separate from the rest of the universe and you already know that I don't believe my specific consciousness, at least not all of it, will be preserved forever and I'm comfortable with that. I don't think I believe in the autonomy that you describe nor do I feel an emotional need for it. That seems kind of egotistical and limiting. My notion of freedom has to do with how individuals treat each other and I see failure to respect that freedom as a kind of flaw.

I'm not arguing against free will necessarily. I'm arguing that it's a fuzzy meaningless concept used as a crutch. Many use it to judge and often to punish people. You seem to need it prop up your fuzzy notions of God and you defend the notion in a similar way by trying to convince me to abandon my thought processes in favor of feelings. I'm not against feelings. I rather like them and they serve me well, but I don't want to revert to a creature of pure instinct and desire either. I think thoughts and feelings can work rather well together. And right here on a discussion forum, using nothing but the written word for communication is not a time to abandon thought in favor of feelings. When I'm making love to someone, I communicate with feelings. It seems appropriate then. When someone defines what free will is in a way that we can discuss intelligently, then I'll take a position for or against it.

Remember a number of emails back when I talked about the nature of the universe- for orderly patterns to emerge from chaos? I see that order that emerges as purposeful and destined. Some might call that chaos freedom, but I don't. I see it as destruction. To the extent that we embrace it, to the extent that we abandon the complex patterns of our own minds that were a lifetime developing, we embrace death and destruction. My pattern, the complex decision-making processes that I think of as me, it is "dying" every moment and being replaced by a more complex one. My specific pattern will one day return to the chaos but I will have contributed to the greater pattern and so will not truly die; just evolve. That's going to happen one day even if we manage to greatly extend our lifespans, or perhaps my pattern will become so much more complex and different rapidly enough as to amount to what we now describe as death. But this supposedly autonomous you and me that you want so badly to exist, that's egotistical and limiting. We are meant to move on to something. What that something is remains to be seen, but we won't get there if we retreat back to the chaos from which we emerged.

God, life after death, free will... All these beliefs without a logical basis that in one way or another promise to preserve our individual patterns, they're rejecting the mind and embracing stagnation and death. They're abandoning our reasoning ability, the complex patterns that have taken billions of years to emerge. I wonder how many entire civilizations have been naturally selected out of existence after millions of years of evolution, before ours even began. Just as some of the early forms of life probably had to die off before the right patterns for survival could emerge, perhaps also the same thing is happening to advanced civilizations in the immense span of time until a civilization is prepared to move on. I hope ours is the one.

[Caleb]

Maybe we shouldn't get so frustrated when people make mistakes. Maybe it's inconsistent to think we're different on a fundamental level. Maybe that's the first step at actually changing for the better. I feel more at peace ever since I let go of my notions of revenge and punishment.

You're confusing the issue big time. Look at it from my perspective, Dale.

I say, "Freedom is a hard-core common sense idea. While we can deny it intellectually, none of us can deny it in practice. We all presuppose it." I then list blame and shame as two universal human emotions (among others) which presuppose freedom.

How do you respond? You say, "Well, we don't have to be free to be accountable."

Then I show precisely how freedom is absolutely required for accountability, how it's speaking nonsense to speak about holding something accountable when it has no freedom to act otherwise. It's truly absurd. Imagine someone going around saying that it was morally reprehensible for that atomic bomb to have done what it did to Hiroshima. Catch my drift? (btw, we've briefly touched on the difficulty of an atheistic version of ethics. That pales in comparison to the problems you're going to have developing any version of ethics without the concept of freedom.)

How do you respond to that? You don't deny it. Now you say, "Oh, well, maybe we shouldn't think that way." But whether we should or shouldn't think that way, my point is sustained:  to the extent that we do think that way (and all of us DO think that way sometimes,) we are demonstrating the fact that we presuppose free will in actual practice. So deny it all you want intellectually. I don't care what you deny with your mind, because I can no more take such a position seriously than I can take a solipsist seriously: you have denied something that you actually presuppose in practice. 

This is a straw man. I don't think it's purposefully deceptive on your part, but you're defining freedom in a way that I don't necessarily define it and then making an emotional appeal to my desire for freedom. I'm not sure I believe in the kind of freedom you're talking about. I just said that I don't see myself as being completely separate from the rest of the universe and you already know that I don't believe my specific consciousness, at least not all of it, will be preserved forever and I'm comfortable with that. I don't think I believe in the autonomy that you describe nor do I feel an emotional need for it. That seems kind of egotistical and limiting. My notion of freedom has to do with how individuals treat each other and I see failure to respect that freedom as a kind of flaw.

There's a lot here, but I'll try to address it all separately. First, there is no emotional appeal being made, other than I'm trying to get you to be philosophically consistent and using the evidence from your emotions as evidence of what your presuppositions must be. Just because it describes the inevitable human emotional condition does not make it an appeal to your emotion. Once again, whether you "believe" in freedom in the same way I do or not is meaningless to me. My point is that, even though your philosophical position cannot account for it, you still presuppose it in practice in exactly the same way I do.

The thought that free will is "egotistical and limiting" ... well, how do I respond to that? It's better to be wholly determined than to be partially free?  That sounds kind of Orwellian to me:  Freedom is slavery. Like I said, I can't even respond to that, other than to say that it is so absurd and counterintuitive to me that I dismiss it on prima facie grounds. A is A. You can't argue that freedom is slavery, but determinism is freedom. That's just absurd Dale.

Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind, Dale. Am I "defining freedom differently than you" or "refusing to define it at all"?

I'm not arguing against free will necessarily. I'm arguing that it's a fuzzy meaningless concept used as a crutch. Many use it to judge and often to punish people.

Several things here: First, what some people do or don't do with the concept of free will is irrelevant.

Second, and this is crucial so I'll use all caps:  FREE WILL IS NOT A "FUZZY" CONCEPT. I keep seeing this statement by you. I'll grant that I have refused to define it, but that's mainly because I'm being stubborn. I don't like to discuss based on definitions, particularly when we both know exactly what we're talking about. It isn't a fuzzy concept at all, at least not as I define it. Now, to be sure, I do feel that you are trying to make it a fuzzy concept. But I think that's mainly because you can't account for it, so you want to make it this fuzzy concept because you aren't emotionally ready to go to the place where you deny freedom absolutely. But, if you are fully determined, I don't see how it can be any other way:  there is no freedom. In such a context, where you believe such patent absurdities such as men are wholly determined, yeah, in that context freedom is a fuzzy concept. It's fuzzy because you're trying to create something that doesn't exist. But from where I am coming from, freedom is a pretty easily defined and understood concept. You can accuse me of a straw man all you want. You say that my definition of freedom is vastly different than yours. Sure. I'll agree, at least as long as we're talking about our intellectual definitions. As I've said before, I think both of us presuppose the exact same kind of freedom in practice, it's just that you deny it with your intellect. So accuse me of a straw man all you want. But in so doing, you might want to give some thought as to what you actually mean when you say "freedom", because if that concept is fuzzy for you, you might want to consider that it might be fuzzy because I am right. I'm can say that when you say "freedom", yeah, for me it is a fuzzy concept because I don't know what you mean by it. How can something that is wholly determined be free? Sure that's fuzzy, but it isn't fuzzy as I say it, because I'm not arguing for determinism and materialism.

You seem to need it prop up your fuzzy notions of God and you defend the notion in a similar way by trying to convince me to abandon my thought processes in favor of feelings.

If I were going to psychoanalyze myself, I would say that you have it backwards. Since my notions of freedom are concrete and my notions of God are more fuzzy, it would seem more likely that I am using the concept of God to prop up and account for freedom. But even that is not likely to be true. We're discussing the idea of "freedom" because it is a challenge that materialism cannot account for. But there is nothing to say that freedom can't be accounted for under some non-materialistic atheistic way. Nor does the concept of God necessarily lead to the concept of freedom. (Unfortunately, there are deterministic theists.) So the two ideas aren't directly related. The concept of freedom challenges your worldview (and definitely informs my own, though we haven't got that far in the discussion yet), but I wouldn't say that freedom props up the idea of God, nor vice versa.

Meanwhile, you want to act like my idea of freedom is some radical notion that no one has ever thought of before, like I'm some maverick in the human experience going around describing something that isn't common to all of our experience. When the fact of the matter is that I'm describing something universal. So don't go around spouting nonsense like this:

I'm not against feelings. I rather like them and they serve me well, but I don't want to revert to a creature of pure instinct and desire either. I think thoughts and feelings can work rather well together. And right here on a discussion forum, using nothing but the written word for communication is not a time to abandon thought in favor of feelings. When I'm making love to someone, I communicate with feelings. It seems appropriate then. When someone defines what free will is in a way that we can discuss intelligently, then I'll take a position for or against it.

You're once again trying to make the false, self-evidently absurd accusation that I am appealing to emotionalism. It isn't appealing to emotionalism to ask you to explain how your worldview can account for a particular universal emotion. (I don't think freedom is an emotion, but I digress). Epistemically, once again, the human experience is our primary fount of philosophical knowledge. To deny our experience is to rip out our epistemic foundation. So when someone presents a determinism that can intelligently account for my experience, I'll take it seriously.

As for the rest of your post, don't take this the wrong way but it's mostly rhetoric and mysticism. How can I even begin to address the idea that, by embracing my concept of freedom I am embracing death and stagnation and that I ought to embrace the thought of my "pattern" returning to the chaos, content that in some way it has evolved the larger pattern? I'm not mocking, really, just telling you that we are speaking completely different languages, and you've given me no reason to adopt your particular description of the universe, or to consider it anything more than a hypothesis. You haven't rooted it to my experience or to anything, really, other than supposition. So I have no response, because it's largely a hypothetical. I prefer to deal with my own experience, because I can verify that, and is therefore the only basis for a sound epistemology.

[dalebert]

OK, we're getting walls of text, as Russell likes to say and I admit it's to the point where I'm having trouble keeping up with what's already been said. I'll try to simplify on each point though I feel I'm repeating myself.

Regarding the definition:
First, I'll admit that we are immensely complex, so much so that probably no one can predict exactly what we're going to do. If no one can predict what we're going to do, I can see how that seems like free will. We can call it that if it suits you. I don't even know if our decisions are purely deterministic or if there's an element of randomness in our decisions, but I'll admit that I don't know everything about the universe and there may in fact be an element of randomness in our decision making processes. If that is free will, then I can concede it as a real possibility and we can stop arguing the point.

Regarding Autonomy:
I have no memories from before the existence of my physical body. Substantial experience changed who I was from a creature of almost pure instinct to what I am now. What I am now emerged from apparent nothingness and probably some predispositions based on my genetics which might also be considered an environmental factor. My consciousness appears to have been created and developed along with my material body. That's simply my personal experience. That's based on thinking back to who I was as a tiny child, to a teenager, to a young adult, and etc. It seems I was relatively dumb way back when. It feels that I absorbed information through my senses, learned new things, made good and bad decisions and learned from them, witnessed others making good and bad decisions and learned from that, etc. I naturally incorporate these experiences and knowledge into my analytical processes and my will changes and develops.

I admit I don't know exactly why I make every decision and I also feel it's literally impossible for me to know exactly why because I AM in fact my decision making processes. It's like, I can never actually completely step out of myself to objectively analyze myself. So yes, I think I feel this autonomy that you speak of but I can't imagine what else I could possibly feel. You seem to ascribe a great deal of meaning to something that seems rather straight-forward to me.

Regarding this vague internal freedom:
I want to be free to be myself and be true to my own nature and once again, my decision making processes ARE me. I don't want the freedom to choose something that I don't want to choose. How could I? That's paradoxical. I want the freedom to ACT on my decisions and that's something that's relevant out in the world; not inside my head. I can accept that there may be some small degree of randomness (or nondeterminism if you prefer) that affects what I decide to do, but I don't see why I would DESIRE that internal randomness and label it freedom. I want to make the best possible decisions based on the best possible information.

[Caleb]

 

I'll try to be brief and save you walls of text.

At the beginning, I told you that I would judge any worldview by its resonance with my personal experience, since that is the only criterion by which I am capable of judging. I also told you that I have had discussions with a lot of people, but that almost always when I ask people for their thoughts, I tend to get materialism repackaged.

I don't think my version of freedom is radical. I feel like you are trying to make it seem radical, even while conceding that you feel it too. Randomness is not freedom. I have a little Sansa thing-a-majig that randomizes songs. I don't feel like it has freedom. That's why usually I throw the word "will" in with the word "free" to show that it is directed - directed by a person - directed by a free me.

If your definition of freedom is "complete and total determinism, with some randomness mixed in" well, that sounds like a better definition of weather patterns than it does of me. At this point, the discussion feels very surreal. I feel like my universal experience is being made to seem like an oddball, radical, "who ever heard of something like that" when we all have the same experience. And the only reason that we feel that we have to deny our freedom is to prop up a philosophical worldview that is more appropriate to 18th century science ...

At this point, from everything you have said, I feel like at least we have some consensus at what Jacobus said:

1. All real stuff is made up of physical, vacuous substance, whose interactions are governed by deterministic laws.

2. We each have a subjective experience and exercise some degree of self-determination (i.e. free will).

I believe that point 2. cannot be derived, scientifically or philosophically, from point 1 and as a result they are mutually exclusive.  To reconcile them, we must therefore posit something supernatural (and we then become dualists I guess).   

You chose option one and denied option two. I chose option two and denied option one. I will point out, that there is a heavy price tag to denying option two, the most obvious price being that by choosing complete determinism, there can be no such thing as "ethics" ... all is as it must be. There is nothing that "ought" to be done because everything simply is the only thing that can be. All is as it ought to be, all is as it must be. Don't ask "why?" Just as elements decompose and stars explode and plants engage in photosynthesis, just like that is why Hitler gasses Jews and Bush sprays the Columbian countryside. There is no "why". It just is because it must be.

[dalebert]

At the beginning, I told you that I would judge any worldview by its resonance with my personal experience, since that is the only criterion by which I am capable of judging.

Of course, and I just tried to explain how I'm doing the same. It's all any of us can do. For instance, that my personal experience is that my existence and consciousness is tied to the creation and growth of my body and brain. I may be wrong, but that's my experience.

I don't think my version of freedom is radical. I feel like you are trying to make it seem radical, even while conceding that you feel it too. Randomness is not freedom.

I don't know how else to describe non-determinism other than randomness. The two concepts are mutually exclusive in my mind. You can have some degree of one and some of the other as I described, but there is no third thing that my mind can conceive of, at least not until you can describe it to me. It's outside of my experience. I don't know how I can be any more direct and honest than that. You make out determinism to be a bad thing. I see it as purposeful and meaningful and I see its opposite, randomness, as chaos and meaninglessness. Determinism is what allows meaningful patterns to form out of chaos. Whether it's due to a soul, an inner guiding voice from God, or perhaps the billions of bits of code in our genetics, whatever something that we might call our autonomy, then that's another factor or factors that impact our decisions but it's got to be one or the other or some combination. These appear to me to be mutually exclusive axioms for describing all actions that can ever take place and you're trying to tell me about some third category that I can't even conceive of, and which I have no evidence that you can conceive of either because you can't describe it to me. And until you can, it's outside of my personal experience.

I have a little Sansa thing-a-majig that randomizes songs. I don't feel like it has freedom. That's why usually I throw the word "will" in with the word "free" to show that it is directed - directed by a person - directed by a free me.

Now you're talking about direction, which seems both deterministic and meaningful to me.

If your definition of freedom is "complete and total determinism, with some randomness mixed in" well, that sounds like a better definition of weather patterns than it does of me.

I told you in very straight-forward terms what freedom means to me. Now you're talking about my attempts to describe your notion of freedom, the word you started using instead of free will because that word remained vague and undefined to me.

At this point, the discussion feels very surreal. I feel like my universal experience is being made to seem like an oddball, radical, "who ever heard of something like that" when we all have the same experience.

Same here.

At this point, from everything you have said, I feel like at least we have some consensus at what Jacobus said:
1. All real stuff is made up of physical, vacuous substance, whose interactions are governed by deterministic laws.

2. We each have a subjective experience and exercise some degree of self-determination (i.e. free will).

I believe that point 2. cannot be derived, scientifically or philosophically, from point 1 and as a result they are mutually exclusive.  To reconcile them, we must therefore posit something supernatural (and we then become dualists I guess).   

I have to try to nip this before you start drawing conclusions based on it. What do you mean by "supernatural"? This is another pet peeve of mine much like the word "free will". If ghosts exists at all, then they're natural. If psychic ability exists, it's natural. If God exists, then it's natural. How are they not natural? What distinguishes the natural from the supernatural? Is it simply a word for describing things we don't understand or can't explain? If so, it seems not particularly relevant. It certainly doesn't explain anything or answer any questions by its very nature. The state of the universe exists as it is regardless of your or my understanding of it. Let's define that word before we start discussing and coming to conclusions based on whether supernatural things exist or not.

Try a thought experiment. Don't do anything for five minutes. Use your free will to sit still and clear your mind. OK, now, did you REALLY stop doing anything? Did you stop thinking? Did your consciousness stop for five minutes? I would posit based on my personal experience that you kept on thinking. You are now slightly different than you were five minutes ago because you have memories from that quiet five minutes that are incorporated into who you are now. You are EXPERIENCING your consciousness. It is happening and will keep happening. Those thoughts ARE you. You are a force in the universe just like gravity or the weather, though much more meaningful IMO. In many ways, you are more deterministic, moving with purpose and direction, and that feels true to me whether my internal motivations are from some genes and a bunch of memories or a soul that humanity has yet to quantify. In a sense, we are forced to choose actions every moment of our existence even if the action is to do nothing and what actions we choose are based on how our experiences and previous choices have shaped us. Our minds are incredibly complex and our futures are unpredictable based not only on the complexity of our minds but also the complexity of all the experiences the world may subject us to. That incredibly complex experience will certainly seem like free will and can be considered as such for all practical purposes, like accountability. However, you cannot stop being Caleb and the amalgamation of experiences that make up who you are. Start having my thoughts. Be Dale in your mind for five minutes. You can't because you are not made up of the same experiences as me. You can imagine it based on some degree of shared experience and what you know from interacting with me. After all, we share over 99% of our DNA and we both spent 9 mos in a womb and both eat and drink and do human things. You may even be able to predict some choices I will make depending on how well you know me, but you cannot choose to be me mentally because you are Caleb. You are not free to be anyone but who you are. This seems quite obvious to me. That is my experience. My experience is of being Dale.

[Caleb]

Dale,

The third thing is agency. It isn't a difficult concept, and I can (and have) explained it to you quite well, but the problem is that I can't explain it to you in terms that fit into your worldview because it is entirely precluded by your worldview. The crucial thing is that agency requires some degree of autonomy from the traditional cause/effect paradigm that materialism assumes as the natural order of all things. Since your worldview says it isn't possible, then you don't understand it intellectually, though you do experience it. I keep trying to say that, because your claim not to understand rings really hollow.

Determinism is what allows meaningful patterns to form out of chaos. Whether it's due to a soul, an inner guiding voice from God, or perhaps the billions of bits of code in our genetics, whatever something that we might call our autonomy, then that's another factor or factors that impact our decisions but it's got to be one or the other or some combination.

That's due to the assumptions of your worldview. The key term here would be reductionism. It's intimately tied to your assumptions about cause and effect. Like I said earlier, we need a new concept of causation.

Also, I think maybe I should have thrown this in in the last post, but along with ethics, determinism must also sacrifice purpose/meaning. Think about it, internalize it:  All is as it must be. How can there be purpose or meaning in such a system? Nothing can be changed, (or more appropriately, whatever change occurs was predestined anyway,) so you can't change anything unless it's "in the cards" so to speak. All is as it must be. There is no "ought", there is no "should", there is no "might have been otherwise", only what is must be what is.

I have to try to nip this before you start drawing conclusions based on it. What do you mean by "supernatural"? This is another pet peeve of mine much like the word "free will". If ghosts exists at all, then they're natural. If psychic ability exists, it's natural.

I actually agree with you. I think Jacobus' selection of the word supernatural was unfortunate, but that doesn't change the thrust of his assessment, which you and I seem to have reached consensus on. That's why I don't say supernatural, only that we need to rethink matter and causation.

Be Dale in your mind for five minutes. You can't because you are not made up of the same experiences as me. You can imagine it based on some degree of shared experience and what you know from interacting with me.

  Wouldn't it freak you out though? There are cases in the literature, though. This isn't an impossibility. I should probably tell you a couple things:  First, I don't think that classical brain models fit the mold. They just don't seem to include all the evidence or explain all the evidence anyway. I'm very intrigued by models of the brain like that of Rupert Sheldrake or (a less controversial figure) Karl Pribram, which assume that the brain is more of a frequency receiver than anything. So in that model, it wouldn't be impossible for my brain to tune in to your channel, so to speak. This wouldn't be a paranormal, hocus pocus sort of thing, it would simply be the natural functioning of the brain in the world from a process perspective.

[William]

by choosing complete determinism, there can be no such thing as "ethics" ... all is as it must be. There is nothing that "ought" to be done because everything simply is the only thing that can be. All is as it ought to be, all is as it must be. Don't ask "why?" Just as elements decompose and stars explode and plants engage in photosynthesis, just like that is why Hitler gasses Jews and Bush sprays the Columbian countryside. There is no "why". It just is because it must be.

I can usually be spotted preaching this to the "everything happens for a reason" "it's all part of the plan" "written in the book of life before the beginning of time" "he's got the whole world in his hands types (my family).

[dalebert]

This is not a response. Just a vid that's on topic. I'm not necessarily endorsing it; just find this guy to have interesting insights sometimes though I don't necessarily agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Kl-mnKveE

[dalebert]

He followed up with another, apparently responding to a reply video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0I0Be11jY

[dalebert]

Yet more food for thought. Again, this is not a response to anything. It's just funny to me that some of the people I'm subscribed to happen to be on this subject right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-tyWgk9MAw

[Pat McCotter]

Yet more food for thought. Again, this is not a response to anything. It's just funny to me that some of the people I'm subscribed to happen to be on this subject right now.

Synchronicity? 

[Caleb]

Yet more food for thought. Again, this is not a response to anything. It's just funny to me that some of the people I'm subscribed to happen to be on this subject right now.

Synchronicity? 

  An Acausal Connecting Principle