Reductionism

I hope to persuade hard (absolute) determinists that their position is based on a false dichotomy. Determinism does not preclude free will. It's not either/or: there are other possibilities. I am presenting, here, one of those other possibilities. It's a model based on reciprocal causality. It doesn't claim to have proof: we know too little about the brain to prove how any high-order mental process works, so I'll be appealing to your experience and reason using common ideas and concepts we all understand. As I will explain, free will does not require mind/body dualism: it doesn't have to violate causality or determinism. The question of free will is a matter of opinion, hotly debated for centuries. I find it ridiculous when hard determinists write with authority about “the illusion of free will” as if they’re discussing settled, factual, points. If they don’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion, how do they know what they know? The pretense of certainty is foolhardy when dealing with a topic nobody can back up with evidence. I believe the main stumbling block for hard determinists is their tendency to material reductionism, driven by the misguided application of physics to things biological: a tendency that obfuscates the key differences between inanimate objects and animate beings.

Before beginning in earnest, I'd like you to consider this . . .

. . . If I were Magellan, trying to convince you that the Earth is spherical, I would point out how -- no matter in which direction you look -- the horizon advances as we advance toward it and how the arc of the horizon suggests a huge, round, planet, etc. If you adhered to conventional 15th century wisdom and held a contrary opinion, you would naturally react with skepticism and be inclined to resist my evidence and arguments.

However, if you sailed around the world with me, heading inexorably westward, you would be far more willing to accept the Earth as a globe once we arrive back where we started from. You might find fault with some of my ideas or metaphors but you would agree with my conclusion and, thus, would be more prone to seek clarification than to reject the theory outright.

Sometimes, we can’t see the forest for the trees. If I had to respond to every possible objection to every interpretation of my assertions, we would get nowhere in a hurry. Let’s not get bogged down in the minutiae: let's look at the question holistically before quibbling over details: we are, after all, dealing with hypotheticals here . . . namely that reciprocal causation, as a potential key to free will (self-determinism) without mind/body dualism, demonstrates that hard determinism is a false dichotomy: there are other possibilities.

So, what IS free will? People clearly don’t agree on what it is. Philosophers can’t figure it out. No matter what our opinions of the requirements for free will, they all include choice, so let’s call choice a bare minimum requirement. But in what manner do we have choice? Certainly not the libertarian volition that denies determinism. That’s just not workable – especially for atheists with a knee-jerk reaction against mind/body dualism. And certainly not at the other end of the spectrum: hard determinism. To hard determinists, there is no free will: just the illusion of it. So, if free will really exists, it exists somewhere between these two extremes.

The way I see it, we are self-aware, intelligent, human beings, with uniquely powerful mental faculties of memory and analysis that sets us apart from all other known entities. We specialize in abstractions. We understand, or can figure out, causal relationships and their effects on us and our environment. Not only are we self-aware – we are time-aware – something so intrinsic to our intelligence that we’re inured to it, taking it for granted. To me, this time-awareness is an important key to the question of free will because it represents a temporal advantage over causality that allows us to anticipate and prepare for the future . . . whether that be 5 seconds or 50 years from now. Whether it’s preparing a grocery list; or a career path; or writing a last will and testament: we plot our own paths into the future. And that, to me, is self-determinism: my idea of what free will actually is. Self-determinism means that, within the constraints of causality, we are the architects of our own lives and are thus responsible and accountable for our own actions. To me, this is what it means to have free will.

I’m a compatibilist. I believe free will (self-determinism) is compatible with determinism – but not the absolute determinism of hard determinists. Such absolute determinism is based on linear causality; the causality of physics: cause and effect that is fixed: linear, binary and inexorable, unfolding in a precisely predictable way. Yes, the causality of physics is linear, binary and inexorable. But only with inanimate objects. Everything in the universe was an inanimate object until the advent of life. Thanks to the introduction of life, the universe now also contains animate beings.

Inanimate objects and animate beings have different modes of response (reactive versus interactive) to causality because animate beings provide potentials for causality that aren’t possible with inanimate objects.For brevity’s sake, lets stick with human beings from here on out. Anyway, instead of the linear, reactive, relationship to causality found in the inanimate realm, human beings have a reciprocal, interactive, relationship with causality. This is one of the differences that distinguishes physics from biology. Physics deals with inanimate matter: its causality is simple and linear. Biology deals with animate beings: its causality is complex and reciprocal. Life makes all the difference.

We’re evolved to recognize, analyze, understand and anticipate causality in highly complex ways. Think about it for a second. What are the properties of causality that make it so predictable in the inanimate realm?

  • It unfolds in lockstep with the unidirectional arrow of time.
  • It’s binary: cause and effect. Fundamentally simple.
  • It’s highly repeatable and consistent. A fact that science relies upon.


Causality underpins all of nature. It’s a basic assumption of physics. It’s the first thing we need to master in order to understand the world around us. Intelligence can’t develop – much less, evolve – without causality as its foundation. The properties of causality are the seeds of intelligence. Without causality, there is only chaos.

So causality is at the core of both determinism and intelligence. And when causality and intelligence interact, we have self-determinism. The key to that interaction is feedback. How do you have interaction without feedback? Feedback is common to emergent phenomena such as consciousness and intelligence, both of which are intimately bound up with free will (self-determinism). In contrast, inanimate matter is insensate. It has no memory, no intentions, no alternatives. It has no feedback: it is reactive, not interactive.

Although human intelligence endows us with a temporal advantage over causality that allows us to anticipate, prepare for and harness causality for our own purposes, that doesn't mean we’re not subject to great influence from causality. We can do nothing about much of causality’s influence over us. We have no causal control over our own genetics and very little over our physiology. We have no control over the weather or natural disasters. In the midst of a car crash, we have no control over the forces that violently toss us around. But we’re not absolutely at the mercy of causality . . . we can drive defensively and use seat belts, air bags, padded dashboards, laminated windshields, crumple zone designs and side impact protection beams as well as systems for: collision avoidance, anti-lock braking, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, electronic stability control and obstacle detection. With self-determinism, feedback allows us to recursively modify our surroundings or even our own behavior to guarantee more beneficial consequences than would otherwise occur.

Feedback occurs between our brains and stimuli from our surroundings (causality). I think this feedback loop is where emergent phenomena such as intelligence and consciousness form. But how can free will (self-determinism) emerge from feedback? Well, of course, I don't really know. But when I think in terms of reciprocal causality, it’s not difficult to explain how self-determinism could emerge from the feedback of reciprocal causation. It’s easy to see how the human brain creates huge potentials for (reciprocal) causality that are way beyond anything possible in the inanimate realm. Here's just one way in which that could happen, explained with ideas and concepts we're all familiar with . . .

. . . Cause and effect from the past (experience) is stored in the brain as memories. Cause and effect are also projected into the future (anticipation) when we analyze or plan. As mental feedback, our brains integrate experience and anticipation with cause and effect in the present moment to synthesize perceptions, ideas, conclusions and decisions . . . which, in turn, are also stored in the brain. Now tell me, which of these causes and effects are important to this process?

I say all of them. This synthesis of multiple causal factors is impossible with the linear causality of inanimate objects. With human intelligence, causality has more "temporal potentials", thanks to memory (past) and the anticipation and projection of imagination (future). To us, causality isn't limited to the present. It's stored in the form of memories we can recall and is predicted in the form of anticipation and projection. Memory and imagination, as mental abstractions, are virtualized forms (past and future) of causality. Their synthesis with real-time causality (the present) is transformative and might well be integral to the emergence of  free will (self-determinism).

So, if you're hung up on "uncaused causes", consider the mental synthesis of multiple causal factors and its implications for emergence. We don't operate on just the unfolding linear causality of the present. The past, present and future are homogenized and simultaneously incorporated into our thoughts and deeds.There is no "uncaused cause" -- no violation of determinism -- because there is no single cause but, rather, a synthesis of causal factors past, present and (virtual) future. I think this synthesis is exactly what is needed for the emergence of intelligence and free will (self-determinism) without mind/body dualism. When you stop to think about it, the human capacity for analysis is amazing. It's an exercise in abstraction. We draw feedback from experience (past) and imagination (future) to mentally evaluate hypothetical scenarios. They're not even real: just mental constructs! Reciprocal causation seems to have almost limitless potential. If reciprocal causation isn't the key to free will (self-determinism) as an emergent property of the brain, what else could be?

The whole point here is to show that hard determinism is a false dichotomy. It's not either/or. There are other possibilities. Emergence from reciprocal causation is one of those possibilities.

I believe that free will (self-determinism) is a prerequisite component of human intelligence in as much as it seems impossible to have human intelligence without it. What is human intelligence? Can we have it without the ability to make choices? Not to my way of thinking.

The ability to make choices, to me, implies an ability to anticipate causality. We make decisions based on expectations and pursue plans to usher those decisions to fruition. Planning would not work if choices were ephemeral. Clearly, we plan all the time, so part of intelligence must include keeping track of choices relative to our plans. This means that, at many points along the way, our choices are re-entrant or recursive; otherwise we could accomplish nothing.

If so, feedback is part of the causal stream of stimuli we’re constantly responding to. It's internal instead of external but it joins the stream of stimuli by looping with it. After all, causality doesn't stop at the skull. If we interact with causality, then feedback must be the mechanism by which we direct that interaction. Feedback informs our decisions.

We’re very good at analysis and executing plans. Sometimes we fail but usually, we’re confident in the outcomes. The fact that we can make plans and execute them is proof that we anticipate the future and factor causality into every step along the way. We can engineer moon missions and scramble to avert disasters and land our astronauts back on Earth safe and sound.

If that isn’t self-determinism . . . then what is it? I think it’s the only form of free will we really have.

Reciprocal causation becomes easier to understand once you acknowledge that animate beings, through feedback, offer causality more potentials than can occur with inanimate matter. Thanks to our advanced intelligence, we virtually dance with causality. Innovation, invention, creativity . . . these all indicate that causality is a plaything to us.

The reductionist mindset of hard (absolute) determinism doesn't take reciprocal causation into consideration . . . and as long as you’re dealing with inanimate matter, that shortcoming doesn't matter. The biggest mistake hard determinists make is treating animate beings like inanimate objects: applying linear causation instead of reciprocal causation. The brain is more than a collection of atoms: it's the most complex object in the known universe. Life, consciousness and intelligence are emergent phenomena. Why not free will (self-determinism)?

I find it curious that so many intelligent people are so quick to surrender their identity on the altar of ABSOLUTE determinism. Here's a few quotes that sum these folk up for me . . .

  • “A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition.” ~José Bergamín
  • “Knowledge is a relatively safe addiction; that is, until it becomes idolatry.” ~Anonymous
  • “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” ~Albert Einstein


The Bergamin quote reminds us that certainty is a fool’s game. Absolutism is the pretense of certainty. The anonymous quote reminds us that what we think we know is subject to new paradigms. The Einstein quote encapsulates hard determinism perfectly. By applying the linear causality of inanimate objects to animate beings – as if there’s no difference between them – hard determinists are making things simpler than possible. Free will (self-determinism) is probably not even possible without the feedback of reciprocal causation: it's certainly unimaginable with just linear causation. Life, consciousness, intelligence and, yes, free will (self-determinism) are unthinkable without reciprocal causality.

We all live as if we have free will (self-determinism). Jurisprudence, competition, incentives, rewards, praise, blame, loyalty, betrayal . . . these all pay lip service to free will (self-determinism). We ponder our futures and evaluate our options for the best available opportunities that fit our priorities and abilities – then we set about to achieve them. There are constantly choices to be made. Free will (self-determinism) seems to be a fact of life.

The challenge is to explain it: NOT deny it.

 



© Copyright 2013 AtheistExile.com

eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


 

 

Views: 353

Tags: animate, beings, biology, causality, determinism, free will, inanimate, linear, objects, physics, More…reciprocal

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 24, 2013 at 4:44pm

Thanks Dennis, Though I might add:

Not only are individuals experiences, thus hierarchy of choices and biases different, but so is the intricate wiring if their brains.  Studies into Synesthesia, (one sense connecting another like hearing and color synthesis) has clearly demonstrated this.

When we even view a simple object, like say a tennis ball, yes, we all recognize it as such, but the fine points of perception are different for every individual, which is why some like and others dislike the object.

Our brains are like fingerprints, no two brains match, our perceptions of everything differ, thus choice is also affected by this.

Comment by Michael Penn on October 24, 2013 at 10:34am

Instead of actually making a choice of what we will pick, out of a few or many, we actually choose which options we won't pick.

All choices are already present in the mind/brain at the time a choice is made.

GOD'aye is exactly correct here. There is no doubt about it. I might add that these choices are particular at the time of choice to this one individual because of everything that ever happened to him in his lifetime. Those of his same generation will have similar choices to make, but not the exact same choices. The choices are "fixed" within the realm of ones individual existence and upbringing.

This is why we all have differing opinions.

This is why we think some people to be very intelligent and others stupid.

This is also why "free will becomes free won't."

(How in the hell do you turn these damned italics off anyway? !@&^$$%)

Comment by Matt--Lukin on October 24, 2013 at 6:52am

A special case FOR WHAT? And it's "animate BEINGS", not animate objects. How is the distinction between animate beings and inanimate objects the "ultimate straw man? It's not good enough to make claims. You have to back them up: explain why or how. Bald claims give me nothing substantive to respond to.

A special case for free will, of course. And yes, thank you, I was under the impression that "animate beings" and "animate objects" were synonymous, but since you're making a distinction, I did mean "animate beings" to apply to the context you're using it in. I'll explain why below why I think it's the "ultimate straw man."

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" was a fictional novel. Hello?

The notion that "consciousness" is an emergent property of the complexity of the brain is also 'fiction,' too, if you want to get technical, since it's merely a conjecture of neuroscience, not a proven fact.

I did NOT refer to free will as an epiphenomenon of consciousness.  

2. Life, consciousness and intelligence are emergent phenomena. Why not free will?

By definition, an epiphenomenon is an "emergent property," so if you didn't say that, then you're definitely contradicting yourself here.

So, I'm not sure as to why you were accusing me of using a "hand puppet fallacy." And like I said, I'm not opposed of the idea of "free will," but obviously you seem quite opposed to the idea of "hard determinism." Like I've mentioned in my previous post, I do not adhere to "hard determinism", I happen to take a different stance on the matter. Furthermore, I also mentioned that I try and understand each point of view as to gain a better perspective on the broader picture. As I see it, hard determinists do not "overlook" or "ignore" 'animate beings,' they simply include 'animate beings' into "hard determinism." 

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 24, 2013 at 6:03am

Another consideration about choices is the state of mind of the person making the choice.

Whether one of the following reaction states has been triggered.

1: Lizard brain basic direct response, purely reactionary, no involvement of the higher brain regions like the prefrontal cortex don't get involved.  Simplified flight/fight scenario.

2: Secondary reaction of the basic mammalian brain, quick aggressiveness, instant competitive reactions lack of higher sensibilities nor consideration of others. Some psychopaths have a form of autism that short circuits higher thinking and empathy, they react as early mammals would.

3: Higher functioning reactions: Prefrontal cortex and associated structures insert a decision making delay for reactions and the individual then makes choices based on several criteria, like: Need, Empathy, Bias, Learned Responses, Genetic Responses, Childhood Experience Responses and Indoctrinated Responses.

If the hierarchy of criteria is known about an Individual (i.e. what responses they consider important), the level 3 higher brain responses can be predicted.

Again: Free Will like our Consciousness, is an Illusion.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 24, 2013 at 5:35am

It's a concept of VS Ramachandran and some of his colleagues after considering what their studies have exposed about how those structures they have been studying actually appear to work, you will find reference to it in "The Tell-Tale-Brain". Though when considered philosophically it also rings true, that we are exposed to and have embedded through experience and learned from others, the choices that we are likely to make in most, if not all situations.  The choices are all there, just waiting to be chosen.

I had a psychologist that told me if he spent enough time with any client, he could almost predict what their choice would be in any situation, as most people are highly predictable, even though they may think of themselves as being dynamic, radical and unpredictable.

Most people have an illusion of themselves as being such.

When in fact, they are as predictable as a 'B' grade Western plot.

The choices are there, whether by training, experience or urban myths, but we are actually quite predictable.

Free Will is truly an Illusion and the Free Won't concept of Ramachandran's is quite likely the reality.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 24, 2013 at 4:36am

@God'aye,

I still think the concept that some neurologists have recently developed by regarding how the brain functions with regards to choice, in that all choices at the moment a choice is made are known, what the brain appears to do is to block all but one choice.

The neurosciences are still just scratching the surface of consciousness, despite remarkable imaging technologies like fMRI. These scientists are the first to caution NOT to draw unsubstantiated conclusions. If you're suggesting that science has discovered how we make decisions, well . . . that's just not true.

Comment by Atheist Exile on October 24, 2013 at 4:12am

@ Matt-Lukin

The emphasis put on "animate beings" seems like an attempt to make a special case. The "animate objects" you speak of may very well be the ultimate straw man in making the case for "free will."

A special case FOR WHAT? And it's "animate BEINGS", not animate objects. How is the distinction between animate beings and inanimate objects the "ultimate straw man? It's not good enough to make claims. You have to back them up: explain why or how. Bald claims give me nothing substantive to respond to.

 

I'm not sure if you've ever read Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five," but if you recall the aliens in that book referred to as Tralfamadorians, they perceive in the 4th dimension. They have access to view any point in the past, present or future, but possess no free will because as they see it, all points in time are fixed. So, it's a kind of Eternalism, a block universe, and they're perfectly content that they cannot change anything, and yet they are depicted in the book as "animate beings." 

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" was a fictional novel. Hello?

I also noticed how you refer to "free will" as an epiphenomenon of consciousness. 

I did NOT refer to free will as an epiphenomenon of consciousness. But I did refer to it as a prerequisite to intelligence. And I referred to intelligence as an emergent property of the human brain. The point here being that it would be best if you cite the words I wrote instead of substitutions of your own choosing. Doing so will avoid misleading or fallacious reasoning. For instance, substituting your words for mine is a straw man tactic (intentional or not) that can weaken or water-down the original version. Speaking of which, I think the straw man fallacy should be called the "hand puppet fallacy" because, by paraphrasing instead of quoting, one is actually arguing against his own version of the original instead of the original itself. One is essentially arguing with himself. Hence, hand puppet.

And although consciousness is one of the biggest frontiers in science, one of the biggest mysteries in the neurosciences, even, it too is considered an "emergent property." However, what you seem to be getting at is once you have this "emergent" property, then that then gives way to "free will." 

Yikes! I never suggested that, once you have consciousness, it gives way to free will. That is YOUR spin. I used the word consciousness 3 times:

  1. Feedback is common to emergent phenomena such as consciousness and intelligence, both of which are intimately bound up with free will.
  2. Life, consciousness and intelligence are emergent phenomena. Why not free will?
  3. Life, consciousness, intelligence and, yes, free will all require reciprocal causality.

These all center around feedback or reciprocal causation as a likely components or precursors of emergent phenomena from the human brain. At this point I should remind you that my post was an explanation for free will that avoids mind-body dualism or violating causality or determinism. I'm NOT saying this is how free will operates. I'm saying this is a model for how it could operate. The piece is couched, throughout, with qualifier like: "to me", "I think", "it doesn't have to", "the way I see it", "I believe", "seems to be", etc. -- I know I'm presenting a model for free will but, I must admit, I believe it is a fair approximation of how free will actually operates.

You know what? I'm going to stop here. It's too much work and more effort than it's worth to respond to bald claims and paraphrases that miss the mark. You seem to be opposed to the idea of free will and/or the reactive versus interactive causal modes of inanimate matter versus animate beings and/or reciprocal causation and/or feedback as a precursor to emergent phenomena . . . these are all major themes that define my thesis. If you respond to these -- without bald claims or unnecessary paraphrasing -- I'd be happy to reply in kind. I will only account for what I write . . . not what you write.

Comment by Matt--Lukin on October 23, 2013 at 9:15pm

The emphasis put on "animate beings" seems like an attempt to make a special case. The "animate objects" you speak of may very well be the ultimate straw man in making the case for "free will." 

I'm not sure if you've ever read Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five," but if you recall the aliens in that book referred to as Tralfamadorians, they perceive in the 4th dimension. They have access to view any point in the past, present or future, but possess no free will because as they see it, all points in time are fixed. So, it's a kind of Eternalism, a block universe, and they're perfectly content that they cannot change anything, and yet they are depicted in the book as "animate beings." 

I also noticed how you refer to "free will" as an epiphenomenon of consciousness. And although consciousness is one of the biggest frontiers in science, one of the biggest mysteries in the neurosciences, even, it too is considered an "emergent property." However, what you seem to be getting at is once you have this "emergent" property, then that then gives way to "free will." 

You know, there's an interesting concept in eastern philosophy called "panexperientialism" which says that all matter is conscious. Most people at first glance sneer at this concept, because they think of matter having some kind of  full, human-style consciousness. That's not what it's proposing. Some people scoffingly question, "So, rocks can get mad?" No! It's thought that inert matter possesses a kind of "turiya," a pure consciousness incapable of "choosing or doing," a consciousness that, in a way, "just is." It's often thought that serotonin is one of the primary neurotransmitters responsible for "emotion," and of course, a rock doesn't possess that chemical, so it wouldn't interplay, you see.

So, the implication being that "consciousness" may not be an "emergent property," it may have always been there, and the more complex the interactions between molecules and elements, the more complex or "animate" consciousness becomes. This may be an answer to the conundrum of "abiogenesis." As an aside, I think it's sort of a misnomer to refer to something as an "inanimate object," as all things are in flux, but I understand you meant an object without volition.

There's a speaker here that has a very articulate explanation of the "hard determinism" view. I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'll post the link below: 

Ramesh Balsekar - Uniquely Programmed Individual

I want to add that I don't adhere to "hard determinism," so I'm not trying to convince you of it. I just try and take all positions, and understand each one, and so I offer these concepts to you as merely a little more things to mull over concerning the topics  of  "free will," "determinism," "hard determinism," "compatibilism," incompatibilism," etc.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on October 23, 2013 at 5:32pm

I still think the concept that some neurologists have recently developed by regarding how the brain functions with regards to choice, in that all choices at the moment a choice is made are known, what the brain appears to do is to block all but one choice.

So, instead of actually making a choice of what we will pick, out of a few or many, we actually choose which options we won't pick.

Turning Free Will, into Free Won't. :-D~

We actually disregard or block choices more than we make them.

All choices are already present in the mind/brain at the time a choice is made.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service