Morality, Survival and Religion

Morality is a human construct, by and for humans. If not, we’d have to get it from a natural source . . . or a supernatural one. I’m an atheist, so a supernatural source isn’t a serious alternative to me. That leaves one alternative: Nature. But I can’t detect the slightest whiff of morality in nature. Mother nature is red in tooth and claw. She is indifferent to violence, suffering and killing. Survival is her prime directive. So, if there is morality to be found in nature, what else could it be based on? Can the imperative of survival provide an objective moral standard for humanity?

If survival does provide an objective moral standard for humanity, “survival of the fittest” ain’t it. We’re not that cut-throat or indifferent to suffering. We have empathy and a sense of fairness: probably written in our genes. So how could survival serve as an objective moral standard?

I think that survival COULD serve as an objective moral standard if it’s considered at all levels. By this I mean survival at the: genetic, individual, family, group, species and global levels. The idea here is that an act can be judged on its survival value at all these levels: the more value and the more levels that benefit, the more moral it could be considered.

But the problem with the survival-at-all-levels concept of morality is that it suffers the same weakness that all moral systems suffer from: Subjectivity. An objective moral standard is an ideal impossible for humans because humans are not, and can’t be, perfectly objective. We could try to adopt this moral standard but it’s implementation is certain to fail when we interpret survival values.

So morality — no matter where it comes from — will always be a matter of personal beliefs, priorities and biases. Human morality is subjective because humans are subjective.

Assuming a healthy mind, where does morality come from? I think we make it out to be more complicated than it really is. We develop our personal moralities from a combination of just two fundamental human characteristics: empathy and experience. From experience, I know what hurts me. Through empathy, I know the same things are likely to hurt you too. It’s the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because empathy is informed by experience, morality matures as we do. If we’re lucky, life lessons correct or reinforce our morals as we get older. If we’re unfortunate or downtrodden, life lessons can twist and corrupt our moral sensibilities.

The best religion can do with morality is to endorse some morals and condemn others. Historically, this has proven to be more of a hindrance than a benefit. Morality is what we say it is. As humanity advances, so does our morality. By “writing our morals in stone” as religions are wont to do, they fall behind the times. They become antiquated. In the Bible, not even Jesus was aware how human subjugation (women and slaves) is unfair and unkind. His morality was derived from the social milieu of his era and area. Religions don’t define or mold morals: they usurp them.

It’s not a very satisfying answer but there is no objective moral standard that humanity could actually implement successfully. Morality is subjective. It’s an inherent property of the human condition.

---

© Copyright 2013 AtheistExile.com All rights reserved.
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

 

Morality DOES Have an Objective Basis

I’ve always looked for an objective moral standard but could never find one. This video doesn’t provide a universally objective moral standard but it does come as close as humanly possible. In plain, logical, English, here’s the explanation for a quantitatively and qualitatively objective basis for morality: well-being.

Emergent Properties of the Human Brain

This post revisits arguments related to free will and complexity theory. I’ve recently been focused on newer arguments for self-determinism (a compatibilist form of free will) but an interview of Daniel Dennett, by the Center for Inquiry, has prompted me to revisit “emergent properties”. If you’re not familiar with my explanation for self-determinism, please consult my home page for several posts on the topic.

The basic premise of hard determinism is a false dichotomy. It asserts that you can’t have causality and make choices too. Too many hard determinists are stuck on this false dichotomy and won’t acknowledge that it’s not either/or. They won’t acknowledge that there are alternative possibilities. Self-determinism is one such alternative in which human intelligence, via reciprocal causation, interacts with, instead of merely reacts to, causality.

Daniel Dennett, in an interview for the Center For Inquiry, uses an argument derived from complexity theory. Complexity theory, by the way, is better suited to mind/brain questions than the reductionist approaches favored by hard determinists. For your convenience, I’m including this link to an .MP3 file containing just the section of the interview dealing with free will. The following block quote comes from near the end of the .MP3 file . . .

Most people are quite happy with the idea that things can be colored even though their finest parts aren’t colored. Atoms aren’t colored but things can be red, blue and green — they can really be red, blue and green — it’s not just an illusion that they’re red, blue and green even though the atoms that they’re made of are not any color at all. Things can be alive, like a cell, even though they’re made of parts that aren’t alive. In fact, if it doesn’t work out that way, we’re in deep trouble. So you can make something living out of parts that are not living. You can make something colored out of parts that aren’t colored. You can make something conscious out of parts that are not conscious. Neurons aren’t conscious . . . [and] you can make something free out of parts that aren’t free.

. . . Nature is riddled with emergent properties: especially where there is life. Life itself is an emergent property of organic molecules. Self-aware consciousness, intelligence and, yes, self-determinism, are emergent properties of mental feedback (which is, itself, an emergent property of the brain). Because the emergent property of mental feedback must exist before the emergent properties of (1) self-aware consciousness, (2) intelligence and (3) self-determinism can exist, these 3 higher-level phenomena are at least twice abstracted from the brain. They are emergent properties of an emergent property (mental feedback). You can also take the view that human intelligence includes self-aware consciousness and self-determinism but you’d still have a phenomenon twice abstracted from the brain: an emergent property from an emergent property. This feedback loop, in which we think about what we think, is a form of reciprocal causation and, I suspect, is where choice arises from. The theory of reciprocal determinism, developed by renowned psychologist, Albert Bandura, emphasizes the interdependence of person and environment. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it . . .

Reciprocal determinism is the idea that behavior is controlled or determined by the individual, through cognitive processes, and by the environment, through external social stimulus events. The basis of reciprocal determinism should transform individual behavior by allowing subjective thought processes transparency when contrasted with cognitive, environmental, and external social stimulus events.

Actions do not go one way or the other, as it is affected by repercussions, meaning one’s behavior is complicated and can’t be thought of as individual and environmental means. Behavior consist of environmental and individual parts that interlink together to function.

. . . I believe, as I’ve already stated here and elsewhere, that self-aware and time-aware mental feedback is transformative: that’s where the complementary properties of causality and human intelligence interact — that’s where self-determinism emerges.

Human intelligence evolved to interact with causality: it recognizes and anticipates causality. If you consider the properties of causality and of human intelligence, you’ll see how they’re complementary. Causality, in the inanimate world around us, is highly predictable because it unfolds with time and produces repeatable results. It is persistent and consistent: unidirectional and repeatable. Science depends on this fact to formalize empirical observations and experiments. People depend on this fact to interact with the world around them. We influence the external environment as the external environment influences us. Cause and effect, in certain ways, become indistinguishable. This is interaction, not reaction. Human intelligence produces an entirely different mode of response to causality: interaction. Contrast this to the strictly reactive mode of response for inanimate objects.

Free will, as most of us think of it, doesn’t exist. Our intelligent interaction with causality produces a more subtle, nuanced, phenomenon: self-determinism. I think of it, more or less, as “direction” or “purpose”. Because of feedback, we can (with varying degrees of efficacy) distinguish between a good idea and a bad idea or something in between and pursue the one we want. These are options — yes, options dictated by causality (reciprocal causation) but options nonetheless — we choose as self-aware, intelligent, human beings. The brain deliberates. That what it does. It couldn’t without feedback. If you insist on a reductionist philosophy that equates brains to rocks, you will never acknowledge the distinctly different modes of response to causality exhibited by inanimate objects versus animate beings. With reciprocal causation, cause can become effect and vice versa: cause and effect lose their meaning and reaction becomes interaction.

We suspect that abiogenesis somehow transformed inanimate matter into living cells. We haven’t proved it yet. But it’s the best theory we have and most of us are willing to accept it because we know life must have started somehow.

Of course . . . you could say “God did it” and leave it at that. But that’s a cop-out.

In the same way, we know that we are self-aware, time-aware, intelligent human beings who bring purpose and direction to a universe that otherwise has none. Self-determinism provides a theory that uses what we all know to be true to explain how this direction and purpose is compatible with causality. By interacting with causality, human intelligence blurs the difference between cause and effect in a way not possible with inanimate objects.

Of course . . . you could say “The Big Bang did it” and leave it at that. But that’s a cop-out.

The philosophical challenge will remain unsolved if we keep trying to explain the impossible notion of the ill-named “free will”. Instead, turn your attention to what we know and can actually point to as real. The true challenge, in light of causality and reality, is to explain the goal-seeking direction and purpose of human endeavor . . . NOT to fatalistically deny it.

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

A Bone to Pick: Vegetarian and Vegan Proselytizing

“I was a vegetarian until I started leaning towards sunlight.” ~Rita Rudner

Vegan Proselytizers: Cognitive Dissonance Much?

I’ve grown weary of the growing number of proselytizing tirades from vegetarians and vegans; especially when they try to make eating meat a moral issue. Vegetarianism is a dietary preference . . . that’s all it is. Vegans take vegetarianism to its illogical extreme and invariably attempt to make it a moral issue. When they do, they are, at best, confusing compassion with morality. At worst, they’re food fascists wielding the scepter of moral superiority.

Go ahead and cite all the reasons why humans are herbivores. Yeah, list them to your heart’s content. Done? Now, get in your car, drive around, open your eyes and mind, then soak in the reality: McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King, Wendy’s, Sizzler, and other chain restaurants that purvey meat. How many restaurants don’t purvey meat? Barbeque, seafood, Chinese, Mexican, Italian, Japanese, Thai, French, Cuban, whatever: they all prominently feature meat. It’s even hard to find an Indian restaurant that doesn’t begrudge meat on their menu. Now don’t you feel silly, standing there with your list of reasons why we’re herbivores? There’s no denying we’re omnivores. Period.

If you’re more of an abstract kind of person, unfazed by practical evidence, maybe physical proof might persuade you. Herbivores are adapted to eat only plants. Omnivores are adapted to eat both plants and animals. Vitamin B₁₂ is produced by bacterial symbiosis in both plants and animals but can only be consumed from meat; not veggies. According to the FDA, the USDA, the CDC and their counterparts in other countries, vitamin B₁₂ is not available from plants: you can only get B₁₂ from meat or from synthesized B₁₂ found in artificially fortified foods and pills. This is proof that we are not adapted to eat only plants: it’s proof that we’re not herbivores. Close, but no cigar. We are not herbivores. Period.

And, by the way, calcium can only be found in a select few dark green leafy veggies, such as: collard greens, turnip greens, bok choy, mustard greens and a few varieties of seaweed. The USDA warns vegetarians that: “Consuming enough plant foods to meet calcium needs may be unrealistic for many.” Humans are, and always have been, omnivores. It’s not a matter of opinion: it’s a simple matter of fact – and thus, not subject to debate. “Humans are herbivores” is a ridiculous claim from the get-go regardless of how many vegan propaganda publications you want to cite to the contrary.

Then there’s the “primates are herbivores” variant of the argument. It’s hard to tell if those who make this argument are ignorant, stupid or lying. The fact is: some primates are herbivores and some are omnivores. Chimps, for instance, will eat meat. More to the point, humans are evolved from a primate species that began supplementing their diets with meat. Homo sapien sapiens have ALWAYS eaten meat: we’ve always been omnivores. It’s in our genes.

Another argument that flies in the face of reality is the “vegetarian diets are healthier for you” claim. I will concede that it is possible to eat a strictly vegetarian diet and remain healthy. But the fact is, you need to eat a wide variety of plants – augmented by B₁₂ and calcium fortified foods or pills – to meet your minimum dietary requirements. And that means you need access to those plants and fortified foods – the full complement of which are only available in well-stocked grocery stores. Even then, doctors recommend dietary supplements to make sure vegetarians get all the nutrients they need. If you’re in the U.S., then you can likely find everything you need at the grocery store (assuming you can afford it). But if you’re in the third world somewhere or in a remote area, you might not be able to sustain a healthy vegetarian diet.

I did try a vegetarian diet, many years ago, when I was young. I never felt satisfied and my jaws frequently ached from chewing, chewing, chewing. Soon meat became too tempting and I quit after about a month or so. There was no sense in denying what I am: an omnivore.

Vegetarian diets are not the healthiest diets. Authoritative dietary experts agree that the healthiest diets include a wide range of foods, including meat and veggies. Research indicates that fish and white meat are normally healthier than red meat but red meat is fine in moderation. Claims to the contrary are pure poppycock.

Many vegetarians started eating a veggie diet because they were turned off by the sight or experience of eating meat. The grease and juices and sinew; the idea that it was alive and kicking just recently. Not much can be said about these subjective reasons. If that’s the way you feel, that’s the way you feel. I don’t begrudge you your vegetarian dietary preference.

Most vegetarians believe it is wrong – as in, immoral – to kill animals for food. If they really believe this, they’re confusing compassion with morality. There’s just one thing they need to keep in mind: morality can’t deny reality and remain valid. The indisputable fact that we are omnivores is a fundamental human reality. My morality accommodates this reality. What about yours?

Mother nature is a zombie. She’s red in tooth and claw. Life can be ugly and survival is, more often than not, violent. I don’t feel sorry for livestock because they’ve filled an evolutionary niche, in service to humanity, that has guaranteed their genes will be passed on indefinitely. Livestock are prolific because of animal husbandry – which dates back to the first domestication of animals. Not only are their large populations assured . . . they no longer have to face predators, draughts or famines. When slaughtered legally, a sheep, cow, pig or chicken led to slaughter dies without the panic and adrenaline terror that accompanies the pursuit, capture and tearing of live flesh, by predators. You think the slaughtering of livestock is inhumane? It’s immensely preferable to what Mother Zombie has in store: death by starvation, dehydration, disease or predator.

The most annoying vegan claim is the claim of moral superiority. I am repulsed by claims of moral superiority for the same reasons I’m repulsed by claims of racial superiority: it’s totalitarian, fascist and intolerant. Give me a break! It’s ridiculous to pretend that morality hinges on eating meat. Morality has multitudinous considerations that we adhere to by varying degrees relative to each other and relative to other people. Diet is just one of those considerations. Even if eating meat were a moral issue (and it’s not), not eating meat doesn’t make you morally superior. It’s just one of many facets of morality: are you morally superior in every way? How naive can you get for Christ’s sake!?! Such a clueless claim serves only to reveal a deep-seated insecurity: the same as with neo-Nazis and skinheads. Superior my ass!

The three monotheistic, Abrahamic, religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all claim possession of the one true God and, by extension, the moral truth. Because they worship the one true God, their morality is, naturally, superior to all others. It’s these claims to superiority that has made the Abrahamic religions THE most persistently divisive influence in the history of mankind. By claiming moral superiority, vegetarians and vegans are making the same mistake. Morality doesn’t hinge on which God you worship and it sure as hell doesn’t hinge on what you eat.

Vegetarians and vegans should consider the possibility that they’re confusing morality with compassion. I will readily concede they have more compassion for livestock than I do. But so what? Compassion, like morality, has multitudinous considerations that we adhere to by varying degrees relative to each other and relative to other people. For instance, animal rights and women’s reproductive rights are both embraced by liberal-minded progressives – not that you have to be liberal or progressive to embrace them. It’s been my experience that many of the same liberals who bemoan the plight of livestock also endorse late-term abortions – even up to the end of term.

Now, keep in mind that late-term abortions are abortions performed after fetal viability (i.e. the fetus could survive outside the womb, given appropriate postnatal care). Claiming that reproductive rights trump fetal viability all the way to the end of term is the same as claiming it’s okay to kill a fully viable fetus! A fully viable fetus needs only to be removed from the womb to instantly become a baby: a person. Whether it’s internal or external is a mere technicality.

So what we have here is a person who cries out for the plight of livestock, yet has no problem with killing a fully viable fetus. How, exactly, does this person define words like ‘inhumane’, ‘compassion’, ‘humanity’, ‘morality’, ‘progressive’, or ‘reason’?

Cognitive dissonance much?

And finally, there’s the “toxic to the environment” argument. Well, insecticides, fungicides and synthetic fertilizers are also toxic to the environment. They are necessary to protect harvests and feed the world’s 7 billion mouths. It would be more accurate (and less biased) to say that food production – both veggies and meat – are toxic to the environment. But of all the environmentally harmful factors we must deal with, it ranks well below vehicular and industrial pollution (not that this means we can safely ignore the problem). ‘Green’ farming is a nice idea but can’t yet achieve the production levels necessary to meet demand.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot . . . the reason our predecessor species suddenly developed bigger brains is because they began supplementing their fruit, veggies, legumes, tubers, grains, nuts and seeds with meat. It wasn’t just our brains that got bigger; so did our bodies. Vegetarians and vegans need to ask themselves, if a vegetarian diet is so good for us, why did it take meat to make the difference in our intellectual capacity and physique? The switch from herbivore to omnivore is a major milestone in our evolution.

Vegetarianism/veganism is not a proper topic for proselytizing. If you prefer to just eat veggies, then good for you. Implying we are less moral or less humane because we eat meat is simply ignoring the facts in a futile attempt to foist your personal preferences on us. We don’t appreciate it. Humans are omnivores: we eat meat and most of us love it. That’s not going to change any time soon.

Get over it.

---

© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com

eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Moral Issue, My Ass!

There is no objective moral standard in nature . . . and there sure as hell ain’t none in the supernatural. So morality is subjective. If people had their way, just about anything could become a moral issue: pet ownership, consumerism, relative wealth, divorce, transgender surgery, capitalism, alcohol, tobacco, meat, wool, fur, accommodationism, inoculations, drugs, hunting, firearms, free speech, sexual orientation, on and on. I say, don’t preach to me unless I’m personally culpable . . . and you’re not.

There seems to be many ideas of what constitutes a moral issue. To some, it’s a matter of belief (as opposed to preference). To some it’s visceral: they know it when they feel it. To some, it’s a matter of avoiding harm to others; possibly including animals or even plants. To some, it’s a matter of the greater good. To some, it’s a matter of consensus or majority opinion. To some, it can be any combination of these things.

My own idea of what constitutes a moral issue is personal culpability when it can be reasonably avoided. Could I have avoided causing harm? If so, crossing that line is a moral issue to me if I’ve crossed that line. My reason for this is to preempt being pulled into every personal or political agenda that grabs the fickle limelight of the public. Like veganism/vegetarianism, for instance.

My idea of morality separates moral issues from other kinds of issues: humanitarian issues, political issues, environmental issues, legal issues, health issues, social issues, national sovereignty or security issues, economic issues, personal issues, religious, ethnic or racial issues, or whatever. It’s not a moral issue to me, unless I am personally culpable of reasonably avoidable harm.

World hunger is not a moral issue to me. I’m not personally culpable for it. It’s a humanitarian issue. So is birth control, slavery and overpopulation. Abortion? A legal issue. So is murder and animal cruelty, unless I’m the one committing them. Pollution, strip mining, deforestation and global warming? Environmental issues.

As in murder, other kinds of issues can become moral issues when you are personally culpable. If you dispose of used motor oil in your local lake – knowing it’s illegal and environmentally hazardous – it becomes a moral issue for you as well as a legal and environmental issue.

What I particularly hate is intolerance masquerading as morality – you know, when people turn their personal preferences into beliefs they then foist upon others. These pseudo-issues and their advocates can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. This intolerance is easy to see when it comes to religions. People born into one religion or another often prefer it over others and might even believe theirs is somehow better or more valid. Well, they can believe what they want but as soon as they try to advocate or discriminate against some other religion(s), they are practicing intolerance – not pursuing morality. The same goes for veganism or vegetarianism: as soon as it is wielded as some sort of moral billyclub, it becomes intolerance: and when advocated publicly, it becomes political. A personal preference is not and should never be a political issue: not even if it’s the majority view.

If you’re a bleeding heart charter member of the Moral Issue of the Month Club, I ‘m not interested in your latest cause célèbre.

---

© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

Ideals and Merit

The 10th anniversary of 9/11 has come and gone. Uber-liberal leftists across the Internet all seemed determined to put the worst possible face on the U.S. response since that historic day. It was a pathetic display of apologia. It’s rhetoric like that which has led me to become an Independent. I no longer identify with Democrats. I feel pushed, rightward, to the center and now see myself as a moderate centrist. I’m simply appalled at the extremes of the left, just as I am at the extremes of the right.

When we receive new information, the logical response is to adapt, if necessary. As long as we keep it in context, new information should make us better informed. An unbiased person will scrutinize the information for validity and judge it accordingly. A biased person is more likely to spin the data to suit his preexisting ideas or even reject it out of hand. One of the more common sources of bias is ideology. Whether it be political, religious, cultural or whatever: ideology can act like a camera filter through which new information is tinted or even polarized.

Ideologies are seductive. Even scientists can have their objectivity compromised by ideology. Confirmation bias is an all too human tendency that can also afflict scientists. Political, religious, philosophical and economic biases can also affect scientists (consciously or not). Within their own disciplines, reductionism, aesthetics, metaphysics and other presuppositions can skew findings or interpretations of them. Fortunately, science has the scientific method (peer review, repeatable experiments, etc.) to weed out such errors.

If even scientifically disciplined professionals are subject to ideological bias, then who is really safe from it? Would less disciplined laymen be even more prone to it? To answer my own question: Yes – judging by what I read, online, from (alleged) freethinkers in blogs and forums.

Politically, freethinkers are predominantly liberal. From what I can discern, they seem no less likely than others to exhibit ideological bias because liberals are, by and large, idealists. They push for change to realize their ideals: how society should or ought to be. One important liberal ideal is equality (inclusion). It was liberals who heralded reforms to include women and minorities (religious, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, etc.) as equals. Idealism can lead to wonderful reforms but not every issue is always amenable to idealism.

If all religions, nations, people, species, lifestyles, etc., are equal and to be included, then values become, in effect, relative. Because of this tendency to ignore or deny differences, liberal thinking leads to accommodationism, multiculturalism and a bias for political underdogs and against the prevailing powers (as we’ve seen during the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary). All too often, decisions aren’t based solely on the available information: instead, they’re filtered through the lens of liberal ideology. Instead of evaluating issues in terms of merit, the idealism of many liberals leads them to evaluate issues in terms of ideals. As thus practiced, the most significant difference between merit and ideals is bias.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve noticed more and more how liberal idealism – being liberal for liberal’s sake – causes bad decisions. It’s why I’ve moved right, to the political center. Differences must be addressed on their real merits. This doesn’t mean you forsake your ideals. It means your ideals will mislead decisions if they take precedence over the merits of political realities. You can recognize when idealism has ignored political realities by the backlash that eventually follows, such as: reverse discrimination and the end of Affirmative Action; multiculturalism and bans on burqas and mosque spires.

As a centrist, I believe there’s a time to be conservative and a time to be liberal and that these times are determined by the merits of the political realities involved. For instance: nobody wants civilian casualties in the pursuit of the war on terrorism. Should we quit the war to avoid such casualties? Of course not! If we value our way of life, there is no alternative but to deal forcefully with terrorists. We can try our utmost to avoid civilian casualties but we need to acknowledge that they will nonetheless occur. It doesn’t help that terrorists use civilians as human shields, so the fair share of blame should go to those who callously endangered the civilians in the first place. The truth is that terrorists have been known to gun down civilians who flee neighborhoods used as human shields. You can’t hide behind civilians who run away from you.

Everything is NOT relative. The deaths on 9/11 are distinctly different from the deaths incurred in the war on terrorism. Civilians are intentionally targeted by Al Qaeda BECAUSE they’re civilians. The U.S. military and those of other countries target combatants only. Collateral damage and civilian deaths are not desirable to us. Let’s get real here. If terrorists stopped trying to destabilize governments by attacking their civilian citizens, the war on terror would be over.

The war on terror is an example of where liberal idealism is not generally a good idea and where harsh realities must be accepted. However, there are times, even in war, when liberal ideals are needed, such as in the treatment of prisoners and the methods used to interrogate them. It’s a matter of balance: moderation in all things. Ideals and merit.

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Greed, Wealth, Anger and Envy

“Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit.” ~George Carlin

The “Occupy Wallstreet” movement is no longer dominating headlines but I still find people debating the “haves” and the “have-nots” and what to do about them. Like most in the Occupy Wallstreet movement, I’m a political independent. I consider myself moderate: a centrist with beliefs spanning both liberal and conservative ideals. I saw a list of 18 demands allegedly made by Occupy Wall Street but their official website denies there are any demands. I agreed with the 18 demands but I disagree with many of the things I read on the official website.

There has always been and will always be “haves” and “have-nots”. People are born equal . . . in their humanity — but not in their genetic endowments or social status or familial advantages. While I laud the desire to enrich the poor, what I REALLY admire is those who actually work and sacrifice to enrich the poor. If more people would walk the talk, the world would be a much better place.

Liberals are often willing to foot a larger tax bill in order to provide programs to assist the poor. This is admirable. But better than higher taxes would be (heavily) increased charitable contributions. Government programs are bureaucratic, wasteful and, effectively, mandatory whether or not you agree with the program(s). Charities also target needs you may or may not agree with but at least contributing to them is voluntary: entirely up to you. In effect, society would “vote”, with their charitable dollars, on which causes have higher priorities.

Which leads us back to walking the talk. Charities can’t do enough because people, overall, aren’t willing to sacrifice enough. Most of us talk a good game but aren’t really willing to do without the nicer things in life . . . like a new car every couple of years or bigger homes or the latest gadgets.

If you want to solve society’s ills, there’s nothing stopping you. If you want government to handle it for you, then just keep in mind: you get what you pay for (if you’re lucky). A total solution would be very expensive and might well lead to ever-greater reliance on government dole.

Personally, I believe government should provide a safety net for those in dire need and should also legislate against all forms of unfair employer practices. Minimum wage, full time, should be enough to live on. Everything, within reason, should be done to ensure the poor have the opportunities they need to rise above their circumstances. The operative word in the prior sentence is “opportunities”. Government should provide a helping hand — not a handout. Poor individuals who have the gumption and wherewithal to benefit from government programs (vocational education and employment assistance, student loans, job programs, low-cost housing, unemployment insurance, etc.) should have those programs available to them.

But what about the half of the population on the low side of the I.Q. bell curve? A significant number of them simply don’t have the wherewithal to enjoy material success. Many are lucky to keep their heads above water. What quality of life should we ensure them? What material considerations (if any) are essential to ensure? This is where things get messy. After providing temporary safety nets (food, shelter, health care) and employment opportunities . . . what else should we do? How much should we sacrifice for the less fortunate?

If we all sacrificed whatever is necessary to ensure the happiness of everybody . . . would the underclass diminish or would it grow? Would we all be richer or would we all be poorer? Would our expectations be realized or would the expectations of the “have-nots” increase as the expectations of the “haves” decrease? Would we prosper?

I suppose arguments could be made for just about any position on this topic. But I assert that human nature is what it is and it’s pointless to pretend it’s something it’s not. We’re lazy. We need incentives to get off our asses. The profit motive works but we need to guard against excessive greed. And it goes without saying that we need to care for those who really need care.

It’s not perfect but who says it can be . . . or should be? I think such a cumbayá utopia would bore us to death.

If only we could all have been trust-fund babies. I certainly wouldn’t complain. But we’re not. Neither should we covet or blame people for their inheritance. I was raised in a poor family. We actually got through our toughest time thanks to a grant from the Red Cross. My father became more successful later in life and has never forgotten the Red Cross. He gave, generously, to them until his death a few years ago. Anyway, he taught us personal responsibility. It’s essential. It’s part of adulthood. He never resented the “haves” for what they have. Their circumstances were irrelevant to his.

And that’s the way, I believe, it should be. But please note that this is a separate issue from caring for the poor. Sure, there are people who get rich off the backs of the huddled masses but that doesn’t mean every well-to-do person is a callous user of faceless victims. Most well-to-do people earned their wealth through hard work, sacrifice and savvy moves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their wealth. Many (most?) are Democrats, so having wealth does not mean one must be a Republican.

Occupy Wallstreet represents a very vocal rise in resentment against corporate greed — due mostly to the global financial meltdown such greed precipitated. Many of the movement’s followers go further than this and blame or verbally attack wealthy people. I don’t like prejudice or discrimination of any kind. Being wealthy is not a negative or a sin. That kind of loose talk is due to insecurity and envy. Insecurity about one’s own future and envy that hides its covetousness behind cries of “spread the wealth”. I have no problem with punishing those who enjoy ill-gotten gains but I don’t fault anybody for simply being wealthy.

Wealth is not the problem. Excessive greed is. In a capitalist system, the profit motive drives commerce. And commerce makes the world go ’round. There is no other system yet devised that is better able to meet the needs of a burgeoning world population. Money is King.

It’s an essentially flawed system because human beings are essentially flawed. And it can’t be fixed until people care more about others than for themselves. In other words: it can’t be fixed. But thanks to truly caring, liberal-minded, people, we’ll continue to try anyway.

Maybe someday . . .

---

© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Why Harris Lost His Debate With Craig

I just stumbled upon a year-old YouTube video named, “Sam Harris gets destroyed by Dr. William Lane Craig”. It’s the 2-hour University of Notre Dame debate held on April 7, 2011, between Harris and Craig. It was titled: “The God Debate II: Is Good from God?” The video can be found at the bottom of this page.

And guess what? Harris really was destroyed by Craig! What a disappointment.

Craig started off with the premise that objective morality can only exist if God exists and, alternatively, if God does not exist, objective morality can not exist.

Harris then presented his premise that science can identify objective morality by determining what contributes to the well being of conscious creatures.

Craig rebutted with a scholarly evisceration of Harris’ premise that cited: the absence of moral objectivity in atheism; the subjectivity of human flourishing; the is/ought distinction; and more.

As Harris walked up to the podium for his own rebuttal, I realized that he CAN’T rebut Craig because he agrees that there is an objective basis for morality: namely the application of science to the question of human flourishing (well being). And sure enough, Harris didn’t counter a single Craig rebuttal. Instead, he launched into his usual attack on the Bible and its morality.

In disgust, I stopped watching when Craig came back to the podium and rightly pointed out Harris’ lack of a rebuttal.

Harris was so invested in his flawed thesis that “science can solve moral problems” that he was blinded to the risk of agreeing that morality is objective. The fact is that Craig is right! Objective morality can only exist if God exists: if God does not exist, objective morality can not exist.

The atheist position should have been that objective morality can not exist because God does not exist. In other words, morality is subjective. But even if you were willing to entertain God’s existence, Craig is arguing divine command theory, which was dismissed centuries before Jesus came along, by Euthyphro’s Dilemma (“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”). Euthyphro’s Dilemma stemmed from a famous conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates that took place just before Socrates stood trial for impiety and corruption of minors . Surely, Harris is familiar with it. I have no idea why he wouldn’t use it.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma can be rephrased as: “Is an act moral because God wills it or does God will it because it is moral?” If it is moral because God wills it, then it is arbitrary or capricious: without basis in reason. Anything God commands, no matter how horrendous, would be moral. If you uphold the divinity of the Bible, then you are forced to accept that God’s will is arbitrary. But if God wills a thing because it is moral, then morality is independent of, and external to, God. If morality is independent of God, we don’t need God to have morals. Indeed, God is not omnipotent if he is constrained by an external morality.

But that’s an old argument. Thanks to advances in human understanding, particularly evolution, we have a perfectly human explanation for morality that does not require God at all. Because atheists do not believe in God and the supernatural realm, only the natural realm is left: the universe and everything in it. Nature has only a prime directive: survive. There is no good or bad, right or wrong, in nature. Morality is an entirely human construct and, as such, must be subjective – because humans can never be perfectly objective: as Craig points out, that would require a perfect God – an infallible authority.

As an atheist, Harris should have had a 2-pronged strategy: 1.) point out the lack of perfection in the biblical God and 2.) provide a naturalist understanding of morality; admitting up front that it is subjective and relative but, in the end, far superior to the flawed morality of an imperfect God.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma reveals the myth of God’s moral perfection so I won’t go into much detail on that count except to flesh out the slavery criticism because it’s upheld in the New Testament as well as the Old. This is important because Christians typically cop out by claiming fidelity only to the New Testament, since it represents a new covenant with God through Jesus.

I’ve recently written on the naturalist understanding of morality. If the following is familiar to you, just skip to the end.

The naturalist understanding of morality asserts that we have evolved empathy as an impetus to cooperation. Combined with personal experience, empathy leads most of us to a “Golden Rule” sense of morality. From experience, I know what hurts me: with empathy, I know the same things likely hurt you too. Experience and empathy is all we need to decide most moral matters. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . because we need each other to survive and prosper.” We are complex social animals, so this rule of thumb isn’t sufficient for every moral decision but it is fundamental to most. Without this impulse for cooperation to counter our impulse for violence, we would probably squander the intellectual prowess responsible for our survival advantage.

It’s a fallacy (with obvious religious motivations) that “we can not be moral without God”. Our morality is part of the human condition and existed long before Moses. Morality is not a dispensation from God: it is subjective and personal and, because it is informed by experience and empathy, develops as we mature. As a matter of fact, we ALL use our personal morality to overrule Biblical morality. And by ALL, I really do mean ALL: believers and nonbelievers alike. This fact is amply demonstrated by our universal rejection of slavery and the subjugation of women (well, maybe not the Muslims so much). Even though God/Jesus condoned the subjugation of our fellow humans in both the Old and New Testaments, we ALL overrule God’s morality with our own and reject such human subjugation. Not only is God NOT the source of morality but he stands corrected by us all. WE decided what is moral. WE decide what is religiously worthy. NOT God.

You need to ask yourself: “If we overrule God, why do we need him at all?”

This subjugation of our fellow humans is a failing of Biblical morality that can’t be reasonably addressed by apologetics. This is critical for all believers to understand. THEY CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either God is perfect or he’s not. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it’s not. Either God is the source of morality or he isn’t. Even a believer, if he’s honest with himself, must admit that if God’s morality grows outdated, it was never perfect and timeless to begin with. The alternative is to claim that God is right and that the subjugation of our fellow humans is NOT at all immoral – that it is, in fact, desirable. But we ALL know that’s an untenable position. We all know that is WRONG. We will not reverse our hard-earned moral progress to align it with God’s morality. This is why the issue is out of reach of apologetics.

The truth is that the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran reflect the morality and level of ignorance that existed in their respective eras and areas . . . precisely as they MUST if they’re written without the benefit of God’s input. These ancient tomes are NOT divinely inspired. God is NOT perfect. The issue of human subjugation proves that the personal, revealed, theist, God of the Abrahamic religions is irrefutably false. This doesn’t completely close the door on God, however: there’s still supernatural hope for the impersonal, cosmic, God of deists and pantheists.

Empathy is a human trait that spawns a number of other human traits just as naturally as it spawns morality. Empathy also spawns human dignity and worth, cooperation and compassion. We can live reasonably moral lives without God but not without empathy.

---

© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Explaining Purpose

In discussions about self-determinism, some hard determinists dismissively parade opinion as fact. Their conviction trumps their rational integrity. We all need to be mindful that just about everything to do with free will and determinism is, thus far, a matter of opinion.

Almost 400 years ago, René Descartes claimed that, unlike the human body, the mind has no physical properties or spatial dimension: thus it can not be examined in the same way as the physical body. Today, we think of self-aware human consciousness as an emergent property of the brain but we still don’t know how or why it emerges.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, without access to media of any kind, you’ve probably noticed increasing numbers of news stories about consciousness and its associated properties (like intelligence and free will). The neurosciences have taken an interest in what was, until recently, a philosopher’s pastime.

Thanks to modern imaging technologies like fMRI and CAT scans, scientists now have ways to observe certain limited kinds of brain activity without having to open the skull of a living person. Although cleverly designed experiments have led to many theories about consciousness, new facts have been slow in coming.

Given the near-total mystery of consciousness, it is foolish to think we know much about its many properties, such as: self-awareness, intelligence and decision-making. No matter what your position on “free will”, it consists mostly of conjecture. The point being that almost everything about consciousness is a matter of opinion. Anybody claiming to know the answers is, in fact, confusing opinion with knowledge.

As I’ve tried to convey in the past, I believe that self-determinism offers an explanation for how we make choices and pursue purpose in a mechanistic, deterministic, universe. The key points of self-determinism address the usual objections of hard determinists. In the list, below, I first cite the hard determinist’s objection, then follow it (in parentheses) with self-determinism’s answer . . .

• Causality means the inexorable cascade of all events is inevitable. (Not so! Animate beings and inanimate matter have different modes of response to causality. The law of causality: “Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause” does not dictate a single, monolithic, mode of response — nor a single potential future for animate beings.)
• Because all events are inevitable, free will is an illusion. (That’s a false dichotomy assuming a single mode of response to causality. There are other alternatives such as dynamic, intelligent, interaction with causality.)
• Consciousness is entirely driven by deterministic, electro-chemical processes in the brain. (That’s a myopic, reductionist, point of view attempting to address a subject better suited to complexity theory. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Thanks to mental feedback, we think about what we think about. This intelligent process is transformative and makes us self-aware, future-aware, manipulators of events.)

Causality’s cascade of events is NOT inevitable when intelligent human beings get involved with those events.

“Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause” does NOT necessarily mean that a cause must have one and only one effect or that it is inevitable. The universe is not perfectly deterministic. The indeterministic quantum realm exerts an influence on the classical realm. The subatomic release of photons , the rate of radioactive decay, the quantum fluctuations that make up most of the mass of the universe (including your body), the workings of lasers and electricity . . . all these things involve quantum uncertainty. Yes, they’re highly consistent and reliable, overall, but not perfectly so at all points of time. Hell, even the universe itself began with a quantum fluctuation and was entirely chaotic in its earliest stages. The point is that the universe, while highly predictable, is not perfectly deterministic. For example: photons exert predictable pressure upon impact (think of solar sails) but their initial subatomic release was entirely random. Their effect on interstellar dust and gas is predictable in general but not perfectly deterministic.

Secondly, the law of causality does not mean there’s only one possible mode of response to events.  Inanimate matter responds to events mechanically and very predictably but animate beings are complex systems that respond to events in individual, unpredictable ways. There’s a huge difference between a rock and a brain.

Also, it occurs to me that maybe Descartes had a legitimate point. I’m not sure about this but if every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause, what about abstract effects? How material is an abstraction like consciousness or choice? How “physical” is it? If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and it must exist before intelligent self-awareness can emerge from it, then self-awareness is at least twice abstracted from the brain. How does abstraction affect causality? Self-awareness is certainly not the same tangible, material stuff as the brain — yet we know it exists. Intelligent mental feedback, it seems to me, has all the transformative properties (self-awareness and abstraction) one would imagine is necessary for the emergence of choice and purpose: of self-determinism.

I don’t know what free will is, so I can’t say whether or not it’s an illusion. But I do believe that self-determinism is not an illusion.

I claim that human civilization is jam-packed with purpose — despite causality’s utter lack of purpose. You and I and social groups of all sizes have both unique and shared purposes. It comes from somewhere other than causality. It comes from us. We interact with causality and deliberate and decide what is important to us. We pursue purpose in almost everything we do. That’s empirical proof of choice.

Just because “consciousness emerges from deterministic, electro-chemical processes in the brain” does not mean that choice is equally deterministic.

Emergent properties are transformative phenomena that result in properties not shared by their constituent parts. Animate beings are made from inanimate matter. Life is an emergent property of organic compounds. Minds are made from neurons that are not conscious. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I believe choice and purpose — self-determinism — are also emergent properties of the brain concomitant with self-awareness.

If you think about it, “self-awareness” and “mental feedback” are practically paraphrases of each other. Mental feedback is the mechanism by which we become self-aware. We are self-aware because we think about what we think about. I believe this is the transformative process by which we deliberate and make choices . . . it’s where the emergent property of self-determinism emanates from.

Is self-determinism a fact? I don’t know. Maybe it fits reality well or maybe it doesn’t. It’s just an explanation for the observable fact of human purpose. The problem with hard determinism is that it takes another observable fact — causality — and turns it into a false dichotomy by placing unnecessary restrictions on it. Animate beings do not respond like inanimate objects. With self-aware intelligence, it is possible to proactively interact with (recognize, understand, anticipate and use) causality instead of merely mechanically reacting to it. Instead of explaining human purpose, hard determinism simply denies it and dismissively labels it an illusion.

Human purpose and causality are both observable facts. They must, therefore, be compatible. Hard determinists simply side-step the philosophical challenge with false dichotomies. They’ve managed to talk themselves out of ownership of their desires, purpose, choices and actions. They’ve taken the simple concept of causality and, by placing unnecessary restrictions on it, made it even simpler. As Einstein once famously stated: “Everything should be made as simple as possible: but not simpler.”

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Self-Determinism: Manipulating Events

The Internet is amazing. It hosts media of all kinds. Anybody can communicate with anybody. And you can find out anything you want to know. It’s huge and complex but we don’t need to understand how it works to know that it does. In the same way, we don’t need to understand how the brain works to know that it does. Its electro-chemical machinations, while interesting, aren’t necessary to understand in order to know that the brain deliberates. That’s what it does.

Neuroscience can’t yet explain how the brain does what it does but it has made some intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is numerous feedback mechanisms in various modules of the brain. It’s this mental (intelligent) feedback that has led me to an interpretation of (the ill-named) “free will” that explains human purpose: I call it “self-determinism”.

The philosophical conundrum with “free will” has always been the notion that it necessarily violates a fundamental law of nature: cause and effect (causality).That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or. There are other possibilities. I hope to convince you that, because of intelligent feedback, self-determinism can explain our ability to manipulate events (purpose): not despite causality but, rather, because of, and in concert with, causality. The challenge is in overcoming philosophical objections. I hope, this time, my explanation succeeds.

By the way, I get the impression that some people think it’s “arrogant” of me to attempt an explanation of “free will”. That’s ridiculous. Everybody’s got an opinion. This one’s mine. If that disturbs you, I suggest you look within for the reason.

Causes aren’t monolithic: they’re discrete. Normally, cause and effect are constantly repeated (or repeatable) with predictable results. Scientific experiments rely on this fact. Outside the quantum realm, causality is universal. You can’t cite an effect without a cause. Like time, causality is unidirectional; flowing from the past, through the present, to the future. Cause comes first, then its effect: the sequence is invariable. This means effects have no influence on their causes. But with intelligent feedback, effects can have an influence on future instances of their causes if we learn from them and prepare for those future instances. If we succeed, we’ve altered the path causality would have otherwise taken. And that takes purpose: self-determinism.

Because of these properties of causality (unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability) intelligent feedback gives us a virtual, temporal, advantage over causality when we interact with it. With intelligent feedback we can examine events and tie their effects to their causes and deduce the preceding sequence of events. We understand consequences. But the real empowerment of self-determinism comes from our mental ability to extrapolate cause and effect into the future to manipulate anticipated events to suit our own purpose(s). That is self-determinism. We use our intelligence to prepare for — or even control — cause and effect. Cause and effect are not violated. But because of our preparations, we manipulate how it unfolds.

Take Amsterdam, for instance. It is below sea level. Causality would normally dictate that it be under water. But it’s not. Because of our intelligent, proactive, interaction with causality, Amsterdam remains dry. Did we violate causality to accomplish this? Of course not. We intelligently used causality to accomplish it. Causality does not have purpose(s). It doesn’t think. It doesn’t care if Amsterdam exists or not. But we do. We served our own purposes and altered future events (causality) accordingly.

We find this easiest to do with materials and phenomena we readily understand. And what we readily understand are materials and phenomena with consistent, persistent, properties. We can reliably manipulate sand and gravel, wood and metals, air and water, elements and chemical compounds but reliably manipulating people is a different matter. I believe the difficulty boils down to the two different modes of causal response between inanimate matter and animate beings. The inanimate mode of response to causality is passive and predictable. The animate mode of response to causality is interactive and unpredictable. It’s the difference between a rock and a brain. Inanimate matter is easier to manipulate because it’s easier to predict. Animate beings are more difficult to predict because they’re more complex and possess properties, such as intelligence, motility, respiration, digestion, etc. that inanimate matter does not.

As human beings, we interact with the external world intelligently. In other words, we interact with causality intelligently. That means we learn from it, understand it and use it for our own purposes. Feedback is the key. It empowers us by mentally rendering causality bi-directional. We learn from the past to manipulate the future. It’s really just that simple. We can understand consequences and act accordingly. There’s no advanced philosophy needed to explain away man-in-the-machine, mind-brain, dualism because there is none. Just simple facts that anybody can understand.

Self-determinism requires no violation of causality because it’s the properties of causality (unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability) that facilitate our intelligent interaction with it. Causality gives us a fundamental means by which to understand the world around us. The fact that we use this understanding to manipulate the world around us is empirical proof that we interact with causality intelligently and with purpose. And that means we really do make choices that serve our own purposes — because causality has no purpose. We don’t progress arbitrarily . . . we progress with purpose. That much seems transparently obvious and undeniable. You can claim it’s an illusion, if you like, but you can’t substantiate your claim. The fact is that, in actual practice, civilization takes “free will” for granted and pursues its goals as needed. We all act as if we have “free will”. We take credit for our achievements. Everything we do presumes purpose. In contrast to human purpose, nothing causality does presumes or indicates purpose in any way whatsoever. It’s pretty cut-and-dry when put in the proper perspective.

So I’ll ask: “How does our manipulation of the world around us NOT demonstrate purpose?” Were we really scripted, since the beginning of time, to fly jets into the Twin Towers? Are we really automatons programmed, somehow, at the moment of the Big Bang? That’s what you’re asking us to believe if you insist causality is necessarily violated by “free will”. I say we are what we appear to be and that any assertion that self-determinism is an illusion is based on the erroneous assumption that it must violate causality. That is a false dichotomy which hastily and unnecessarily rules out other possibilities like deliberate, proactive, interaction with causality: self-determinism.

If human brains deliberate and if causality is a law of nature, then they are obviously compatible. Self-determinism explains how. Intelligent feedback extends determinism to self-determinism. It is a compatibilist explanation of what “free will” really is. It is compatible with causality and is, in fact, an extension of it: extended, primarily, by intelligent feedback.

Intelligent feedback makes us self-aware, future-aware, manipulators of events . . . and events are what causality is all about. This manipulation of events gives us a modest power over causality: the power of purpose. That is self-determinism. The only kind of “free will” we have. And the only kind we need.

Agents of Change

We should not forget that the “free will versus hard (absolute) determinism” question is an age-old debate hindered by a lack of understanding of the human brain. Nothing conclusive has been proven either way. It’s a matter of opinion. Libertarian views of free will have fallen out of favor; leaving us, primarily, with compatibilism (soft determinism) versus hard determinism.

The problem, as I see it, with hard determinism is that it asserts an unnecessary dilemma: namely, that causality strictly precludes the possibility of free will because free will would constitute a cause unto itself — which violates the law of causality (“every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause”). That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or. There are other possibilities, such has intelligent interaction with causality (as opposed to simple physical reaction to causality).

I’m not saying self-determinism is necessarily the reality of life as we know it. I’m saying it can explain how human endeavor demonstrates purpose. Self-determinism is a compatibilist worldview that asserts a limited form of free will stemming from human intelligence evolved with just the right properties to take advantage of the properties of causality itself.

PROPERTIES OF CAUSALITY:
• Causality unfolds with time. This means that, like time, it has a strictly unidirectional sequence from past to present to future.
• Outside the quantum realm, causality is highly predictable where inanimate matter/objects are concerned. Any event (cause) has one — and only one — possible result (effect).
• Causality is less predictable where animate beings are concerned. Living things are not simple objects but are, rather, complex systems. Animate beings have a distinctly different mode of response to causality than does inanimate objects. It’s the difference between a rock and a brain.
• Because most of the classical universe, including Earth, consists almost entirely of inanimate matter/objects, causality is, generally speaking, highly predictable.

PROPERTIES OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE:
Mental feedback is the neurological mechanism that makes the properties of human intelligence possible. Some key properties (per self-determinism) of human intelligence are:
• Memory. Events and experiences stored in the brain. Recallable on demand or subconsciously.
• Imagination. The mental ability to virtually play out a scenario.
• Self-awareness. Accounting for oneself.
• Temporal Awareness. Accounting for time.

COMPLIMENTARY INTERACTION OF PROPERTIES:
Cause and effect is unidirectional; forward to the future. Causes create effects but effects have no influence on their causes. What’s done is done. Causality has no plan, no purpose, no intent. It’s not monolithic. It’s discrete and repeats (or is replicable): a fact that scientific experimentation relies on. It’s a simple and fundamental process. When we interact with the world around us (causality), the properties of human intelligence adds unique abilities to this process which can alter the future in ways that nothing else can or does.

The fact that we observe, learn from, anticipate and use causality to modify the world around us is empirical proof that we interact with causality to pursue our own goals: our own plans, purposes and intentions. Skyscrapers, dams, dikes, highways, vehicles, Mars rovers . . . ALL technology serve human purposes — NOT causality’s (because causality has none). They are products of human intelligence interacting with causality.

Our self-aware, time-aware, memory and imagination compliments the sequential and predictable nature of causality. That’s not a coincidence. Our intelligence has evolved to take advantage of the properties of causality. Cause and effect is unidirectionally linear. So our memory and imagination combine to render causality virtually (mentally) bidirectional. This provides us an evolutionary advantage that mitigates causality by anticipating and preparing for it. The process is transformative. With our interaction, the future need not unfold as it ordinarily would because we can learn from the past to change the future. We are not free agents so much as we are intelligent agents; agents of change.

It’s pretty simple if you compare the properties of human intelligence with the properties of causality. They mesh to enable human interaction with causality. The result is unique in the universe . . . but that doesn’t mean there must be some sort of unnatural conflict. Life is also unique in the universe (as far as we know) but nobody thinks it’s unnatural. Self-determinism is no more unnatural — and no less phenomenal — than life itself.

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

3 False Conundrums of Free Will

Introduction:

I’ve grown disappointed with philosophers on the subject of free will. The great philosophers of the past knew nothing about the brain. Modern philosophers contradict each other. What I’ve been trying to do is to stick with the knowledge we have and avoid philosophical entanglements and conjecture as much as possible. However, certain philosophical conundrums must be addressed, such as: (1) the false dichotomy of free will versus causality; (2) mind-brain dualism; and (3) deliberation versus illusion of choice. Perhaps the greatest obstacle is unlearning the impossible notions of what, exactly, free will is. I claim that we don’t have free will. We have limited choice, intent and purpose constrained by the influence of causality. I call this, “self-determinism”. There’s a lot of overlap with these issues, which makes it hard to lay out a clear and concise argument. But I’ll try . . .

(1) The False Dichotomy of Free Will Versus Causality:

The assertion that free will MUST violate causality is simply false. The underlying assumption is that cause and effect is inexorably interwoven into all events and thus all events are inevitable: including our thoughts and actions. The conclusion is that, if causality determines all events, free will is an illusion.

If you define free will to mean doing anything, at any time, within the physical and mental constraints of human ability . . . well then, yes, free will is an illusion. Causality burdens us with a genetic “endowment” that defines our individual biological limits. Beyond that, causality also accrues within us the conceptual limits of experience. We can’t act beyond our physical and mental limits, so a completely libertine notion of free will is impossible and must be discarded.

So if causality limits us physically and mentally, what’s to stop it from controlling us completely?

Intelligent interaction with causality. That’s what. We don’t just react to causality; we interact with it. We take advantage of the key properties of causality — unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability — to innately understand, anticipate and use causality for our own purposes. We can do this because of 2 key properties of our intelligence: memory and imagination. We learn from the past to imagine a future of our own choosing. Then, with clear intent and purpose, we pursue our plans. The successful execution of our plans is empirical proof of our intent and purpose and our ability to interact intelligently with causality.

(2) Mind-Brain Dualism:

The mind can not be separated from the brain. It is a product of the brain. Any assertion that the mind is some sort of abstract, independent, construct is unsupportable. But the mind is also a product of the external world and of our sensory apparatus (biological sense organs). Just as the mind is inseparable from the brain, it is also inseparable from our senses and the world around us. If we never possessed any of these 3 components: brain, senses, or external world (stimuli), the mind could not exist. The mind is NOT just the brain. It’s the brain interacting with the external world (causality) via our sensory apparatus.

The brain does more than merely interact with causality . . . it also remembers those interactions (events) and learns from the experiences of others. Experience is our unique memories of events in our lives. Education is learning through the experiences of others. Knowledge is the combination of experience and education. Humans demonstrate higher levels of brain function, by far, than any other known life form. Is it unreasonable to think that with more advanced functions comes more advanced abilities?

Hard (absolute) determinists refuse to acknowledge the difference between a rock and a brain. They’re both just collections of atoms; or so they would have us believe. Good luck trying to understand complex phenomena, like consciousness, using such reductionist mindsets! Life is the difference between inanimate objects and animate beings. Reductionist denial doesn’t change that fact . . . it can’t even recognize it. Inanimate objects have a purely passive, predictable, mode of response to causality. Animate beings have an interactive, unpredictable, mode of response to causality. Inanimate objects have specific, predictable, reactions (effects) to specific events (causes). Animate beings have variable, unpredictable, reactions to specific events. Mathematically speaking, inanimate objects have a fixed set of 1 specific reaction to any event: animate beings have a variable range or scope of potential reactions to any event. To me, it is intransigent denial to equate brains with rocks.

(3) Deliberation versus Illusion of Choice:

The brain deliberates. That what it does (among other things). I think, therefore I am. We make choices all the time. But hard determinists insist that choice is an illusion: that causal factors are pulling the strings, like a puppeteer, at all times.

If we were inanimate objects, then yes, it would be pretty cut-and-dry: a fixed, predictable reaction to any specific event. But we’re animate beings. More precisely, we’re intelligent human beings. We have a range or scope of potential reactions to any specific event. And therein lies choice. Causality, via biology and experience, delimit the scope of our response and thus influence our decisions. Causality influences our decisions but it doesn’t control them.

How do I know this? Because causality is indiscriminate; it doesn’t remember; it doesn’t think; it has no intent; it has no plan. Therefore, if causality absolutely controlled us (versus influenced us) we would, like causality, act indiscriminately; without benefit of memory or thinking or intent or a plan.

But we don’t. We act with purpose. We are goal-oriented. We make elaborate plans and execute them; adjusting our plans if necessary. Clearly, choice is not an illusion. It takes choice to do what we do. The brain deliberates. That what it does.

Conclusions:

As the great historian, Danial J. Boorstin, pointed out: “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge.” The claim that free will (a.k.a. intent, purpose, self-determinism) contradicts or violates causality is a false dichotomy. It’s not a choice of one or the other: causality or free will. There are other possibilities. Hard determinism is an “illusion of knowledge”.

Self-determinism is a compatibilist worldview which asserts that we interact with causality intelligently and that this is made possible by key properties of causality itself (unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability) combined with key properties of human intelligence (memory and imagination). We recognize, understand, anticipate and use causality to pursue our goals and plans. This demonstrates choice: intent and purpose. Our intent and purpose is made manifest in our accomplishments and progress — none of which can come from a causality that absolutely controls our every thought and move.  Our accomplishments can only come from our intelligent interaction with causality. The limited scope of our choices might seem meager but it’s enough to fly men to the moon, control rovers on Mars and probes beyond the solar system.

That’s self-determinism. No mind-brain dualism. No violation of causality. No false dichotomies. No infinite regress. No philosophical conundrums. Just the natural properties of human intelligence interacting with the natural properties of causality.

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Self-Determinism: Manipulating Events

The Internet is amazing. It hosts media of all kinds. Anybody can communicate with anybody. And you can find out anything you want to know. It’s huge and complex but we don’t need to understand how it works to know that it does. In the same way, we don’t need to understand how the brain works to know that it does. Its electro-chemical machinations, while interesting, aren’t necessary to understand in order to know that the brain deliberates. That’s what it does.

Neuroscience can’t yet explain how the brain does what it does but it has made some intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is numerous feedback mechanisms in various modules of the brain. It’s this mental (intelligent) feedback that has led me to an interpretation of (the ill-named) “free will” that explains human purpose: I call it “self-determinism”.

The philosophical conundrum with “free will” has always been the notion that it necessarily violates a fundamental law of nature: cause and effect (causality).That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or. There are other possibilities. I hope to convince you that, because of intelligent feedback, self-determinism can explain our ability to manipulate events (purpose): not despite causality but, rather, because of, and in concert with, causality. The challenge is in overcoming philosophical objections. I hope, this time, my explanation succeeds.

By the way, I get the impression that some people think it’s “arrogant” of me to attempt an explanation of “free will”. That’s ridiculous. Everybody’s got an opinion. This one’s mine. If that disturbs you, I suggest you look within for the reason.

Causes aren’t monolithic: they’re discrete. Normally, cause and effect are constantly repeated (or repeatable) with predictable results. Scientific experiments rely on this fact. Outside the quantum realm, causality is universal. You can’t cite an effect without a cause. Like time, causality is unidirectional; flowing from the past, through the present, to the future. Cause comes first, then its effect: the sequence is invariable. This means effects have no influence on their causes. But with intelligent feedback, effects can have an influence on future instances of their causes if we learn from them and prepare for those future instances. If we succeed, we’ve altered the path causality would have otherwise taken. And that takes purpose: self-determinism.

Because of these properties of causality (unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability) intelligent feedback gives us a virtual, temporal, advantage over causality when we interact with it. With intelligent feedback we can examine events and tie their effects to their causes and deduce the preceding sequence of events. We understand consequences. But the real empowerment of self-determinism comes from our mental ability to extrapolate cause and effect into the future to manipulate anticipated events to suit our own purpose(s). That is self-determinism. We use our intelligence to prepare for — or even control — cause and effect. Cause and effect are not violated. But because of our preparations, we manipulate how it unfolds.

Take Amsterdam, for instance. It is below sea level. Causality would normally dictate that it be under water. But it’s not. Because of our intelligent, proactive, interaction with causality, Amsterdam remains dry. Did we violate causality to accomplish this? Of course not. We intelligently used causality to accomplish it. Causality does not have purpose(s). It doesn’t think. It doesn’t care if Amsterdam exists or not. But we do. We served our own purposes and altered future events (causality) accordingly.

We find this easiest to do with materials and phenomena we readily understand. And what we readily understand are materials and phenomena with consistent, persistent, properties. We can reliably manipulate sand and gravel, wood and metals, air and water, elements and chemical compounds but reliably manipulating people is a different matter. I believe the difficulty boils down to the two different modes of causal response between inanimate matter and animate beings. The inanimate mode of response to causality is passive and predictable. The animate mode of response to causality is interactive and unpredictable. It’s the difference between a rock and a brain. Inanimate matter is easier to manipulate because it’s easier to predict. Animate beings are more difficult to predict because they’re more complex and possess properties, such as intelligence, motility, respiration, digestion, etc. that inanimate matter does not.

As human beings, we interact with the external world intelligently. In other words, we interact with causality intelligently. That means we learn from it, understand it and use it for our own purposes. Feedback is the key. It empowers us by mentally rendering causality bi-directional. We learn from the past to manipulate the future. It’s really just that simple. We can understand consequences and act accordingly. There’s no advanced philosophy needed to explain away man-in-the-machine, mind-brain, dualism because there is none. Just simple facts that anybody can understand.

Self-determinism requires no violation of causality because it’s the properties of causality (unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability) that facilitate our intelligent interaction with it. Causality gives us a fundamental means by which to understand the world around us. The fact that we use this understanding to manipulate the world around us is empirical proof that we interact with causality intelligently and with purpose. And that means we really do make choices that serve our own purposes — because causality has no purpose. We don’t progress arbitrarily . . . we progress with purpose. That much seems transparently obvious and undeniable. You can claim it’s an illusion, if you like, but you can’t substantiate your claim. The fact is that, in actual practice, civilization takes “free will” for granted and pursues its goals as needed. We all act as if we have “free will”. We take credit for our achievements. Everything we do presumes purpose. In contrast to human purpose, nothing causality does presumes or indicates purpose in any way whatsoever. It’s pretty cut-and-dry when put in the proper perspective.

So I’ll ask: “How does our manipulation of the world around us NOT demonstrate purpose?” Were we really scripted, since the beginning of time, to fly jets into the Twin Towers? Are we really automatons programmed, somehow, at the moment of the Big Bang? That’s what you’re asking us to believe if you insist causality is necessarily violated by “free will”. I say we are what we appear to be and that any assertion that self-determinism is an illusion is based on the erroneous assumption that it must violate causality. That is a false dichotomy which hastily and unnecessarily rules out other possibilities like deliberate, proactive, interaction with causality: self-determinism.

If human brains deliberate and if causality is a law of nature, then they are obviously compatible. Self-determinism explains how. Intelligent feedback extends determinism to self-determinism. It is a compatibilist explanation of what “free will” really is. It is compatible with causality and is, in fact, an extension of it: extended, primarily, by intelligent feedback.

Intelligent feedback makes us self-aware, future-aware, manipulators of events . . . and events are what causality is all about. This manipulation of events gives us a modest power over causality: the power of purpose. That is self-determinism. The only kind of “free will” we have. And the only kind we need.

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

Dancing with Causality: Purposeful Steps

Dancing with Causality: Purposeful Steps

Free will, in the form of self-determinism, is only a big mystery if you allow your thinking to be governed by the centuries of philosophers who have never managed to figure it out. They’ve been arguing in circles because they’ve defined “free will” to fit their premises. This is because they didn’t know anything about the brain: not even its electro-chemical characteristics.

But that’s changing. Neuroscience has found a host of feedback mechanisms in various modules of the brain. It’s feedback, in particular, that has led me to an understanding of free will as self-determinism. In a nutshell, our brains use feedback to interact with the world around us (causality); learn from it; understand it; and anticipate it. Our ability to anticipate causality represents a temporal advantage over causality by enabling us to prepare for it on our own terms.

Intelligent feedback works with causality to extend the potential of humans (and many other animate beings) beyond the fixed and predictable action/reaction of inanimate objects. To deny this fundamental difference between rocks and brains is simply ignoring the obvious: animate beings behave variably . . . inanimate objects react predictably. Intelligent feedback is, perhaps, the single most significant component responsible for this qualitatively more complex and transformative mode of response from animate beings: particularly human beings.

Causality determines the SCOPE of our POTENTIAL — but not necessarily the minutiae of our thoughts and actions. There is variability and adaptability in our choices. We can make up our minds and change our minds. We can modify our own behavior. This is enough, overall, to produce the only form of “free will” we possess: self-determinism.

Another misconception about causality is that it’s a continual process controlling our every move. Causality is not usually domineering: it can be, of course, but is usually just “background noise” that our autonomous and subconscious systems handle automatically (like when we’re driving, for instance).

Causality is a physical process of action-reaction. Events lead to other events. A photon traveling through space causes no reaction until it impacts something else, like the surface of an object or another subatomic particle. The majority of its existence is in a state of inertia. So, yes, causality is at work at the beginning and the end of that photon’s existence but it has nothing to do in between. In the same way, causality works on us through genetics and the events of our lives but, when causality isn’t grabbing our attention, we think about those events and experiences and learn from them, then anticipate causality’s next moves and prepare for them accordingly. This intelligent interaction with causality extends determinism to self-determinism. It’s all part and parcel of causality. By anticipating causality, we dance with it, and move through life with purposeful steps.

---

© Copyright 2011 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---

A Reason to Believe

It’s nearly impossible to discuss the concept of free will unless we can agree on what it is. If you don’t believe in free will, then free will is merely an ideal; something that should, hypothetically, be a certain way. If you do believe in free will, how do you define it in any coherent way? Whether or not you believe in free will, it seems no two people agree on how, precisely, free will is supposed to work.

But do we really know how ANY mental process really works? Take reason, for example. We can take the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2, and convincingly reason that this must always be true. Was our conclusion inevitable because of deterministic electro-chemical processes in our brains? Or did we really reason our way to a conclusion? If we were really moved by reason to reach a conclusion, what neurological processes were involved and how are those processes NOT deterministic?

Do you see the problem here? It’s the same material reductionist trap we fall into when discussing free will. We are taking the wrong approach. It is common, in physics, to model a theory using multiple different, yet valid, approaches. We can discuss polymers in narrow terms of atoms and molecules or we can use broader properties like elasticity and strength. Both approaches are valid but one might well serve better than the other to answer a specific question.

Yes, reason can be reduced to deterministic, electro-chemical, processes but that doesn’t tell us anything useful except that the neurological process of reasoning is deterministic at microscopic scales. This does not mean it is also deterministic at macroscopic scales. That’s a false dichotomy which ignores the potential for emergent phenomena: something life has in abundance. Hell, life itself is an emergent phenomenon of inanimate matter.

I wonder: do those materialists who deny free will also deny reason? If not, why not? You can’t have it both ways. Free will and reason are both deterministic neurological processes at the microscopic level. You can’t deny free will, then turn around and embrace reason. And if you deny both free will and reason, then how do you know anything at all? That’s just nuts.

You can be a materialist without reducing absolutely everything to its most basic components. You can apply your materialism where it’s suited and use other models where they’re suited. After all, that’s how physics is done, is it not? Free will can be an emergent phenomenon of the brain without violating the microscopic determinism of electro-chemical, neurological, processes.

And about free will . . . because it’s so hard to nail down a definition of it, let’s use another technique physicists and astronomers are fond of – looking for indirect evidence. If free will did exist, it should produce results that we can predict and look for.

Choice characterizes free will. No matter how you define free will, choice has to enter the picture at some point. What kind of results would choice produce? That would depend on the reasons involved, wouldn’t it? I mean, can a choice be made without a reason? Wouldn’t that just be randomness? So, if choice requires reason, we should look for evidence of reason.

If you’re looking for evidence of human reason, what would you look for? Design. Purpose. Intelligence. Non-random, goal-oriented, types of things: the more complex, the better. Technology fits all these requirements.

Is technology evidence of reason? Of course it is. How can it not be? Technology confirms human reason, choice, design, purpose and intelligence: all the things you would expect to find if we had free will.

What more can we ask for? What more do we need?

---

© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com

---