Hi Azy,
About your position being neutral, I'm sorry I must have misread your initial post. my bad =)
format_quote Originally Posted by
Azy
...
Free will cannot exist alongside causality if we take them both in the strictest sense.
As you said, our brains are just biochemical machines, albeit very complex machines. As far as we know causality does not stop between people's ears, so it would seem reasonable as with any other situation that the outcome is determined by the initial conditions.
If the initial conditions are the same (and I mean exactly the same) then you should get the same outcome, the same thoughts produced by the brain, the same decision regardless of how many times you ran through the scenario.
This would mean free will does not exist if the functions of your brain are deterministic.
If your brain functions are not deterministic then we are all essentially playing god and creating something from nothing, effects without causes.
So in what way is this neutral? :p
Do we have another method of investigation we can use to gain reliable answers?
Well I already admitted in my analogy that not all methods hold up the same strength. You replied that I don't follow trough with that analogy, but I actually do. I do recognize that different methodologies do not give the same guarantee of reliability. However, the reason I still find them important despite that is that in some fields reliability simply cannot be guaranteed, so if in such a field you only consider things that can be guaranteed you remain ins a narrow minded status quo. So what I am pleading for is not for people to see different methodologies as equal with science. Instead what I plead for is that people consider different methodologies, and that they keep in mind that each methodology has its weaknesses and benefits. I'm also saying that we shouldn't compare one methodology to another as inferior/superior. What is superior by one criteria can be inferior by another criteria. For example, science is superior to philosophy in terms of reliability, but it is inferior to philosophy since it is so narrow and confined to material interactions only. So each methodology has its own benefits downsides that make it more/less appropriate to be used in a specific area of expertise. Let me try another analogy: Lets say that a sociologist comes us with an explanation about certain human behavior, and he backs that up with sociological explanations. A biologist might reject the theories saying: well it's not scientific, you haven't shown me any proofs from biology that humans do indeed behave like that because of this and that reason. Although the biologist is technically right, he's being unfair towards the sociology. Because his very objection suggests that sociology is inferior to biology, probably because it's more reliable. But on the other hand, an economist might actually hold sociology as superior over biology, since sociology is much more pragmatic and informs him of which market is most profitable.
This helps nicely to illustrate my point.
If there were no clues left, or they were not discovered by the detectives, then
why is this person a suspect?.
A good detective suspects everyone until they can be excluded. It's called open-mindedness :)
I don't see how that follows.. in a 4 dimensional world your brain and it's effects would have a sequence of spatial and temporal parts, and at each point in the sequence the spatial parts would experience the time associated with it i.e the present.
Yes, someone else mentioned this alternative to me in between this post and my last. I have since then reconsidered the fact. Of course I have to admit this alternative strips my argument from being conclusive, nevertheless I still favor my view for numerous reasons. A copy paste from my website:
Although I recognize and acknowledge the alternative, I remain reluctant to accept it. I have plenty reason for that, I shall begin by showing my reason for my inclination against it, starting from strong to weak, and finally finish by showing why Ockhams razor isn't able to defend the alternative.
1. Flaw of illusion of continuity.
I explained in the previous sections, how movement is an illusion created by the succession of alternated positions. So it is only logical that defenders of the alternative would use my own argument against me, and say that likewise the continuity of consciousness is an illusion by the succession of altered consciousness. However, there's a kink in the cable there. The reason that movement could very well be an illusion brought by the succession of parts with altered positions relies on the succession of observation of those parts. If consciousness itself persists, then the theory would break down. What keeps our observations together? Well I'm anticipating that opponents would suggest the following reply to this problem:
"Every observation is stored into the brain, and at any instant our consciousness is affected by this while it is generated. So the illusion of succession is created by the chronological storage of events within our memory."
Now, although I have to grant that this possibility is possible, I don't consider it very plausible. The brain works with a neural network. Memories are not preserved in chronological order within it. People might store dates and reference in time, but the memories aren't classified by time. So piecing together chronology would be quite a challenging puzzle for our subconscious. Therefor the suggestion that our notion of continuity is constantly being caused by the instantiation of a consciousness which relies on the chronology of our memories is very unlikely simply because memories aren't stored chronologically.
2. Psychological relativity of passage of time and observational relativity of passage of time.
I've already explained how time is relative according to Einsteins relativity theory. However relativity of time can refer to two other types of relativity. Based on our constant passive passage trough in time, mankind has become able to somewhat estimate lengths of time without equipment. However those estimations of time are often inaccurate by one of the following two reasons. The first one is psychological. A person who is exited probably feels as though time moves faster, as opposed to when he's bored and time appears to move slower. This will cause him to estimate exciting events as shorter then they actually were and boring events as longer. Another example of psychological influence is the age. If you ask a 5 year old to wait one year, it will seem much longer to him as opposed to asking a 50 year old person. The reason a year of time seems so much longer is simply a matter of proportions, to the 5 year old "a year" is a 5th of his current lifespan, whereas to a 50 year old, it is only a 50th of his total lifespan. Now I grant that proponents of conscious persisting over time, might use this in their favor. For they might claim this as an indication that an instantiated consciousness based on memory isn't that far fetched afterall. However, consider this: If time appears to go slower, simply because there are a lesser amount of memories during a dull event to mark the passage of time, then how do you explain spacing out? As I explain in the page about my story I frequently experience moments where I am indulged into thought. One thought triggers the other, and before I have realized it, hours can have passed while it seemed as just a few minutes. If our concept of time and continuity trough time really is generated by the instantiation of consciousness based on memories, then a length of time which is crammed by a whole range of different meaningful thoughts should appear to be longer then it actually is, as opposed to appear shorter. No, to me it seems mush more plausible that our estimation of time comes from a conscious judgment rather then the other way around, our consciousness depending on an estimation of time.
This is illustrated far more by a third relativity of passage of time. Next to Einsteins relativity of time, and psychological estimations of time, there is a third kind of relativity of time. The neurological relativity of time. Our brain is dependent on impulses, these impulses however aren't always going at the same speed. Certain substances can speed up or slow down their speed. When they are slowed down, we would have a different estimation of time, however we would still have the same amount of memories! See slowing down the process of storing memories doesn't alter the number of memories that we store, it simply delays them.
3. Necessity and uselessness of consciousness.
If our consciousness is constantly instantiated and then evaporates, if it is a side effect and not a self-pertaining can it influence or manifest a will? I hold that under this view, consciousness is completely and utterly useless. Then I wonder, why do we have it? Both creationists and evolutionists would struggle to answer, a God wouldn't have created it if it was useless, and evolution wouldn't have favored it if it was useless. Perhaps some might say it was simply a side-effect. Again, I'm forced to grant the possibility although I find that very implausible.
4. Lucid dreams.
I personally have lucid dreams, since childhood on. Only recently though, I have become aware with the technical term. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a lucid dream is a dream where you are aware of your dream environment. A dream where you are aware that you are in fact dreaming. Now there are a few things to note about. First of all let us consider the difference in memories of dreams and actual events. Although we are not always lucid in our dreams, we are usually able to distinguish our dreams from our real life when we are awake. That means memories of dreams are stored differently as opposed to memories of real events. Another indication for this, all of your senses are different in your dreams to. You don't actually hear with your physical ears, or see with your eyes when you are dreaming. The impulses are not generated from these organs. Now I think it would be quite a stretch to argue that despite of this difference in storage, our instantiated consciousness is affected by it all the same. In case the proponents would argue that lucid dreams are a side effect of a sort of malfunction of the brain, where it stores memories on the wrong location; I would reply that that is unlikely due to the fact that there are many training techniques to increase the chance of having lucid dreams. And all of these techniques are very simple things, focussed on awareness, not the kind of thing that would mess up your hardwiring.
Yet another interesting thing to consider, is how one can become lucid during dreams. Most of the time, I have become lucid due to reality checks. To give an example; the other day I dreamed it was the first day of school after a vacation period. I arrived at school and after a short reception, while it struck me odd that everybody left, I checked my watch to discover it was only 6:30. Way to early for school. But wait a minute, if it's 6:30 now, then that reception would have been at 6 o'clock in the morning? Wait, maybe I'm dreaming then? As you can see, I became lucid because of the illogical chain of events. Now what's so interesting about it, is that i graduated several years ago. If I would have been able to remember just one of my memories from graduation, or anything past it, I would have immediately realized it was a dream, yet all the same I did have to rely on this complicated reality check. This is because during dreams, one doesn't have memories. If a consciousness would truly be generated based on the physical state of the brain, including it's memories, that would imply that memories are intrinsic to consciousness! A consciousness without memories is thus a rather challenging concept for that theory.
A third argument could be made, based on the premise that consciousness exists only in lucid dreams. Some might argue that even when you are not lucid, you still have a primitive form of consciousness, but most people see lucid dreams as a synonym for conscious dreams. Perhaps the difference of opinion lies in the semantical value of "consciousness". Either way, if only lucid dreams are conscious, it's interesting that they can be triggered by reality checks. If consciousness is a side effect of brain activity, like proponents of persistence of consciousness over time claim, then why can this side effect be "switched on" by a subconscious thought?
Perhaps more convincing, but at the same time more controversial are a very specific type of lucid dreams that I only had the pleasure of experiencing once: out of body experiences. The most distinctive about this experience was the wakening. My experience was stopped by my alarm clock. As I started to hear it in my dream, I realized immediately it was time to get up, since I was lucid. I felt myself move at very high speeds, and as I did the sound of the alarm became increasingly louder. Eventually the movement stopped and I regained control of my body. But regaining did not felt as an awakening at all. When I wake up from a regular lucid dream there are some differences. Just as awakening from regular dreams, you are somewhat drowsy and disorientated this was not the case in that one specific experience. A second difference is, that even when your dream is lucid, when you awake their is a lapse of consciousness. The continuity seems broken, however this didn't happen during the out of body experience.
5. Deja vu/flashback/vision.
This isn't really an argument in favor of my position, but still relevant enough to mention, since I will later refer to it while defeating the defense of the alternative by Ocham's razor. There are many theories attempting to explain phenomena like Deja vu's, flashbacks and visions. I'm not going to pretend I know which one -if any- of them is correct. The only reason I brought it up is to illustrate how these phenomena's can be explained a lot easier when consciousness is enduring trough time rather then persisting over time. These phenomenas would then be nothing more then asynchronous movement. I'm not claiming this to be an elegant explanation, just a simple one.
6. Problems with identity.
This also isn't really an argument, but just something I'd like the readers to take into consideration. And it isn't really anything that is unique for four-dimensionalism, because the consideration can easily be made without considering time. If at any time your consciousness is instantiated, that means each temporal consciousness exists on it's own. There is no connectivity between different consciousness except than that they are formed by temporal parts of the same four-dimensional body. But consider material nihilism for a moment. Material nihilism, by which mean that a body made up out of smaller parts isn't really an entity. We only define it as being a "thing" for practical reasons. The argument goes, matter is not fluent but exists out of compositions of smaller particles. These particles aren't truly linked to one another, instead they are held in position by force fields. One could argue the same is true not only for our spatial parts, but also for our temporal parts. Even more problematic for our concept of identity is that our particles aren't always our particles. Well that's not really accurate under the theory of four-dimensionalism, but let me explain what I mean. Consider the well known paradox of the ship of Theseus. A ship that's resting in the harbor decays, but its planks are constantly repaired by newer ones until eventually none of the original are left. The original planks aren't thrown away either, they are kept and reassembled as a new ship called "plank". Now the materialistic nihilism is the only that makes sense here. Considering the life of one plank, it's temporal parts from the past are part of the ship of Theseus, and it's temporal parts of the present are parts of the ship plank. Only this way does identity make sense. For years philosophers have defended the idea of identity by one last sacred part of our bodies, our consciousness. I think, therefor I am goes the popular argument. If however consciousness also persists over time, even that argument breaks down. Human kind would suffer some sort of identity crisis. Why feel bad of your past or work for a better future, when "you" exist in neither one of it. You are you only in the present, in the future another consciousness will take over, and you'll no longer exist. Now of course I grant, that however worrisome or threatening a theory might be we cannot exclude it's possibility on that basis if we honestly seek the truth. However, what we should consider, is that if consciousness persist over time, that means that concepts like regret, anticipation, hope, and any other though or feeling that indicates relationships between different consciousnesses out of different temporal body parts is also an illusion, or should I say delusion? Again I find it implausible that even that part of our minds is wrong about reality.
7. Defeat of Ockhams razor.
Ok, so having explained some of the problems I have with accepting the persistence of consciousness over time, let us consider if we can use Ockhams razor or not. The proponents of persistence trough time of consciousness could argue that consciousness as a side effect of brain processes is mush simpler then having to explain consciousness as a separate entity, which abides by a different set of natural laws. However proponents of endurance trough time of the consciousness could argue that although their opponents are right about a side affect being a simpler explanation than a separate entity, that the side effect-theory calls for several other complex explanations as explained in the 6 previous arguments, whereas in the separate entity explanation, all these other things are quite simple to explain. So looking at the bigger picture, a consciousness as a separate entity is actually a far simpler explanation. I find this another fitting example of how Ockhams razor is often flawed by bias. There are no criteria for weighing of the complexity of one theory against the complexities of another. So using Ockhams razor here does not follow the rules of logic. In stead all we can do is express our inclination, what we find most plausible, simply because it adds up in our paradigm.