Are the laws of physics and biology alone enough to account for human rationality – logic, reason, and literature? For Stephen Hawking, the entire world is just about biology and chemistry and their laws:
• It is hard to see how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion. (“The Grand Design,” 32)
Of course, if we are no more that “biological machines,” then Hawking is right. And if this world is merely matter and energy, then he is also right in trying to figure out how these building blocks arose by themselves, from nothing, into increasing complexity. However, in order to make his system work, Hawking has to close his eyes to many howling realities. For one thing, free will – something that seems very real to us – has to be eliminated, because it just doesn’t fit into his system.
However, if Hawking eliminates free will because it doesn’t accord with his materialistic theory, perhaps he should also do away with rationality. After all, if the laws of physics and biology fail to allow for free will, why should they allow for rationality, which seems to require the freedom (free will) to pursue certain lines of thinking or evidence?
Laws always work in the same predictable, hard-wired and formulaic way. Gravity attracts, it doesn’t sing songs or write poetry. Laws can be elegant, immutable and uniform in their operation, but their very essence rules out variation and creativity. Let me try to illustrate this by looking at one of our most incredible organs, one which does work according to law, exclusively so! Richard Kleiss describes the wonder of the human eye:
• In order for our brain to see an image, a chemical…sensitive to light must respond as soon as a photon of light strikes it…Photochemical reactions are the basis of how photographic paper works, but the reactions that result in a printed picture are extremely slow compared to the photochemical reactions in our eye. The fastest photographic film requires the camera lens to remain open for about 1/10,000 of a second. Biologists have found that the eye’s photochemistry is so fast that the first reaction in the sequence takes place in approximately 1/5,000,000,000 of a second. This is 500,000 times faster than our best film capabilities. (“A Closer Look at the Evidence”)
In addition to this, the eye not only processes 1.5 million bits of information simultaneously, it also has the chemical apparatus to cancel out the last signals so that new signals are always freshly transported to the reintegration center. Therefore, we can have an instantaneous and seamless series of snapshots of the external world.
This gives us a grand picture of electro-chemical deterministic laws at their finest. Thankfully, this process occurs without any creativity or the interference of free will, and I’m truly glad of that. I wouldn’t want to drive a car, while my vision was being impacted by the things that I wanted to see rather than the things that were really there. I’d also get a lot of tickets for going through red lights and even worse.
Laws lock us in to the reality of predictable and repeatable phenomena. But what if the laws of the brain locked “rationality” into the same channels that our sight requires? Would rationality then be possible? Hawking claims that these laws lock us in so completely that there is no room for free will. Would this also be the case for rationality? I can’t see how!
The laws that control sight lock us all into seeing things with fine-tuned exactitude. However, it seems that rationality requires the freedom (and perhaps free will) for the mind to wander where it will, to seek out the most logical and direct connections between phenomena, rather than the fixity associated with the function of the eye.
Besides, when it comes to rationality and its closely associated sidekick – morality – we humans tend to see things very differently. In fact, we deem some people “irrational.” Clearly, some people have good judgment and some have poor judgment. Not so with vision! How can this be if the laws of the mind control us in the same manner that the laws of vision lock us in?
Free will also seems to be relative from one person to another. The heroin addict and the psychotic have less freedom of choice than do other people. Likewise, some are more rational than others. How can this be if we are all equally controlled by the same bio-chemical laws? Of course, if I sustain an eye injury, my sight might differ considerably from that of another. The same is true for a brain injury in regards to limiting free will and rationality. However, we differ significantly mentally even when there is no physical reason for it. It therefore seems that the reasons for this must transcend the physical.
We also seem to have a capacity to reprogram our thinking. This suggests that there is some aspect of our thinking that takes precedence over (or is above) another part. Sometimes, a new realization might undermine everything else that I had accepted as fact. I therefore find that I have the capacity to reexamine my old thinking and refigure it according to the new revelation. What laws could possibly give me such flexibility to amend thinking that had been completely governed by invariable bio-chemical laws? Instead, it seems that we have some capacity that transcends deterministic laws.
Hawking’s thinking carries many additional problems. How could such unchanging and elegant laws have come about it the first place? Hawking feels compelled to assert that the law of gravity preceded and gave birth to the universe:
• Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. (Quoted from John C. Lennox, “God and Stephen Hawking,” 16)
However, what created gravity? In addition to this little perplexity, Lennox points out that laws don’t create anything; they just describe the behavior of things that already exist. Besides, how could we have evolved such complex systems, like the eye? Kleiss claims,
• Neither living nor fossil animals show any evidence for the gradual development of an eye.
As one unnamed physicist has stated, “Evolution is the fairy tale for adults.” And it’s a popular tale, the ultimate God-substitute, but as a substitute, it can never approach the original. Although Hawking is clearly desperate to find an alternative to the God-hypothesis, he merely invokes his own creator god-hypothesis and calls it the “law of gravity.”
Mann: For one thing, free will – something that seems very real to us – has to be eliminated, because it just doesn’t fit into his system.
ReplyDeleteAppearance doesn't denote existence.
There are many known cognitive "illusions", of which optical illusions are a good example.
Mann: However, if Hawking eliminates free will because it doesn’t accord with his materialistic theory, perhaps he should also do away with rationality.
It's not that it doesn't accord with his materialistic theory, it's that there is no good reason to accept libertarian free will - no good reason to think the mind is supernatural/immaterial, or that decision making is anything other than a material process of the brain.
Computers and other animals make choices which seem "free enough" without the requirement of immaterial souls, so why complicate matters by postulating something which is superflous at best (and incoherent at worst)?
Rationality is simply "ordered thinking", and similarly to decision making, doesn't seem to require anything above the universe as we find it.
Mann: Gravity attracts, it doesn’t sing songs or write poetry.
I believe there are hypothesis which indicate gravity can be a repelling force.
Even if not, this analogy is seriously flawed - Gravity is the model used to explain the attraction of bodies over a large distance due to mass/curvature of space time.
Mann: Therefore, we can have an instantaneous and seamless series of snapshots of the external world.
And yet we cannot follow changes which take place in under ~1/60th of a second, which film can manage things of far shorter duration.
Not quite as "miraculous" as you're making out.
Mann: I wouldn’t want to drive a car, while my vision was being impacted by the things that I wanted to see rather than the things that were really there.
You really should investigate the human visual system a little more. A lot of what we think we see is actually inferred by the brain, while processing the stimulus from the optic nerves. We also only have a very small area of focus, which means our eyes need to bounce around a lot (called "staccatto") to grab the additional information needed for the (often flawed) picture of the world we experience
.
Don't forget that a large number of car accidents happen because the party at fault "didn't see" the thing they hit.
Mann: But what if the laws of the brain locked “rationality” into the same channels that our sight requires?
What if it did, Daniel?
Deductive Logic, a formal sub-branch of general rationality, certainly does "lock us in" in this fashion, and yet it still seems to be quite useful, does it not?
Mann: Would this also be the case for rationality? I can’t see how!
An argument from personal incredulity. I suggest you read up on neuroscience, philosophy of mind as well as compatabilist notions of free will (ie. how our choices can be meaningful even though they were determined by, eg. environment, experience, genetics, etc).
You also should look into computer science, specifically the field of Artificial Intelligence. There are computer systems which can reason inductively, and could therefore be said to be rational (though limited of course).
Mann: Not so with vision! How can this be if the laws of the mind control us in the same manner that the laws of vision lock us in?
Some people have good vision and some people have bad vision. Some are colour blind, others have "blind sight", and still others are blind.
Mann: The heroin addict and the psychotic have less freedom of choice than do other people.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know this?
Mann: Likewise, some are more rational than others.
Thinking rationally is something which can (generally) be learned, so I fail to quite see the relevance here.
Mann: How can this be if we are all equally controlled by the same bio-chemical laws?
Simple: because we are not identical "biomachines". Even though we're quite similar, our brains, bodies and experiences are all different, creating a difference in the ways in which we reason and think.
Mann: The same is true for a brain injury in regards to limiting free will and rationality.
You're making an argument against your position here - there doesn't seem to be any reason (and I haven't found one during my readings) which can explain how and/or why a brain injury would or could effect an immaterial mind. Such damage to the mind caused by damage to the brain is actually predicted by the hypothesis that the mind is what the brain does, however.
Mann: However, we differ significantly mentally even when there is no physical reason for it.
Evidence for this claim, Daniel?
Even identical twins have different experiences to draw from, and are therefore not identical, and yet here you're stating that our brains, in the absence of injury, are identical (including experiences and memories, both of which are functions of the brain).
Mann: This suggests that there is some aspect of our thinking that takes precedence over (or is above) another part.
Computer programs can modify themselves, yet I doubt you'd say the same about them.
If you look into computer neural networks you can see how our own brains can rewire themselves (simplified of course).
Mann: What laws could possibly give me such flexibility to amend thinking that had been completely governed by invariable bio-chemical laws?
Which laws would stop you from doing so?
Mann: However, what created gravity?
Perhaps gravity (and/or quantum mechanics) exists necessarily?
Mann: Besides, how could we have evolved such complex systems, like the eye? Kleiss claims,
• Neither living nor fossil animals show any evidence for the gradual development of an eye.
Kliess is wrong here.
Eyes have developed at least 8 times, as far as I'm aware, and within each of those lines of development, there are currently living animals which show different graduations of eye development (eg. light sensitive skin, eye-patches, pin-hole camera lenses).
This is simply an example of your own ignorance (and that of Kleiss).
Mann: As one unnamed physicist has stated, “Evolution is the fairy tale for adults.”
Physicists are notorious for misunderstanding evolutionary theory, and publishing papers which are completely mistakenb. Perhaps this one ought to try to understand it rather than make pronouncements concerning it (he likely works with some biologists who would probably be happy to address his ignorance).
Mann: And it’s a popular tale, the ultimate God-substitute, but as a substitute, it can never approach the original.
Even if this were the case - that evolution is a poor substitute for God, that doesn't mean it's incorrect. And since God doesn't seem to exist, and evolution is the only game in town to describe the change in animals over time, I guess we have to make do with what we've got.
Daniel, you might find this review interesting on this topic.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least it will cut down the number of howlers you make on your own :-)
Havok,
ReplyDelete//There are many known cognitive "illusions", of which optical illusions are a good example.//
True, but the sense that we are making somewhat free choices seems so real to us. Besides, it's a sense that we experience daily, and so it goes far beyond "optical illusions."
Consequently, the denial of free will is almost like the denial of our own existence and sense of our own individuality. It's like denying that I am different from my wife or my daughter, despite some similarities.
We would suggest that such a denial is a mental disorder. Perhaps also the denial of free will?
Havok,
ReplyDelete//Deductive Logic, a formal sub-branch of general rationality, certainly does "lock us in" in this fashion, and yet it still seems to be quite useful, does it not?//
We have far more freedom to dismiss or disregard the products of deductive logic than the immediacy of what the eye sees. We're talking apples and oranges here!
Mann: True, but the sense that we are making somewhat free choices seems so real to us.
ReplyDeleteWhich doesn't mean that they are real. The sense that our eyes deliver a detailed steady image is very real to us as well, but they don't - it's shaky due to the staccato, and there are many other artifacts.
Mann: Besides, it's a sense that we experience daily, and so it goes far beyond "optical illusions."
And once again it depends on what you mean by "free will". Your own conception is, as I've tried to point out in the past, either incoherent or random. If not, then it is compatibalist, and determinism is an option.
Mann: We have far more freedom to dismiss or disregard the products of deductive logic than the immediacy of what the eye sees. We're talking apples and oranges here!
We weren't speaking about the eye here Daniel, but about rationality. If we dismiss the products of deductive logic, we're being illogical. If we dismiss the products of rationalist we're being irrational. If we dismiss the products that our eyes deliver, then depending on our reasoning, we may or may not be denying reality (dismissing the apparent results of an optical illusion, for instance).
Daniel, you seem to be equivocating between the "experience" of seeing something, and the things that are being seen, such that you believe that what we experience as seeing is some how an unadulterated view of reality as it is.
ReplyDeleteThis view is simply not supported by the evidence, though from within our own experience it can be a rather convincing illusion (and is general a good approximation).
"Reality and it's Rivals", an essay written by Tom Clarke of the centre for naturalism might get you thinking about this. The website naturalism.org has a lot of other interested reading, whether you agree with the conclusions or not.
The inconsistency of pure naturalism was offered by C. S. Lewis, Quoting Haldane, Lewis wrote: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms” (Lewis, 22). If naturalism is claiming to be true then there must be more than mere natural processes; there must be “reason,” which is not purely a natural physical process.
ReplyDeleteHuman thoughts and theories are not comprised only of materials. Chemicals are certainly involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts. The theory of materialism isn’t made of molecules.
ReplyDeleteSomeone’s thoughts, whether they be of love or hate, are not chemicals. How much does love weigh? What’s the chemical composition of hate? These are absurd questions because thoughts, convictions, and emotions are not completely materially based, ...Therefore, materialism is false
C.S. Lewis: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms”
ReplyDeleteLewis here is quite simply wrong. We have good evolutionary reasons to think our experiences of the world are reasonably reliable. We therefore have reason to suppose that our beliefs, based upon those experiences, are also somewhat reliable.
There are well know places where this can break down (various cognitive traps we can find ourselves in), but over all there is no reason to suppose our thoughts and mental activity are anything other than a product of our brains.
Andrey: Human thoughts and theories are not comprised only of materials.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet if we simply introduce relationships between materials, then we can surely explain our thoughts and theories without recourse to something else.
Andrey: Chemicals are certainly involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts.
And with that single comment you undermine the existence of live after death - if brains are required for thought, then in the absence of a brain there is not going to be thought.
This also invalidates any claim that God is an immaterial mind, since such a thing is vastly improbable given the admission you made.
And besides that, I've seen no evidence that necessitates the invocation of anything "immaterial".
Andrey: Someone’s thoughts, whether they be of love or hate, are not chemicals.
No, they appear to be represented by molecules/cells and the dynamic relationships between them.
If you want to argue that this cannot be the case you'll need to supply further information supporting this claim.
Andrey: How much does love weigh?
An abstract property such as "love" has no weight, but doesn't mean that it is "immaterial" in any fashion.
Andrey: Therefore, materialism is false
Perhaps, but you have not established this by your reasoning.
Havok,
ReplyDelete//I've seen no evidence that necessitates the invocation of anything "immaterial".//
I’ve already given you tons of evidence, but you’ve dismissed it all. This reminds me of a quote from Albert Einstein:
• "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly."
While Plato called atheism a disease of the soul, Einstein similarly terms it “a snuffed out candle.” Please understand that I am not judging you. I am filled with my own inadequacies. There is much wrong with all of us. I pray that you can see this and cry out for the mercy of God. Just ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Jesus said that if you seek you will find. This is a message that almost all the prophets have affirmed.
Mann: I’ve already given you tons of evidence, but you’ve dismissed it all.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. I've asked you to justify your claims further, in the same fashion you would expect such justification from a naturalistic explanation for the same of similar phenomena.
You have refused to do this, claiming that "God did it" is an adequate explanation, and offered lame excuses as to why this ought to be sufficient.
Mann: This reminds me of a quote from Albert Einstein:
Once again, you really ought to think about what Einstein is talking about.
Einstein is talking about a sense of wonder, not about immaterial entities. Being a pantheist/spinozan, Einstein didn't believe in what you are claiming he is talking about.
Mann: While Plato called atheism a disease of the soul, Einstein similarly terms it “a snuffed out candle.”
To Plato you'd be an atheist, as I pointed out. And Einstein is talking about people who lack a sense of wonder, not about those who don't believe in ridiculous fairy stories.
Mann: I pray that you can see this and cry out for the mercy of God.
Your God doesn't exist, so crying out to it would be delusional.
Mann: Just ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Jesus said that if you seek you will find. This is a message that almost all the prophets have affirmed.
It seems that if you seek, you shall find (especially if you already believe).
This works for Christians, new age spiritualists, quantum consciousness gurus, Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, etc, etc, etc.
What is the far better procedure to follow is to follow the evidence, rather than what you think should be true, or what you would like to be true. This is the process I'm trying to follow, and am approaching Christianity from this position. And from this position Christianity fails to live up to its claims (like all other religious beliefs which invoke interventionist immaterial beings).
Havok,
ReplyDelete//Your God doesn't exist, so crying out to it would be delusional...What is the far better procedure to follow is to follow the evidence, rather than what you think should be true, or what you would like to be true.//
OK, Let's do that! Where's your evidence that an Intelligent Designer doesn't exist?
Mann: OK, Let's do that! Where's your evidence that an Intelligent Designer doesn't exist?
ReplyDeleteSimple - the lack of positive evidence for it's existence plus the fact that one is superfluous as far as explanations of reality go.
Havok,
ReplyDelete//Simple - the lack of positive evidence for it's existence plus the fact that one is superfluous as far as explanations of reality go.//
Every time you appeal to a law of phys/chemistry for your explanation, you are appealing to a law intelligently designed,immutable, and omnipresent, just as our God.
Each time you make an appeal to logic, you again appeal to God's unchanging standards.
Meanwhile, you have never provided the slightest evidence that these laws are natural, self-sustained and unintelligent.
Instead, it is you who embrace an evidence-less religion.
I'm thoroughly tired of the same retorts. If you can't do any better, please find another occupation. I just don't have the time or interest to continue in this played-out exchange.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete