Can a Materialistic Worldview be Rational? (Psychopath v. Powell) commentary

[dizzle]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between Psychopath and Powell on materialism and rationality located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=82868#post82868


Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[Peter Kirby]

And if humans do not possess free will and are governed solely by the arrangement of their biochemical makeup, they really aren’t anything more than extremely complex robots. There is a huge amount of input (one’s genes, his lifetime experiences), the complex combination of which produces a given output based solely on what that input was and is. But would anyone claim that a robotic/mechanistic being has the ability to make proper judgments? Would anyone accept a “robot judge” in a courtroom, even granting that this robot had the ability to input and synthesize all of the information from the case, and make a ruling based solely on this input, with no choice/discretion involved?

This is an appeal to prejudices against robots. I suppose that if we lived in a world run by robots, and a few robots got together to chat about philosophy, they would ask, "would anyone want a stupid human presiding over their case?"

There is a confusion between "choice" and "transcendental undetermined unrandom undefined freewill choice." Obviously a robot can use discretion to respond to its situation: for example, it can tell the pharmacist whether my medications will have harmful side-effects when combined, and it can beat the world's best human chess player. We know that Deep Blue doesn't have "transcendental undetermined unrandom undefined freewill choice" because we built it (unless God gave it a soul when our backs were turned), but then we are getting closer to understanding how humans are built all the time.

Now, you can say that Deep Blue operates on borrowed intelligence. That is correct; for example, it was programmed to recognize a number of chess openings and to play these openings in a certain way. But then I, too, have read books of chess openings. The difference is that Deep Blue is not general purpose; it is highly intelligent when it comes to playing chess, but it doesn't know why it's playing chess or how to write a poem. I am blessed with a brain that can not only learn to play chess but learn many other subjects, based on general purpose biological brain mechanisms for learning. When and if we build a computer with such a general purpose ability to learn and with greater computational power, we will say that we are "just" extremely complex robots, with no offense intended to robots.

best,
Peter Kirby

[stevencarrwork]

If Psychopath thinks that the abilities of humans can be duplicated by robots, then he should revise his conception of robots, not his conception of humans.

After all, humans would still be doing exactly the same things, no matter what the source of their ability. Pshcyopath is committing the genetic fallacy.

Interestingly, Psychopath has conceded already in the Coach section that he cannot prove that somebody has free will.

Interestingly, the brain contains many mood-altering chemicals like dopamine, adrenaline, endorphins etc etc - all apparently designed by God to affect our desires and emotions.

I wonder why we only have free will if these chemicals do not work according to God's specifications.....

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 10:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84962#post84962)
Peter Kirby:

And if humans do not possess free will and are governed solely by the arrangement of their biochemical makeup, they really aren’t anything more than extremely complex robots. There is a huge amount of input (one’s genes, his lifetime experiences), the complex combination of which produces a given output based solely on what that input was and is. But would anyone claim that a robotic/mechanistic being has the ability to make proper judgments? Would anyone accept a “robot judge” in a courtroom, even granting that this robot had the ability to input and synthesize all of the information from the case, and make a ruling based solely on this input, with no choice/discretion involved?

This is an appeal to prejudices against robots.



Peter is right, of course. (Is he really only 22? Happy belated brithday?)

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the differences between American and British law, but in Britain , judges are supposed to reach verdicts based soley on the input they get in court - and they should theoretically all reach the same verdict if they get the same input.

Of course, America had the OJ Simpson case , which might explain Psycho's rather carefree approach to the law.

[wienerdog]

Interestingly, Psychopath has conceded already in the Coach section that he cannot prove that somebody has free will.

The idea that we have the capacity to choose something or its alternate is what most philosophers consider to be our instinctive concept of free will. If they are right, and if this is a "properly basic belief," then the burden of proof rests on those who would deny it.

[blowfly]

I would summarize his argment as follows:

Materialism > No free will > Not in control of oneself > Not making proper judgements > Not being rational.

This is wrong! I think we'd all agree that a computer is 100% deterministic (disregarding hardware failures etc...). It does exactly what it's told to do. If it's told to add two numbers, it will do that instantly and flawlessly. If it's told to make pancakes, it will make pancakes.

Yet DESPITE being 100% deterministic, a computer can think rational thoughts. Not only that, but rational thought are *exactly what computers are brilliant at*!

Psychopath's example of rational thinking is this:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

It seems to me that IF a computer can deduce the conclusion from the premise, then what the computer has just done constitutes rational thought. And no-one will deny that a computer could easy think through this problem, if programmed correctly, and deduce (3) from (1) and (2).

Does the computer have "free-will" when it thinks this through? NO! Of course not - the computer is entirely deterministic. Yet this in no way precludes the computer from examining premises and forming conclusions, *which is what constitutes rational thought*.


Responding to a few specific comments: (I basically agree with A1- A5, BTW)


"As has been defined, rationality means the ability to exercise reason and logic. But when utilizing these tools, it is obvious that one must possess the ability to properly judge the relationship between two or more statements/thoughts/propositions."

Of course. A computer can do this, in theory. It might think as follows:

"I assume all men are mortal, and that Socrates is a man. Hmm... is Socrates immortal? NO, this isn't possible as it contradicts my assumptions. Hmm... is Socrates mortal? Yes, this is the only alternative and it agrees with my premise. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

It doesn't MATTER if the thinking processes within the computer (the program code) was created by man. It doesn't MATTER if the computer is entirely deterministic. The fact remains that the logical processes carried out by the computer constitute reason and logic, and therefore the computer is rational.


"In order to comprehend the (simple) rationale involved here, one must nonetheless be able to discern the relationship between all 3 of these statements."

Correct.


"He must be able to properly identify, in accordance with #2, that Socrates falls into the category of “men” described in #1. And in the conclusion, he must be able to relate two ideas (“Socrates as a man” and “Men as mortal”) in order to derive a third."

Correct. A computer, though 100% deterministic, is more than capable of all of this.


"When we say someone thinks rationally, it is understood that he is starting from some set of ideas, building on those to form new ideas, combining these new ideas with his old ideas to form even more ideas, or something like that. The point is that rational thought necessarily involves properly judging the relationship between more than one statement/idea; if this cannot be done, then it cannot be said that a person possesses the ability to think rationally."

Correct. Computers can do this.


"B2. If a human being does not possess free will, then he has no control over his judgment of the relationship between different thoughts and/or statements."

It's true that the human, or computer, becomes entirely deterministic. Yet if the circuits THEMSELVES are what CONSTITUTES rationality, then the human, or computer, will think and act rationally. Not only that, they will have NO CHOICE but to think and act rationally. They remain rational.


"This idea flows largely from those expounded in argument A. An example may be helpful here. Consider the following three statements:

1. I am a human being.
2. I have long hair.
3. Therefore, I am a female.

My, and I’m sure most others’, judgment regarding these three statements would be that, taken as a whole, they do not represent a rational argument."

Correct. A computer would also judge it so.


"The relationship between #1 and #2 is not one that allows for the conclusion given in #3. However, I do not think anyone would deny that my judgment of this relationship between #1-#3 is a form of thinking; furthermore, I do not think anyone would deny that if I do not possess free will, I cannot choose my thoughts. "

But *just* because you can't choose your thoughts, doesn't mean the thoughts *you're stuck with* aren't rational. You see?


I'm going to go out on a limb here. I say that psychopath's case is not merely wrong, but the exact opposite of what is true. It seems to me that for rational thought to be carried out, the thinker (whether biological or electrical) MUST *BE* entirely deterministic.

If this thinker has a genuine chance of concluding "3. Therefore, Socrates is IMMORTAL", then the thinker and thinking becomes irrational. So we know that the conclusion *must* be pre-determined. And the conclusions of the thinker, if they are to be rational, are therefore pre-determined.

Yet therefore, the thinker has no free-will. If they want to be rational, they CANNOT choose between conclusions. They MUST end up at the given conclusion.

And so ironically, free-will about the conclusion EXCLUDES rational thought, instead of ALLOWING it, which is diametrically opposed to what psychopath is saying.

Cheers,
-blowfly

P.S. Well how's that, my very first post here is 5652 characters long... no wait, it's 5690, no... 5701... umm... 5712.. oh I see...:bunny:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:09 AM

wienerdog:


The idea that we have the capacity to choose something or its alternate is what most philosophers consider to be our instinctive concept of free will. If they are right, and if this is a 'properly basic belief' then the burden of proof rests on those who would deny it.

Of course we have free will, but Psycho defined it in such a way that he conceded that he cannot show that his version of free will exists.

Basically, he defined free will as the ability to do A and not A, at one particular time T. Nobody can show that this version exists (short of inventing time machines to go back to T and see if anything different could happen).

My definition had no such problems, and corresponded better to our instinctive concept of free will.

[stevencarrwork]

Pscho writes 'And if humans do not possess free will and are governed solely by the arrangement of their biochemical makeup, they really aren't anything more than extremely complex robots.'

And he thinks free will depends upon making conscious, deliberate, rational decisions.

According to Scott Klusendorf on the Theology Web front page

'Newborns, like fetuses, cannot make conscious, deliberate choices, so what’s wrong with infanticide?'

According to Psycho's reasoning, absolutely nothing. He claims that newborns aren't anything more than extremely complex robots.

Now newborns are human beings like us (as are foetuses, at least after a certain point, the exact time of which is impossible for me to say), so it is not my view that newborns are robots. It is Psycho's.

So what is wrong with infanticide, according to Psycho's naive deliberations on free will and rational thought?

Psycho writes 'When it comes down to it, a proper judgment involves weighing the alternatives and actively coming to a conclusion based on the strength of all of the possibilities and how each answers the question/issue/case at hand. But if humans do not possess free will and cannot choose their thoughts, they cannot choose their judgments, and, therefore, it does not seem that these judgments can be called proper at all.'

Is he claiming newborns do that? Or is he claiming that creatures (such as newborns) who cannot do that lack free will and are robots?

[blowfly]

<<<And he thinks free will depends upon making conscious, deliberate, rational decisions.>>>

On the contrary, free-will specifically requires the possibility of NON-RATIONAL decisions. If one is forced to think rationally (like a computer), there can only ever be one conclusion they can come to in a given scenario. This obviously precludes free-will.

And so ironically, genuine FREE-WILL in fact precludes reliably rational decisions, instead of allowing them.

Cheers,
-blowfly

[Satori]

What a non-sensical debate about nothing. People arguing the definitions of words and their intellectualizations with their inherently limited human conceptions. Oh well, whatever floats your boat I suppose, and there are far more ridiculous debates going on which make this one seem almost intelligent.

I think it's rather sad that some people here cannot see that the supposed division between the physical and "spiritual" is only an interpretation and nothing more. It's just an idea in your head, no more "real" than the colour green or the sound of a bell, and that division isn't necessarily "real" just because you label it as such.

I think it's entirely apparent that our physical brain is the source of our consciousness and everything it entails (free will and all). This is proven by the fact that when you mess with the brain, either physically, electrically, or chemically, our consciousness changes accordingly. Even feelings like love and compassion have a chemical basis which can be easily exaggerated or negated by correctly stimulating the physical brain. I realize that many religious people cling to the baseless notion that the physical brain simply isn't enough to account for consciousness, that there must be some "soul" or something, but such people have nothing to support their claims and they actually have a great deal of evidence negating it.

That's my 2 cents. If anyone replies to this, and you don't get a response, then please, by all means, send me a private message or whatever and bring it to my attention.

best wishes,

Satori

[Satori]

I feel that many of the responses in this thread completely overlook the notion that on the quantum level reality doesn't seem to obey the black and white laws of whole number math. It's fuzzy, dynamic, and looks to us like random probability. The old Newtonian cause-effect model of reality, the one in which religions are philosophically based, is one with very limited applicability to the whole of reality (like mind). It works great for macro objects in 4 dimensional spacetime, but that's the only place it works. The most current and prevailing theories about mind place the physical brain as simply NOT immune to the effects of quantum probability. After all, it's the quantum reality which manifests our macro, temporal, and seemingly solid reality. I feel many of you are either unaware or overlooking this.

Satori

[TheFiveSolas]

Satori,

Positing quantum indeterminancy as a means of salvaging rationality simply doesn't work. All it does is reduce "brain function" to a non-rational random component.

[Satori]

Today @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96529#post96529)
TheFiveSolas:

Satori,

Positing quantum indeterminancy as a means of salvaging rationality simply doesn't work. All it does is reduce &quot;brain function&quot; to a non-rational random component.

Five, I feel you are far too hung up on the perceived methods of defining various aspects of reality to see that what I was actually saying is that the universe and everything in it is not limited to black and white (or cause/effect) math type calculations. Mind is also not limited in this way.

The fact of the matter is that we just don't know how consciousness works, but jumping to the "god did it" conclusion seem more than a bit innane to me.

all the best,

Satori

[Vorkosigan]

The fact of the matter is that we just don't know how consciousness works, but jumping to the "god did it" conclusion seem more than a bit innane to me.

It is every bit as inane as using quantum theory. I have several cognitive science textbooks sitting around the house, and none of them use quantum theory in explaining mind functions. Penrose's ideas were simply inane.

Vorkosigan