Coito,
I am skeptical that I will find a satisfactory reconciliation between,
1. how in a universe which is only material and where these material bodies operate according to laws and properties that choice arises, and
2. if indeed there is no satisfactory account for choice, how coordination arises.
Since, I've long learned of the futility of trying to persuade philosophers (non-philosophers, at least in person, are a different story) I'm going to have to let you have the last word and I'm quite sure this will be my last response, unless I receive a radically different answer to the above two questions.
Here is your attempt to reconcile free will with monism/materialism:
My answer is that Beethoven wrote everything he wrote all in accordance with Newton's laws. He and all his parts remained at rest or in motion absent the application of force -- and, Force always equaled mass times acceleration. And, for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction. These laws are not commands that he do this or that. So, my answer is that yes he did everything he did "in obedience" to Newton's laws, but those laws did not compel him to do anything in particular. So, if you're trying to suggest that I "must" believe that the physical laws required Newton to write his symphonies, let me step out in front of that and say: NO. The fact that everything he did was in accordance with the physical laws does not mean that he was COMPELLED to take this action or that action. ... As I type here today, I feel as if it is of my own free will. I have no reason to think Michelangelo also did not feel the same way. If we are preordained to do these things, then it doesn't feel that way, and there is no evidence that we are, in fact, preordained, nor is predestination a necessary outgrowth of a natural, non magical fetal development. ... That, my friend, is an unwarranted conclusion. There is no reason why we can not be free to control our own bodies be the result of physical and chemical processes. Our brains use physical, chemical, electromagnetic, and biological processes to move. You make an unwarranted logical leap, when you suggest that yours is a "necessary" conclusion. ... They are the result of chemical and physical (and electromagnetic and biological) processes, AND we appear to have free will (and there is no evidence that we are predestined).
Let me ask you this:
Either: all movement of bodies is caused by the movement of other bodies or the properties of the body itself
Or: not all movement of bodies is caused by the movement of other bodies or the properties of the body itself
If you believe the either statement then how does choice come into the picture? If you believe the or statement then what is the other source of the movement of bodies?
You have stated that we are not punch card machines and that we do not have a random word generator in our head, therefore, using that analogy we must choose what cards to punch and what words to use. But if all bodies operate according to physical laws, how can those same bodies choose?
You have repeatedly stated that I have no evidence for the mind. The evidence lies in the fact that it is illogical to believe that choice exists in a world where all movement is caused by movement of other bodies. If the origin of choice is not material then it must be the opposite of material, ie, immaterial.
And here is your attempt to prove that coordination can arise through mechanistic means:
I see the sun and the Earth revolving around each other in an organized fashion. Do I conclude that they were "intended" to be that way? No, of course not. They occurred that way because of the matter and energy behaving like matter and energy in the quantities that were there.... Matter coordinates according to the laws of physics all the time. Clearly, that happens. You've acknowledged it happens. You then take issue, however, that things with "specified complexity" (an undefined term on your part) are the things that can't be coordinated naturally. You cited as an example - enzymes, because they "choose" things to do. However, you're just dead wrong - they don't exercise "choice" - choice entails value judgment and conscious opting for one thing over another - enzymes damn well do NOT do that. They are chemicals that react according to known and regular biological laws - they catalyze reactions under certain conditions. That's all. And, they are coordinated. ... They [neurons] grew that way, all in accord with the natural laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, etc. Using a simple example, Carbon and Oxygen "coordinate" to form carbon monoxide or dioxide, depending on the circumstances. The atoms within the cells of the brain likewise coordinate to form molecules which coordinate to form polymers, which coordinate to form nucleotides and amino acids, which coordinate to form more complex structures called cells, and ultimately the cells coordinate to form the structures in the brain -- no magic is needed. ... They coordinate and have nothing at all to do with "other matter being coordinate." Carbon coordinates into diamonds not because "other matter is coordinated" but because pressure it comes under pressure.
Let me for the third time try to explain the difference between diamonds and enzymes. Let me start by quoting Albert in the Microbiology of the Cell:
Each type of enzyme within such a class
is highly specific, catalyzing only, a single type of reaction. Thus, hexokinase adds a phosphate
group to o-glucose but ignores its optical isomer t-glucose; the blood-clotting
enzyme thrombin cuts one type of blood protein between a particular arginine
and its adjacent glycine and no where else, and so on.
In other words enzymes and proteins only perform one action. If you see two objects and their only function can only be done if the other object exists, then it is reasonable to conclude that they were constructed knowing that the other would eventually exist. If you see a wheel that can only fit on one axel and an axel that only fits one wheel, then it is reasonable that the builder built both them with the intention that they would work together, or coordinate. Let's take DNA transcription. The general transcription factors that are required for transcription by RNA polymerase II in vitro are TFIIA, TFIIB, TFIID, TFIIE, TFIIF, TFIIH. All six of these general transcription factors are needed in order to perform DNA transcription. They have only one function and they do nothing else. They have a SPECIFIC function. Nothing else can do the function they perform. With diamonds, any carbon atom will do to form a diamond. With the orbits of the planets, any planet with any composition will do, no radically specific planet composition is needed. With galaxies, virtually any type of star will do. With volcanoes, any hot magma and any rift in the Earth's crust will do the job. With DNA transcription you need six very specific general transcription factors and they are constructed with very precise amino acid sequences. TFIIA can not coordinate itself to arise into existence knowing the TFIIB will be there to do the rest of the job that it cannot do.
You also are wrongly rejecting my point that DNA sequences itself due to physical laws. You stated:
Nuclear physics - creates the elements on the periodic table - C, O, etc.
Chemistry - creates the molecules from bonded elemements. CO, O2, CO2, NaCl, etc.
More chemistry - creates bigger molecules -- nucleotide bases, nucleotides, nucleic acids, ribonucleic acids, deoxyribonucleic acids....etc.
Some of these things can replicate- that's about when biology kicks in.
None of these itty bitty thingies are doing any choosing....all of them are operating according to physical laws and processes. It is NOT magic! ... The source of coordination could be because the properties of Carbon and the properties of Oxygen are such that when they get in close enough proximity they will bond to form Carbon Monoxide.
DNA only attaches to the sugar and phosphate base according to physical laws. It can attach itself in any order it wants, TTCA is just as good as CCGA. One T cannot know the order for forming the first cell in existence.
***
And now a few side issues:
None of what you just wrote has anything to do with there being some undetectable "mind" floating about out there. Our brains are perfectly capable of interacting with the environment and making judgments. Our brains decide what is "right" and what is "wrong." Take the brain away, and no choice is right and no choice is wrong. there is no intention without the brain. There is no will without the brain. There is no knowledge without the brain. It's all in the brain. Knowledge and will and intention are not separate things from the brain. They are created BY the brain
I have already stated that the body cannot function without the brain. But it also needs an immaterial mind to coordinate it.
Nobody said the number of things the brain can coordinate is "infinite." "Indefinite" in number, perhaps. But, "infinite?" That's your assumption without foundation.
A human can be presented with an infinite number of unique objects and be asked to categorize all of them. Provided the human can live for ever, he will be able to fit each object into a category, even if the category is labeled uncategorizable.
spinoza99 wrote:
how can the brain decide anything when it is just obeying physical laws.
[/quote]
coito wrote:
What makes you think that physical laws prohibit structures that can make decisions?
A rock falls at 9.8 m/s^2. That law prohibits that rock from choosing to fall at the rate it wants. If physical laws prohibit choice in that sense, I don't see why physical laws should prohibit choice in all senses. I don't believe neurons are following physical laws or the properties of molecules, but the immaterial mind is ordering them to act but of course they are constrained to operate within the limits of physical law. For example, if the mind has the choice to drop four different rocks, the mind is not constrained by its DNA or by anything to choose one of the four rocks. But once it drops one of the rocks, that rock obeys the laws of physics.
spinoza99 wrote:
Intelligence routinely picks the right choice out of odds that are larger than one in 10^10,000.
Sometimes. You have a foundational issue with the "right choice" - there is nothing determining what choices are right and what are wrong. Those are generally value judgments, and one intelligence may view one choice as right and another as wrong, and a second intelligence may view it exactly the opposite.
You are right in the sense that "right choice" is open for debate, but the fact that when humans determines what they want, they almost always make the right choice to satisfy that want, provided nothing else is preventing them, for example, when you want coffee, you will make the right choices in order to get it, you will buy the right product, you will put the powder in the right container, you will heat the water in the right microwave, etc. This is a property of intelligence. There is no need for me to restate my thesis that I'm very skeptical that the origin of these intelligent choices lie in material.
The difference between crystals and an enzyme that catalyzes a reaction is that an enzyme exhibits specified complexity. The enzyme must make a choice selected from an infinite set. It must select the proper proteins and then force them to react 10,000 times faster than had it not been for that enzyme. In crystals, the milky way, the earth and moon, there is no requirement that a specific choice be made
No. Enzymes don't make "choices." ... There is no conscious choosing going on. The enzymes react with substances. ... The enzyme isn't "choosing." It's reacting. It's just a protein. In an enzymatic reaction there are molecules at the beginning of the reaction called substrates which form products. Enzymes are usually fairly specific in terms of which reactions they catalyze. They are catalysts. They don't "choose." They react. ... The point is - that every step of the way, intention is not needed. You surmise intention without evidence, or even reason. The processes work just fine, sir, without your assumption. ... Proteins don't clearly exhibit purpose. They clearly exhibit acting and reacting like proteins.
Bad choice of words on my part. An intelligent mind must make a choice of the property of the enzyme. I have explained elsewhere in this post why I think that is necessary.
Actually, the odds are pretty good when you consider what proteins formed out of. In the right conditions, protein formation is inevitable. Those conditions may well be rare, as we see no other planet in our solar system where they formed. However, there are plenty of planets out there on which the amino acids that form proteins could have formed. With maybe 10 quadrillion planets in the universe, it seems fairly likely that one or more would have the right set up for amino acids to form.
I've already said this several times, I'll say it again. We know roughly how many atoms (10^80), stars (10^22) and nanoseconds (10^26) there are in our universes history, which is a combined total of 10^128. So if every atom during every nanosecond in our universe's history and if there are as many universes in the alleged multiverse as there are stars in this universe, and they all have the same number of atoms and nanoseconds, even then all those atoms trying to form a protein during each nanosecond, that would still not be enough, seeing as the odds of a protein forming with 120 amino acids is one in 10^158, to say nothing of a protein with 2000 amino acids. Even if you assume there are a million ways to form a protein with a specific function, which there aren't, that would just bring the odds down to one in 10^152. So if you're given 10^128 attempts to hit odds of one in 10^152, the odds will then be one in 10^26, which is roughly how many nanoseconds there are in our universe. And this is just to form one protein and we're assuming that the odds of forming an amino acid are one. No, my friend, the odds that one amino acid forming with 10^22 stars out there is not fairly likely, it's less likely than choosing the right nanosecond out of all the nanoseconds in our universe. If you believe my math is suspect, Car Sagan in a book called communicating with ET, put the odds of life forming unintentionally at one in ten raised to I think the ten billionth power, or maybe ten millionth, it doesn't matter, it's very large. I can't get the book so I can't read his full argument. But I do know that in spite of this he considered himself an agnostic. Many scientists have tried to calculate the odds of life and many atheists have tried to refute them. I might be opening up a thread soon, analyzing these attempts.
I don't know. I never said they formed at random. I don't trust your math though, but I haven't checked it. I just find it irrelevant, since they didn't form "at random." Undirected, but not random. Particles in the solar system don't fly about completely randomly. If they did, there would be no planets, no sun, no oceans, no chemicals, no amino acids. It's the lack of randomness that's important here.
We're having a semantic dispute about the meaning of random. It doesn't matter since you agree that particle movement is unintended. Atoms certainly obey laws. But there is no law for atoms to fit into a precise, SPECIFIC sequence of a million units. Where would that law be located in space? Atoms would have to be aware of not only the sequences they're "supposed" to fit in but also the sequences that they're not "supposed" to fit in.
I saw no youtube video, but if you "sent" it to me, then I didn't get it because apparently my PM's are turned off.
I linked to it in my other post. Here it is again
http://www.youtube.com/user/ndsuvirtual ... fDYGanMi6Q
Watch as the chaperonins transport the protein signal. The chaperonins had to be built with the knowledge that they would transport a specific protein.
What I meant to say was, mind must come before matter. To suggest that God has a brain would be to say that matter comes before mind, which is not possible in my humble opinion.
You're the one who said your god was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Perhaps your god is just working with the materials on hand?
This is an interesting question and not relevant to the discussion at hand but I'll answer it anyway. I use human language as an example. We humans decide what words mean. But in order to achieve results, such as someone understanding what we want, we have to stand by the meanings of words, even though we chose the meanings arbitrarily. Similarly, the designer of the universe determined what properties objects have arbitrarily. But now that those properties are assigned he can't change them otherwise the foundation on which design is built would fall apart if the "bricks" suddenly behaved according to different properties. If you want to believe that matter was just there and then the divine mind came along and ordered it, that's not logical because it's clear that the properties of objects was not chosen at random. Their properties were assigned with the knowledge of their future purpose.
Mind, however, need not come before matter. It is just as conceivable that matter would come before mind. One thing is for sure, the only "minds" of which we have any "evidence" came AFTER matter, matter having been here billions of years before the first mind. All we have to support your supposition that there was a mind before there was any matter is: (a) rhetorical argument based on no empirical or physical evidence, and (b) wishful thinking.
Either coordination can arise through completely material means, or it can't. If material cannot coordinate other material, then what is that thing which is not material? It is the immaterial. My argument is based on observation: I've observed the properties of material and find it unlikely that they are capable of coordinating, given their properties. I have stated why elsewhere in this post.
One, you admitted above that some coordination is intended and other instances are not. You said, and I quote "Either: some coordination requires mind" -- see - some...if some requires a mind, then the rest doesn't, right?
Bad choice of words on my part. It's
either: all coordination originates in material
or: all coordination does not originate in material
juries decide things based on evidence. If there is no evidence, all the coincidences in the world don't justify conviction.
If you think about it what is evidence other than a series of events that CANNOT be coincidence simply because the odds are too long. Getting back to my example of you killing your wife when, one, your fingerprints were on the gun, two, the bullet in her body matched the gun, three, there is a receipt documenting your purchase of the gun, four, you have no alibi, five, you killed her and her lover at the same time. You call that evidence but I could theoretically call that just a series of coincidences. Now let's take a look at 9/11. One, it happened on a meaningful date, two, the buildings were in a meaningful shape, three, the man most responsible for Chile's 9/11 was indicted the day before, four, the New York lottery ticket on 9/11/02 was 911, five,
* New York City has 11 letters
* Afghanistan has 11 letters.
* Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
* George W Bush has 11 letters.
* The two twin towers make an "11"
* New York is the 11th state.
* The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
* Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
* Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11
* The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11
* The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
* Henry Hudson landed on Manhatten Island on 9/11/1609 (maybe, it's not 100% certain from the wiki article, it says on the 11th he was in the upper bay and the next day went up what is now the Hudson River)
* The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
* September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
* The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.
* The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.
* the number of days after 9/11 is 111
Now why is that all that is coincidence, but my example of you murdering your wife is not coincidence. Humans say that the coincidences relating to you murdering your wife are not coincidental because the odds are too long. Well, why are the odds not too long in the above example. Let me address cherry-picking or data-mining, which is ignoring all of the instances when an 11 did not appear in a relation to 9/11. Sure, there are a lot of instances when an 11 did not happen. However, I've tried coming up with numerology for wwii and wwi and I couldn't find anything. Let me also address the difference between the above and the Bible Code which I believe is a fraud.
http://www.amazon.com/BIBLE-CODE-Michae ... 341&sr=8-1
The Bible Code is an obvious fraud because that truly is a case of data mining. They put in the phrase something like the author is an idiot and they found that in the Bible using the same techniques to find Churchill and Hitler and Stalin in the same page.
you appear to have a definite agenda in mind that you wish to support
And you don't have an agenda? There is no shame in having an agenda, there is only shame in refusing to admit the agenda is wrong when the evidence says it's wrong.
Let me ask it this way: what law(s) - give me an example - precludes free choice, and why?
If you're light, you have to travel at 300,000 km per second, no choice about it. I assume you're talking about physical laws. Human laws can be disobeyed such as the speed limit.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.
Please don't insult Philosophy like that. I'm a student of Philosophy. I'm not allowed to cobble together a disconnected, grabbastic bag of misunderstandings, ambiguities, tautologies, red herrings and question-begging, nor am I allowed to start with my favorite conclusion and work backwards to try to piece together an ad hoc rationalization. Not if I don't want to get laughed out of the department, that is.
