[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

You can sometimes find ebooks on ‘share’ sites. I will send you a copy if I come across it.

Thanks, but I found a paperback copy for about a pound.

robbo203 wrote:

Nobody -leastways, not me – is saying mind states are free from the influence of physical laws. The bio- chemistry of the brain can obviously have mental and behavioural effects.  For example, the rate at which serotonin and acetylcholine is released through biochemical activity in the brain can affect one’s mental state and give rise to mood disorders such as depression which, in turn, can be regulated by medication.  But, even so, the mind is more than the brain upon which it depends.  The mind can effect the brain , can exert “downward causation” on the brain as I tried to show earlier

I don’t think anyone is denying this “downward causation” either. All I’m denying is that there can be causes that are not caused by something or somethings else.

John Horgan wrote:

Harris keeps insisting that because all our choices have prior causes, they are not free; they are determined. Of course all our choices are caused. No free-will proponent I know claims otherwise. The question is how are they caused? Harris seems to think that all causes are ultimately physical, and that to hold otherwise puts you in the company of believers in ghosts, souls, gods and other supernatural nonsense.

Until yesterday I don’t think I had heard of Sam Harris. But the briefest look at his website shows that the final sentence of this is pure strawman. See this for example: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

John Horgan wrote:

But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world.”

 Again myself, or Sam Harris, do not deny that ideas have an influence in the world. The question is do minds somehow magically escape the world of causation? There is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest they do not. And if they do I have not seen an explanation of how they do this, but maybe I’ve missed something.Did you watch that video Robin?I’m not convinced that ’emergence’ is an adequate theory of how consciousness came into being anyhow, but I admit I need to look into the issue more.

Sam Harris wrote:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t’ give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox. “Nothing,” after all, is precisely that which cannot give rise to “anything,” let alone “everything.” Many physicists realise this, of course. Fred Hoyle, who coined “big bang” as a term of derogation, is famous for opposing this creation myth on philosophical grounds, because such an event seems to require a “preexisting space and time.” In a similar vein, Stephen Hawking has said that the notion that the universe had a beginning is incoherent, because something can begin only with reference to time, and here we are talking about the beginning of space-time itself. He pictures space-time as a four-dimensional closed manifold, without beginning or end—much like the surface of a sphere.http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

robbo203 wrote:

It concerns me that there are Marxists who toy with the deterministic language of a teleogical model of society and history.

No-ones suggesting a “theological model of society”. Teleological explanations explain things in the sense that things happen “in order to” do something. Deterministic explanations explain things in the sense that everything happens “because of” everything else. Clearly not the same thing. I am not a Marxist by the way!

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Does the party have and accept as members people that reject metaphysical materialism?

I guess the answer is ‘yes’ but it depends what you offer in its place.

[DJP]

old uncle fred wrote:

Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm%5Bemphasis mine]

[DJP]

STOP THINKING OF DOLPHINS RIGHT NOW!We do not choose what comes into our consciousness, and neither are we aware of, or choose, the myriad of factors that contribute into us making a choice. What other things did you think about when you read this sentence? Did you choose them?Am I responsible for my actions? On the deepest level, no. I didn’t create the circumstances that gave rise to my being. On a practical level, yes. People are social animals and as social animals it is advantageous to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. Men make their own history but under conditions not of their choosing, but it is also under conditions not of their choosing that men are made.Mind states are not reductable to brain states, I agree. But I’m not sure how “Mind must then be seen as having a degree of autonomy in its own right” necessarily follows. The non-reductive things are things like intentionality “aboutness” and phenomenological experiences i.e. the ‘what it is like’-ness of a mental state. It seems difficult as to how you’d capture these in a physical description of the brain. Non-reductivness does not mean that mind states are free from the influence of physical laws.I refer you again to Dilbert:http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1993-05-30/

[DJP]

Here’s the argument in comic form:http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1993-05-30/

[DJP]

What’s your opinion on that link you posted OGW?It’s just a knee jerk emotional responce with no substance. I haven’t read Harris’s book but the points he makes in the video are not answered here. Read the comments.We have to follow the facts and base our conclusions upon them. Not find what we’d like to be true then find justifications for it.

[DJP]

I keep getting an uncontrollable urge to jump in front of oncoming cyclists and lie on the floor. I can’t help it, I was born with the soul of a cycle-path.

[DJP]

Sam Harris seems to be hitting all the nails on the head in this video, going to give his book a try:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

[DJP]

To me all this talk of non-reducibility and emergence seems to be side stepping the issue. Is it possible to have ‘free will’ as traditionally conceived without  contravening the laws of physics? The answer still seems to me to be a firm NO.To me to talk of ‘free will’ only makes sense in the context of absence of coercion i.e. “I did it of my own free will” i.e. I wasn’t forced to do something. But even in this sense the meaning is fuzzy.This short blog post is interesting:http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/did-freedom-evolve/

[DJP]

Er, don’t we already have a downloadable e-zine? It’s called the Socialist Standard!I think with web based publishing it’s best to get away from monthly or weekly publishing schedules. Wouldn’t the aim be to eventually be an alternative to something like say the BBC news website? Daily posting is best if it can be maintained.Logistics wise it is a lot easier if the venture where to be incorporated into the main website.

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Influences have a determining effect, certainly,  but your mistake is to infer form that that  this means one is putting forward deterministic model .  Not so.   Rejecting determinism does not necessarily mean one is putting forward the idea of “indeterminate  means” – it can mean, for example, a two way or interactive model of causality  .Determinism means something much more specific and precise than the mere absence of indetermination or a-causality

I know and agree with what you mean by reductionism.It seems to me that all we are disagreeing about is what we mean by ‘Determinism’. To me, if there’s a casual link of any kind it’s still a deterministic system. Perhaps I’m using the term too broadly but I don’t think so.

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy wrote:

“Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.”http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Not sure If I’ll have much more to say on this topic for the time being but this quote came to mind…

Dietzgen wrote:

Everything is large, everything is small, everything extended through space and time, everything cause and everything effect, everything a whole and a part, because everything is the essence of everything, because everything is contained in the all, everything related, everything connected, everything interdependent. The conception of all as the absolute, the content of which consists of innumerable relativities, the concept of the all as the universal truth which reflects many phenomena, that is the basis of the science of understanding.

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

The point about emergence theory is that it allows you to think about society in non deterministic or non reductionist terms and yet is still in keeping with a materialist conception of history. 

Emergence does not seem to run counter to determinism, the formation of the patterns of snow flakes is a emergent process but I think it would seem not to make sense to say that these are formed through in-determinate means.It’s probably bad to quote wikipedia but I’ll do it anyhow:

wikipedia wrote:

As an illustration, some strategy board games have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards’ face values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice rolling) occur in the game. Nevertheless, strategy games like chess and especially Go, with its simple deterministic rules, can have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, “emergentists” suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behavior. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behavior would become predictable.[95][93][96] Cellular automata and the generative sciences can model emergent processes of social behavior on this philosophy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Determinism_and_emergent_behavior

robbo203 wrote:

The definitive statement  of the MCH is usually taken to be this passage from his  Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

It probably is, but to base a ‘critque’ of a theory on a couple of paragraphs is sloppy in the extreme. To get a full handle on it you’d have to read at least The German Ideology,  Anti-Duhring and  Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.

Engels wrote:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.[…]Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent “Marxists” from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too….http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm

[DJP]

How did the meeting with Positive Money go? Was it recorded?

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Yeah but then you are only assuming what you need to prove – that there is only one kind of  “stuff”. Im saying this with my devil’s advocate cap on but how would go about  proving that  ” mind is  matter” – as opposed to, say, mind is influenced by matter?

I don’t think you could solve the monism (there is one kind of stuff) / dualism (there are two kinds of stuff i.e. mind and matter) debate empirically, it has to be done logically.If there are two completely seperate realms that follow different laws how can these realms meet and interact with each other?If the realms do meet and interact with each other are they not one after all?This is the classic argument for accepting a monist veiwpoint, probably stated quite badly.Once we accept everything is ‘one kind of stuff’ we can either take an idealist view, everything is mental. But this poses the problem of other minds…Or, we can take the materialist veiwpoint, everything is matter and minds are at least an effect of matter…But then we have the problem of consciousness, the ‘Hard Problem’ as it is known to some.Perhaps ‘Panpsychism’ is not such a silly idea after all?Anyone read A.N Whitehead?

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Can you please explain  how “the mind is matter”?  

I think it may be easier if I rephrase: “If there is only one kind of stuff and this kind of stuff follows deterministic laws then minds must follow these laws as well. Therefore ‘free will’ as traditionally conceived cannot exist.”Maybe that answers some of your other points?

Quote:

Surely, even being hungry and thirsty does not necessarily have to result in  me  desiring a pizza and a cold beer? .  Or does it in your view?

No it doesn’t have to necessarily, because there are other things going on.

Quote:

Do you consider that I have no choice but to desire this and  not , say,  a plate of ravioli  and a glass of red wine and that everything has been “predetemined” beforehand?

All I am saying is that your choice will be the result of a myriad of previously occurring events. ‘Predetermined’ is a fatalistic way of looking at it, suggesting that you would have made the same choice regardless of what happened before.Do you get the distinction between Determinism and Fatalism?All I’m saying is that traditional notions of choice and free will need to be reframed. This is hardly a controversial statement these days.

Quote:

BTW Any observations on Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm)  It might be relevant to this debate  but Im not exactly certain

Not yet, I’ll give it a go

[Author]

Posts