Volitional Non-contingent Reality?

[EduChris]

Who and what are we as human beings? Specifically, do we possess any measure of genuine volition—some causal mechanism which is not strictly reducible to the causal mechanisms of chance and necessity—whereby we can, in certain cases and in some degree, take ownership and responsibility for our thoughts and behaviors by intentionally using our volition to alter some causal chain?

If we do have some measure of genuine volition, as rational beings we will attempt to find some epistemologically justified explanation for it. What is the best epistemically justified explanation for volition? I believe theism is the best and only epistemically justified explanation.

For this debate, I will define theism as the claim that the explanation for all contingencies (including our universe and our selves) ultimately derive from some non-contingent reality which involves at least some volition. Since we cannot subject this non-contingent reality to empirical testing, and since we cannot know precisely what it is, we will wrap this non-contingent reality up inside a tool of logic known as a black box. There could be anything inside this black box, but for simplicity’s sake we will start with the following minimal definition of the contents of the black box:

1) It undergirds all contingent existence
2) It is not arbitrarily limited by any physical or spatio-temporal dimensions
3) It is not arbitrarily limited in the capacity to handle or process information
4) It is not arbitrarily limited in causal efficacy

I believe the above definition is both simple and capable of producing any possible world. If I am correct, then there is no need (and no epistemological warrant) to postulate additional entities inside the black box.

Question for debate: if some genuine volition exists within our universe, does theism—volitional non-contingent reality as defined above—provide the best epistemically justified explanation?

[EduChris]

...not arbitrarily limited in the capacity to handle or process information...

...seems far from minimal, in my opinion...I'd be interested to see your reasoning for including this.

In the absence of information regarding all possible worlds, how would the black box effectuate any given possible world? It seems impossible to have a "possible world" unless there is some prior information--physical laws, logic, etc--to describe and prescribe such world.

[LiamOS]

And if information is so terribly difficult to define, why would you suggest that it is limited in the manner(s) you assert?

I should have been more specific here. Thanks.
In the sense we use the term information in everyday language, information corresponds to the ordering of objects or items in a meaningful way(Not necessary if you consider information to exist independent of a reader). Without considering the ordering of abstractions, it is obvious that such information would be limited in such a way. If we are to include abstractions, one would be left to wonder if there is any meaningful way that abstractions could be 'ordered', or even read(In some sense of the word).

Is there any information which is not ultimately derived from mathematics, logic, and physical laws? How would you demonstrate this, one way or the other?

Within the rather vague outline of a definition I've given, I think it's reasonably clear that such information does not exist. Given alternate definitions, this may not be the case, but I can't conceive the structure of such a definition off the top of my head.

How would you go about demonstrating that mathematics, logic, and physical laws are limited "causally, spatially, and temporally"?

To say that physical laws are limited in such a way doesn't make much sense, as far as I can tell, since the limiting effect is itself a physical law.

To say that mathematics and logic are restricted by physical laws would be an absurdity. That said, I'm not quite sure that mathematics or logic would constitute information in the absence of the physical universe, or even with it; I'm unable to determine whether they would.

[LiamOS]

...not arbitrarily limited in the capacity to handle or process information...

...seems far from minimal, in my opinion...I'd be interested to see your reasoning for including this.

In the absence of information regarding all possible worlds, how would the black box effectuate any given possible world? It seems impossible to have a "possible world" unless there is some prior information--physical laws, logic, etc--to describe and prescribe such world.

Is it not conceivable that this black box has inherent in it the basis of all possible worlds? If so, would that necessarily constitute information? If it does, does the box necessitate the ability to handle and process such information?

[EduChris]

...Is it not conceivable that this black box has inherent in it the basis of all possible worlds? If so, would that necessarily constitute information? If it does, does the box necessitate the ability to handle and process such information?

One way of thinking about information is in terms of relationships which do (or might possibly) make a difference. The potential to effectuate possible worlds would fit this understanding, and the actualizing of information potential would certainly seem to constitute "handling" and "processing."

[EduChris]

...I'm not quite sure that mathematics or logic would constitute information in the absence of the physical universe, or even with it; I'm unable to determine whether they would.

Certainly they constitute something--and if they do not constitute information--relationships which do or might make a difference--what are they? In my view, "mathematics" and "logic" and "laws" are at the very least a subset of all information.

[EduChris]

...To say that physical laws are limited in such a way doesn't make much sense, as far as I can tell, since the limiting effect is itself a physical law...

I don't know how you came to this understanding. The limiting effect of physical laws is a physical law? Why assume that? As far as anyone knows, the limiting effect might be volition.

[McCulloch]

Question for debate: if some genuine volition exists within our universe, does theism—volitional non-contingent reality as defined above—provide the best epistemically justified explanation?

Perhaps we need to back up a bit. Can it be shown that genuine volition exists? What would genuine volition look like? How could you tell the difference between genuine volition and very complex chaotic conditioned response?

[EduChris]

...Perhaps we need to back up a bit. Can it be shown that genuine volition exists?...

I don't need to show that volition exists. My claim is that if it exists, then theism is the best and only epistemically justified explanation.

...What would genuine volition look like?...

See post #10

...How could you tell the difference between genuine volition and very complex chaotic conditioned response?

Looking at it from the outside, from the standpoint of an ignorant and unbiased external observer, I don't know that we would be able to tell the difference. However, we have the advantage of experiencing volition from the inside, as subjects, as agents, in a direct and unmediated fashion. If we can act as subjects--whether in the denial or the acceptance of volition--then it makes little sense to claim that we are objects only, as opposed to subjects also.

[EduChris]

...Can it be shown that genuine volition exists?...

We cannot show that "genuine chance" exists; we cannot show that "genuine necessity" exists. We must assume they exist based on indirect, external, mediated observations. "Volition" similarly cannot be proven to exist, but we can do more than simply observe it; indeed, we have direct, unmediated, universally subjective experience of it within our inner mental conscious life--which in turn forms the basis for all of our observations of what appear to be "chance" and "necessity." Thus, "volition" seems to be more epistemically fundamental than mere "chance" and "necessity."

[scourge99]

...Can it be shown that genuine volition exists?...

"Volition" similarly cannot be proven to exist, but we can do more than simply observe it; indeed, we have direct, unmediated, universally subjective experience of it within our inner mental conscious life...

Thus, "volition" seems to be more epistemically fundamental than mere "chance" and "necessity."

Traditional ideas of volition have been demonstrated as wrong and inaccurate by scientific research. Neuroscience, psychology, and other sciences studying the brain and consciousness have eroded away many of the concepts that were assumed truths. And scientific findings are making a very strong case that freewill either does not exist or isn't nearly as free as many assume it to be.

For example, 1) Benjamin Libet's experiments and other follow on studies demonstrating that our decisions and actions occur in our brain before we are conscious of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscien ... experiment http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... d_decision

2) The known casual link between the brain and the mind as evidenced by drugs, addictions, brain damage, and chemical alterations.

3) Our similarity in behavior and physiology to many intelligent animals as well as less intelligent beings.

4) The inability to direct our conscious and control our own mind. I.E., in a previous thread you mentioned a compact disk player. What made you decide to use a compact disk player for your example rather than numerous other objects that would work jyst as well? Why did you not "choose" a tape player or a blu-ray player? You did not freely choose to think of a compact disk player. The thought arose from processes beyond your control.

5) ... those are just the ones off the top of my head that I can remember. If you are interested in more I can try to go through some of my books and add more.

With these things in mind, where is the room for volition? It seems one of the last refuges is to claim that its self evident. But when analyzed, it becomes clear that it is not self evident anymore than it is self evident that the world is flat.

We make "decisions". I don't question that. The question is whether we are free to "choose" our actions. That at every moment there is freedom to choose. But the truth of that matter is that everything you imagine, think, or choose at every moment is the result of causes that you are not aware of and have absolutely no control over.

The traditional view of volition is both conceptually incoherent and empirically false. It must be replaced with one that is coherent and harmonious with the evidence.