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]

...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...

I agree that yesterday's "traditional ideas" are being shown wrong or incomplete. Similarly, tomorrow's new-and-improved "traditional ideas" will also, in their own time, be shown to be wrong or incomplete. Science will always be searching for new-and-improved "truths" which will, in turn, become abandoned or superseded by even newer "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...

I like the little qualification there (see paragraph #7, below). I don't need 100% or 80% or even 1% free. All I need is some percentage X where X is greater than zero.

...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...

Many of our mundane choices are handled by off-loading the decision process to subconscious or autonomous control. This is a given.

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

I agree that the mind will be altered by mind-altering drugs, as well as by a good swift kick to the head.

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

Sure. But so what?

...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...

Actually I thought of a number of possible devices, and from the available options, I chose the CD player as the preferred option, the one I would assume ownership of.

...With these things in mind, where is the room for volition?...

See the little qualification I pointed out in paragraph #2, above. And since we can't demonstrate that "chance" and "necessity" exist, our direct, unmediated, universally subjective inner sense of volition enjoys epistemic priority over any and all multiply-mediated external observations.

...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...

Whether the world is flat is, at the moment, an open question. Science doesn't know if our little neck of the universe is comprised of three spatial dimensions, or only two. Moreover, our observation of the world is mediated through multiple complex sources. Our inner mental conscious life, by contrast, is experienced directly and without external mediation--and this is precisely what we use whenever we evaluate any and all observations from the external world. If we can't trust our primary, unmediated, inner conscious thought life--well, then we can't really trust anything at all.

...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.

Scientists will continue to debate the issues, with no consensus in sight. And the same situation applies for philosophers (who are keeping a close watch on scientific developments).

Anyway, I have no need to demonstrate that some sort of genuine volition exists. Most reasonable people of good faith will understand the problem that arises when one attempts to employ one's own subjectivity and agency in the process of denying one's own subjectivity and agency. This is an incoherently self-defeating proposition.

So my argument is not really about whether volition exists; rather, my argument is that if volition exists, then theism provides the best and only epistemically justified explanation for this fact.

[scourge99]

...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...

Similarly, tomorrow's new-and-improved "traditional ideas" will also, in their own time, be shown to be wrong or incomplete.

This is invalid reasoning. The future of science and discovery is just as clouded in mystery as the stock market. As any savvy analyst knows, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

For all we know, our current scientific knowledge may be absolutely correct and accurate.

Science will always be searching for new-and-improved "truths" which will, in turn, become abandoned or superseded by even newer "truths."

This is dependent on new evidence and knowledge being uncovered that contradicts current theory. For all we know, M-theory is correct and there isn't much more to learn except to hash out the details.

...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...

I like the little qualification there (see paragraph #7, below). I don't need 100% or 80% or even 1% free. All I need is some percentage X where X is greater than zero.

What does it mean to be 1% or 5% free? Is that like having 2.5 children? You either have volition or you don't.

...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...

Many of our mundane choices are handled by off-loading the decision process to subconscious or autonomous control. This is a given.

From where or from who did you come to believe that its only "mundane" decisions? How did you come to the conclusion that there is some "offloading" process? None of the studies I have read mention anything of the sort. Did you invent these ideas yourself? If not then where did you get them from?

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

I agree that the mind will be altered by mind-altering drugs, as well as by a good swift kick to the head.

Not just altered but permanently changed. Memory can be erased and personalities entirely changed. We can make your mood change and even influence your decision making process. The mind, in every way shape and form, is linked to the state of the brain organ.

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

Sure. But so what?

Animals give us insight into primitive and proto-consciousness from which ours undoubtedly evolved from.

What is it like to be a dog? A chimpanzee? A neanderthal?

...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...

Actually I thought of a number of possible devices, and from the available options, I chose the CD player as the preferred option, the one I would assume ownership of.

Or so you presume.

You "thought of multiple devices"? Examine that for a moment. How exactly did you "think them up"? You have no control whatsoever about which thoughts spontaneously pop into your head at any moment. Did you think of an 8-track? Why not? Furthermore, the notion that you "chose the CD player" is no less suspect. You no more "chose" the CD player than a man can choose to prefer chocolate over vanilla. "Thoughts simply emerge in consciousness. We are not authoring them. That would require that we think them, before we think them. If you can't control your next thought, and you don't know what it will be until it arises, where is your freewill in that?... You are not making decisions. You can only witness these decisions." You no more picked the CD player than if I were to pick it for you.

...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...

Whether the world is flat is, at the moment, an open question.

That you doubt that the world is spherical is very telling.

If we can't trust our primary, unmediated, inner conscious thought life--well, then we can't really trust anything at all.

Actually, what it does is teach us that our thoughts and beliefs are more accurate when they are tempered by a methodology involving logic, reason, and evidence.

Anyway, I have no need to demonstrate that some sort of genuine volition exists.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

Most reasonable people of good faith will understand the problem that arises when one attempts to employ one's own subjectivity and agency in the process of denying one's own subjectivity and agency. This is an incoherently self-defeating proposition.

Such a statement is just as ignorant as a flat earther who says "How silly people must be to believe that the earth is round. Don't they realize that if the earth was round then people would fall off the world?" Both statements are superficially reasonable but become obviously false when evidence and reason are brought to bear.

[EduChris]

...invalid reasoning. The future of science and discovery is just as clouded in mystery as the stock market. As any savvy analyst knows, past performance is no guarantee of future performance...

The one thing we know about science and the stock market is that they always change.

...For all we know, our current scientific knowledge may be absolutely correct and accurate...

For all we know, it might not be. How would we ever be able to tell the difference?

...For all we know, M-theory is correct and there isn't much more to learn except to hash out the details...

From the April 2012 issue of Scientific American: "What makes a scientist is ignorance...facts are just a starting place...every new discovery raises 10 new questions...ignorance will always grow faster than knowledge...every day there is more we know we don't know..." (p. 10).

...What does it mean to be 1% or 5% free? Is that like having 2.5 children? You either have volition or you don't...

Why shouldn't it be more like a continuum? I don't choose to sneeze, but I can choose to cover my face with my arm (unless my arm is constrained).

...From where or from who did you come to believe that its only "mundane" decisions? How did you come to the conclusion that there is some "offloading" process? None of the studies I have read mention anything of the sort. Did you invent these ideas yourself? If not then where did you get them from?...

Standard learning theory. We deliberately and consciously attend to new knowledge and new ideas; once we have achieved familiarity, we no longer have to think about them, and so we offload the process to more autonomic processes. Do you still think about riding a bike the same way now as you did when you were first learning to ride? If we didn't offload mundane things to autonomic processes, we'd never be able to attend to and learn from genuine novelty.

...The mind, in every way shape and form, is linked to the state of the brain organ...

Reductionism. We just don't know at this point.

...proto-consciousness from which ours undoubtedly evolved from...

So you say. But as Charles Darwin said, "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

...Did you think of an 8-track? Why not?...

Actually I did, but I figured no one under 40 years old would have the slightest idea what I was talking about.

...Thoughts simply emerge in consciousness. We are not authoring them. That would require that we think them, before we think them. If you can't control your next thought, and you don't know what it will be until it arises, where is your freewill in that?... You are not making decisions. You can only witness these decisions...

Momentary thoughts come and go; this is part of the autonomic systems. But I can choose to spend additional time deliberating over any of these thoughts, over time. I can choose to do research and to learn. And I feel most free when I am praying. Probably many mystics would claim the same.

...That you doubt that the world is spherical is very telling...

It is not I who doubts; rather, it is the scientists who can't tell, one way or the other. I wonder what your failure to follow the link I provided tells us about the care with which you choose (or don't choose?) to read before responding?

...our thoughts and beliefs are more accurate when they are tempered by a methodology involving logic, reason, and evidence...

Exactly what I have been saying all along. And our inner mental conscious thought life is the starting point and basis for all of our observations and evidence and reasoning; if it goes, then everything that comes after it is just a house of cards.

...you ignore the evidence...

According to April 2012 Scientific American (quoted above) we all ignore evidence all the time. None of us can help it--there's just way too much ignorance to go around. But we can choose which specific ignorance we wish to devote further time and attention to--at the expense of ever-growing areas of other ignorance. And any evidence we choose to study will necessarily be interpreted through the prism of our inner mental conscious thought life.

...Such a statement is just as ignorant as a flat earther who says "How silly people must be to believe that the earth is round. Don't they realize that if the earth was round then people would fall off the world?" Both statements are superficially reasonable but become obviously false when evidence and reason are brought to bear.

Well, when science figures out whether our little nook of the universe consists of three spatial dimensions, or only two, please let me know. I'm not holding my breath, however, because the Scientific American article says we may never know.

[EduChris]

Let's remember that this thread is not about whether volition exists (and of course we don't even know whether chance and necessity "exist"). Rather, this thread is about whether theism would provide the best and only epistemically justified explanation for volition, if volition exists in our universe.

And since it seems that volition is (at the very least) a "necessary conceit" which we cannot do without as we go about our daily life, we have strong prima facie reason to treat volition as though it actually exists.

[Bust Nak]

"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.

Have we? Or have we directly, unmediated, universally subjective experience of necessity/chance within our inner mental conscious life?

My own volition seems as obvious as a rock in a field is the result of necessity/chance.

[EduChris]

...My own volition seems as obvious as a rock in a field is the result of necessity/chance.

Perhaps you are a zombie?

Would a perfectly square arrangement of perfectly round rocks also strike you as simply the result of chance or necessity? Or would you surmise that someone intentially selected those rocks and placed them there with care?

I suspect that people who are devoted to scientism will be able to (re)interpret their inner mental conscious thought life as though it were some sort of impersonal mechanism. However, those who are not already predisposed toward scientism (or away from theism) will more likely gravitate toward volition.

[Bust Nak]

Would a perfectly square arrangement of perfectly round rocks also strike you as simply the result of chance or necessity? Or would you surmise that someone intentially selected those rocks and placed them there with care?

I would say that arrangement is the result of volition. Doesn't that show that the default is not volition - that it has to be a particular way before I conclude it's not random?

I suspect that people who are devoted to scientism will be able to (re)interpret their inner mental conscious thought life as though it were some sort of impersonal mechanism. However, those who are not already predisposed toward scientism (or away from theism) will more likely gravitate toward volition.

I think I may have phased that badly. I was saying my action being the result of volition is as obvious as a rock in a field is the result of necessity/chance.

[EduChris]

]...I think I may have phased that badly. I was saying my action being the result of volition is as obvious as a rock in a field is the result of necessity/chance.

You do not have direct, unmediated awareness of either the rock or the field; you need eyes and light and (perhaps) eyeglasses as well as a prior observational understanding of what rocks are and how they are normally dispersed and/or arranged in spatial dimensions. By contrast, you need none of those things to have a direct, unmediated awareness of your inner mental conscious thought life--including your own intensely subjective experience of volition.

If science were to tell you that there are no rocks, and no fields in which rocks might be dispersed, would you believe that rocks and fields were only illusions? You might, depending on how strong their evidence was, and whether their explanation seemed plausible.

But what if science were to tell you that all of our human powers of observation are hopelessly faulty and delusional? Would you believe it? Why should you trust them, since all of their observations (ex hypothesi) would have to be faulty--and in that case, why should we place any trust in the results of their (presumably) faulty observations?

[Bust Nak]

You do not have direct, unmediated awareness of either the rock or the field; you need eyes and light and (perhaps) eyeglasses as well as a prior observational understanding of what rocks are and how they are normally dispersed and/or arranged in spatial dimensions.

Non-the-less, given my eyes, light and glasses, if I see some rock in a field, I wouldn't pay much attention to think about its purpose.

By contrast, you need none of those things to have a direct, unmediated awareness of your inner mental conscious thought life--including your own intensely subjective experience of volition.

But there is no way to tell if this is experience is the result of chance/necessarity.

If science were to tell you that there are no rocks, and no fields in which rocks might be dispersed, would you believe that rocks and fields were only illusions? You might, depending on how strong their evidence was, and whether their explanation seemed plausible.

But what if science were to tell you that all of our human powers of observation are hopelessly faulty and delusional? Would you believe it? Why should you trust them, since all of their observations (ex hypothesi) would have to be faulty--and in that case, why should we place any trust in the results of their (presumably) faulty observations?

Well I am guess this scenario would involve some "true" reality. Experiencing this reality would convince me. I am thinking of the film matrix here.

[EduChris]

...But there is no way to tell if this is experience is the result of chance/necessarity...

And similarly, we have no way of knowing whether chance/necessity exists.

...this scenario would involve some "true" reality. Experiencing this reality would convince me. I am thinking of the film matrix here.

The Matrix is akin to the "rocks and fields are illusions" scenario, because in that movie your own internal powers of observation seemingly remain intact even though the external world now presents a conundrum. On the other hand, if all of your observational tools were faulty, you would not be able to tell which was the real illusion. Are you actually a battery for machines, or is your perception that you are a battery the illusion? Without any trustworthy powers of observation, how would you ever learn which was the real illusion?