Materialism, Determinism, Free Will

[Anonymous]

Let’s take me as an example, philosophically / religiously I’m a deist pythagorean / neoplatonist, so I think souls exist, and find metaphysical materialism / determinism a sort of performative contradiction. I guess that a non-materialism view of history to some degree follows from that, so that would be an obstacle for me from joining the party, right? Politically / economically, I’m an anarcho-communist, which, as I far see from glancing at world socialism, is pretty similar.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Let’s take me as an example, philosophically / religiously I’m a deist pythagorean / neoplatonist, so I think souls exist, and find metaphysical materialism / determinism a sort of performative contradiction. I guess that a non-materialism view of history to some degree follows from that, so that would be an obstacle for me from joining the party, right? Politically / economicaly, I’m an anarcho-communist, which, as I far see from glancing at world socialism, is pretty similar.

I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?Do you live near to where any branches meet? If you are interested in the party I think a first step would be to get down there and discuss with some members.

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

The attempt to dismiss free will, human intentionality and human creativity as  mere idealism is utterly misplaced and is itself a form of hyper-idealism.  It reduces us to the status of tiny cogs in a vast machine whose purpose is impenetrable to our mortal minds

Well that might be what you think but I disagree. I have dismissed the notion of free will, in fact now more strongly since I started this thread but I am not denying human intentionality, creativity, love, hate etc. Neither have I accused anyone of idealism (which may also turn out to be incompatible with free will). Sorry to keep quoting Sam Harris, but I’m supposed to be finishing off my diploma in capitalist economics right now 

Quote:

Recognizing that my conscious mind is always downstream from the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life—or an unhappy one, for that matter.I haven’t been noticeably harmed, and I believe I have benefited, from knowing that the next thought that unfurls in my mind will arise and become effective (or not) due to conditions that I cannot know and did not bring into being. The negative effects that people worry about—a lack of motivation, a plunge into nihilism—are simply not evident in my life. And the positive effects have been obvious. Seeing through the illusion of free will has lessened my feelings of hatred for bad people. I’m still capable of feeling hatred, of course, but when I think about the actual causes of a person’s behavior, the feeling falls away. It is a relief to put down this burden, and I think nothing would be lost if we all put it down together. On the contrary, much would be gained. We could forget about retribution and concentrate entirely on mitigating harm. (And if punishing people proved important for either deterrence or rehabilitation, we could make prison as unpleasant as required.)Understanding the true causes of human behavior does not leave any room for the traditional notion of free will. But this shouldn’t depress us, or tempt us to go off our diets. Diligence and wisdom still yield better results than sloth and stupidity. And, in psychologically healthy adults, understanding the illusoriness of free will should make divisive feelings such as pride and hatred a little less compelling. While it’s conceivable that someone, somewhere, might be made worse off by dispensing with the illusion of free will, I think that on balance, it could only produce a more compassionate, equitable, and sane society.http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?

Yes, I’ve read it, and I do agree with use of parliament, but maybe not with, as I understood your position was, a rejection of preparation for a violent aspect of revolution. I think that a socialist (as you define it) / anarcho-communist party should be active in parliament and work to dismantle the state and capitalism from there, also secondly- socialists/ communists should, IMO, be active in organising unions and workplace direct action, and also as much as the revolution approaches proportionally work on a preparation for violent conflict with the master class that, IMO, will initiate physical conflict to try and remain in power. I’m also for organising (Kropotkian) communes inside this system, and of course, fifth (or first) activity of would be spreading class consciousness; so, I’m for a revolutionary organisation working on all fronts.

Quote:

Do you live near to where any branches meet? If you are interested in the party I think a first step would be to get down there and discuss with some members.

Unfortunately, no, I’m from Eastern Europe, Serbia.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

DJP wrote:

I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?

Yes, I’ve read it, and I do agree with use of parliament, but maybe not with, as I understood your position was, a rejection of preparation for a violent aspect of revolution.

One of the reasons we say that the working class must gain control of the state is so that the armed forces cannot be used against us. Since the transition to socialism can only be bought forth by a majority revolution the only violence would be that of the minority trying to defend its former position. We are not a pacifist party but on the same accord it would be foolish to encourage a violent conflict with the state before a revolutionary majority has been reached. “Peaceably if we may, Forcibly if we must”

Quote:

I think that a socialist (as you define it) / anarcho-communist party should be active in parliament and work to dismantle the state from there, also secondly- socialists/ communists should be active in organising unions and workplace direct action, and also as much as the revolution approaches proportionally work on a preparation for violent conflict with the master class that, IMO, will initiate physical conflict to try and remain in power, of course, fourth (or first) activity of would be spreading class consciousness; so, I’m for a revolutionary organisation working on all fronts.

Again we do not appose socialists acting within unions upon sound lines. But the setting up of socialist unions before a socialist majority has arisen is rejected as a futile tactic.If you’d like to discuss these issues on the forum please feel free to start as many topics as you’d like.

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

it would be foolish to encourage a violent conflict with the state before a revolutionary majority has been reached. “Peaceably if we may, Forcibly if we must”.

I agree with that, I just think that the conflict will be almost certain. I just don’t see the bulk of people in power (and their brainwashed supporters) just giving up, no matter how small of minority they are.

Quote:

But the setting up of socialist unions before a socialist majority has arisen is rejected as a futile tactic.

I see it as a kind of psychological tool, IMO workers only reading about a better world and not acting about it here and there, but just spreading the word, become demotivated by their daily slaving to capitalists, and disintresed in the cause if the only thing they can do is to talk and talk with other workers expaining them they should be socialists.I’ve read an article about a record Plutarch wrote down that goes like this: A Roman senator named Pupius Piso once ordered his slaves not to speak unless spoken to. He had no time for idle talk. He also arranged an elegant dinner-party at which the guest of honour was to be a dignitary named Clodius. At the appropriate time all the guests arrived except Clodius. So Piso sent the slave responsible for having invited the guest of honour to see where he was – several times – but still Clodius did not appear. In despair Piso finally questioned the slave: ‘Did you send Clodius an invitation?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘So why hasn’t he come?’ ‘Because he declined’. ‘Then why didn’t you tell me earlier? ‘Because you didn’t ask.’Work by rule, slow-downs, various types of sabotage, strikes, and similar, I think they are pretty valuable in a type of “psychological warfare” as the article calls it, and keeping the morale of workers up and their minds on the goal of winning the class conflict.

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

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 something else.

  This is specifically not what is being said,  Neither Horgan nor myself would suggest anything to contrary.  The question is not whether there can be such a thing for which there can be no cause but rather what that cause is.  Can mind itself be a causal agency in the world? You would seem to accept that it can since you accept the reality of ” downward causation” 

DJP wrote:

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.

Unfortunately I have no audio facility on my decrepit computer so there was no point in me watching the video.   I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent.  For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. and this 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. So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand,  there no evidence for consciousness  and on the other  that there are “signs” of consciousness.  Figure that one out if you will…. There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, 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. So what is Harris trying to say here?  If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would  be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of  this consciousness?  There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2)  that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3)  that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)  

DJP wrote:

 

robbo203 wrote:

It concerns me that there are Marxists who toy with the deterministic language of a teleological 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!

 No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else.  A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the former This is fully compatible with a teleological view of history which in effects looks at this one way causal relationship between determining and determined aspects of the universe as working itself out over time.  So the claim that  “socialism in inevitable” implies that the development of  the economic base of capitalism has a built in or inexorable consequence of turning workers into socialists who in turn must necessarily introduce socialism.  In other words socialism comes about as a result of a lawlike process which can only have socialism as its outcome

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Unfortunately I have no audio facility on my decrepit computer so there was no point in me watching the video. 

That’s a shame because I think it’s really rather good.

Quote:

I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent.  For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience.

This point is explained further in the footnote. Has anyone ever held and photographed an intent or a feeling? We might be able to view a brain scan of someone intending or feeling something but this tells us nothing of what the actual experience is like.

Quote:

and this 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.So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand,  there no evidence for consciousness  and on the other  that there are “signs” of consciousness.  Figure that one out if you will….

The only evidence for consciousness is consciousness itself but as consciousness is something that can only be experienced privately it seems hard to know how science can objectively observe it.

Quote:

There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, 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. So what is Harris trying to say here?  If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would  be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of  this consciousness?  There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2)  that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3)  that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)

Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that. But rejects the ego as a fiction.You’re right he is committed to options 1 or 2 or maybe some other ones you haven’t thought of. His answer is probably “we don’t know” which at this moment in time would be the correct one.If you cannot admit the problems with emergence as an explanation of consciousness then that’s your problem not mine.There’s some good stuff of Harris’s site you should give it a read to get the full gist of his argument before prematurely accusing him of being inconsistent.

Quote:

No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else.  A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the former

Well I just checked and there’s nothing in the standard definition of a deterministic system which says that effects do not go on to be causes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy)The problem is not ‘determinism’ per se but ‘economic determinism’, ‘technological determinism’, ‘genetic determinism’ etc which take one factor as the sole explanation of others.

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent.  For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience.

 This point is explained further in the footnote. Has anyone ever held and photographed an intent or a feeling? We might be able to view a brain scan of someone intending or feeling something but this tells us nothing of what the actual experience is like.

 But the fact that you cannot produce direct empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness does not mean it does not exist.  This is problem with positivism , it precludes all other sorts of knowledge and epistemological approaches such as rationalism and phenomenology For instance,  on this basis I could just as easily retort that economic classes in a Marxian sense do not exist.  You cannot photograph or empirically capture in some way the essence of an economic class and yet as socialists we are certain that economic classes exist.  Why? My argument is that everything that Harris has to say about about physical existence presupposes his consciousness of it. Even the very act of articulating a long and thoughtful argument to show that there is no evidence for the existence of consciousness is itself evidence for the existence of consciousness 

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

and this 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.So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand,  there no evidence for consciousness  and on the other  that there are “signs” of consciousness.  Figure that one out if you will….

The only evidence for consciousness is consciousness itself but as consciousness is something that can only be experienced privately it seems hard to know how science can objectively observe it.

 But  this is precisely why I stress the limits of scientific understanding and the risk of “scientism”. It is also why I feel uncomfortable about the fetishisation of “scientific materialism”  – as if science can explain everything. It cant. Science is an extremely  useful tool to aid understanding but it is not the be all and end all.  Its also why I dont like the term scientific socialism,.  Apart from anything else socialism is also a question of values

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, 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. So what is Harris trying to say here?  If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would  be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of  this consciousness?  There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2)  that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3)  that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)

Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that. But rejects the ego as a fiction.You’re right he is committed to options 1 or 2 or maybe some other ones you haven’t thought of. His answer is probably “we don’t know” which at this moment in time would be the correct one.If you cannot admit the problems with emergence as an explanation of consciousness then that’s your problem not mine.There’s some good stuff of Harris’s site you should give it a read to get the full gist of his argument before prematurely accusing him of being inconsistent.

 Yes sure I will do some more reading of Harris but logically speaking it seems to me that he can hardly deny that consciousness exists – denial would itself constitute proof of consciousness – in which case I can only  logically think that one of the 3 options I outlined above must be the explanation. To me that is emergence theory.  the alternative is creationism or the mystical idea that consciousness has always existed. Of course there are, and always will be,  “problems” with emergence as an explanation of consciousness. I’m not denying that – but that again points to the limits of scientific understanding.  We may never know how consciousness or mind appeared as an emergent property of the brain but we do know that it exists by inference and that it exerts downward causation for which there exists pretty solid indirect evidence of an empirical kind  – psychosomatic effects etc 

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else.  A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the former

Well I just checked and there’s nothing in the standard definition of a deterministic system which says that effects do not go on to be causes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy)The problem is not ‘determinism’ per se but ‘economic determinism’, ‘technological determinism’, ‘genetic determinism’ etc which take one factor as the sole explanation of others.

 No, the piece from Wikipedia is not saying what you are saying – at least as I interpret it  For example it says In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. The totality of these cascading events can theoretically show exactly how the system will exist at any moment in time. The example it gives of such a cascading event is the 3 domino pieces. Push one and it knocks over the other which knocks over  the final piece .  There is in other words a sense of directionality which is implied in the very idea of a “cascading” event.  A deterministic system implies more than just the universality of causality. It implies a hierarchy or a sense of temporal priority. So the third domino piece tippling over can  be explained by the first domino piece toppling over which affects the second and thus the third.  However the third cannot account for the first toppling over.  To that extent we have a one way deterministic account. Transferring this argument to a discussion of society and history  in general  you might have a crude deterministic model such as contained in Marx’s famous formulation that social being determines consciousness and not the other way round. Though this is a caricature of his thinking which was much more nuanced than that, it conforms to what I would call a deterministic model –  there is a one way movement of cause and effect. The thing to note is that this does not have to be absolute – it can be relative depending on how much weight you attach to the factor “social being” in comparison with consciousness”.  So it would still be possible to propose a relatively  deterministic model if you see consciousness having a pretty weak reciprocal influence on social being compared with the effect of the latter upon the consciousness itself

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

But the fact that you cannot produce direct empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness does not mean it does not exist.  This is problem with positivism , it precludes all other sorts of knowledge and epistemological approaches such as rationalism and phenomenology

This is not what I said “Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that.” Can you not read?

Quote:

The example it gives of such a cascading event is the 3 domino pieces. Push one and it knocks over the other which knocks over  the final piece .  There is in other words a sense of directionality which is implied in the very idea of a “cascading” event.  A deterministic system implies more than just the universality of causality. It implies a hierarchy or a sense of temporal priority. So the third domino piece tippling over can  be explained by the first domino piece toppling over which affects the second and thus the third.  However the third cannot account for the first toppling over.  To that extent we have a one way deterministic account.

Yes that is because in the example we are moving forward in time, spooky hey? That surely never happens in real life?Again you’re not reading the whole article and quoting bits out of context, look at the other examples given for deterministic systems. Would you be happier if instead of “determinism” I used the word “causality”?

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But the fact that you cannot produce direct empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness does not mean it does not exist.  This is problem with positivism , it precludes all other sorts of knowledge and epistemological approaches such as rationalism and phenomenology

This is not what I said “Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that.” Can you not read?

 I’m not quite sure what you are on about.  I was referring directly to Harris’ comment as follows:The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience Perhaps I’m nitpicking but if Harris had qualifed his statement  by saying there is no emprical evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world I might have been happier 

DJP wrote:

Quote:

The example it gives of such a cascading event is the 3 domino pieces. Push one and it knocks over the other which knocks over  the final piece.  There is in other words a sense of directionality which is implied in the very idea of a “cascading” event.  A deterministic system implies more than just the universality of causality. It implies a hierarchy or a sense of temporal priority. So the third domino piece tippling over can  be explained by the first domino piece toppling over which affects the second and thus the third.  However the third cannot account for the first toppling over.  To that extent we have a one way deterministic account.

Yes that is because in the example we are moving forward in time, spooky hey? That surely never happens in real life?Again your not reading the whole article and quoting bits out of context, look at the other examples given for deterministic systems. Would you be happier if instead of “determinism” I used the word “causality”?

 What article are you talking about?  The Harris article or the Wiki article? I was referring to the latter which you linked to to substantiate your definition of determinism.  I was saying that determinism implies more than just causality.  It also implies directionality. – some things are causal agents; other things are effects – and hierarchy – some things are more determining than others, etc. So a non deterministic model is not necessarily one that is a-causal.  It’s the pattern of causality that makes it deterministic…

[ALB]

Looking for something else, I came across this contribution to a discussion of this same theme on our other forum in 2000:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/1905I don’t think his article did get published in the Socialist Standard.

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Perhaps I’m nitpicking

Yes you are!

Quote:

I was saying that determinism implies more than just causality.  It also implies directionality. – some things are causal agents; other things are effects – and hierarchy – some things are more determining than others, etc. So a non deterministic model is not necessarily one that is a-causal.  It’s the pattern of causality that makes it deterministic…

I don’t know where you’re getting this definition from. None that I’ve came across define it so narrowly, or with so many caveats. Broadly speaking it just means “the doctrine that every event has a cause”.But I’m getting the feeling this discussion has passed it’s usefulness now…

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Broadly speaking it just means “the doctrine that every event has a cause”.

Then we could say that metaphysical libertarianism is a type of determinism, being that it is the opinion that people’s thoughts and actions are caused by free will.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Quote:

Broadly speaking it just means “the doctrine that every event has a cause”.

Then we could say that metaphysical libertarianism is a type of determinism, being that it is the opinion that people’s thoughts and actions are caused by free will.

You couldn’t because the libertarians would say that ‘free will’ is not caused by anything prior. 

[Author]

Posts