So desperate are our elites to purge God from our world, they will produce any manner of nonsense, slap a label of "science" on it, and present these fairy tales as facts.
obviously the elite is the most obsessed with it but I think the general population is thirsty for "science" also. We lost belief, we have no transcendental future in our life anymore and we lost the ability to just let things work out by itself. Accept the things as they come. The whole population became control freaks due to "science" that we can control everything. I think this control freakiness is also one very foundational reason that we became climate paranoids. If we are advanced technological civilization how it could be possible that we are not in control of climate and that we are up for whatever the environment decides for us.
Good point. Science is our god, and scientism is our poorly expressed worship of our god.
With the loss of the transcendental (God), we lose the Christian notion of human dignity and the sanctity of human life. I fear that things will get really, really ugly.
Every day it is humbling to be confronted with how little I really know. From this day forward, I'll never look at my big toes in the same way again. Respect!
Once I realized there wasn’t a study that proved sidewalks support the weight of most every human, every single step I’ve taken has been filled with trepidation.
“We cannot breathe beer (alas), a man, unless initiated into strange practices, will look approvingly on a woman, we must rely absolutely absolutely on others for the first years of our lives, if we have short legs we cannot play basketball against professionals, if we are limited intellectually the best we can do is listen to NPR. And so on.”
Excellent corrective to some of the excesses of determinist thinking (and not just the genetic determinists)
For good reasons you pass over group-level intelligence (discussion of it is not directly to your purpose) while allowing that it is probably biological, at least partially. But don't you think that biologically determined intelligence constrains the expression of Free Will and therefore the environment, which then enters into a feedback loop with biology--and not just as it conditions intelligence but also epigenetic expression of body shape, general health, life expectancy, living conditions etc?
If so, couldn't it be the same with other behaviours? Couldn't varying population-level propensities towards eg trusting others also be biological and involve similar feedback loops? If not, where *does* demonstrated inter-ethnic variation in such behaviours originate? It can't be in the unmodified natural environment, because such a state exists in no niche occupied by human beings. If you'd care to answer, I'd be genuinely curious to know what you think.
It’s interesting that Richard Dawkins’s doctoral examiner, Denis Noble, has recently stated that ‘purpose, creativity, and innovation are fundamental to evolution.’
But those words, ‘Purpose, creativity, and innovation’ are taken directly from the mission statement of the Discovery Institute (advocates of Intelligent Design)!
Stove just steamrolls them. He just went up a few notches on my list of books that must be read but likely will not be read ... unless I live to be 125 years old.
I used to think that the virus-denier people were nut jobs, until I started looking into the molecular biology of gene expression. Even when it comes to a prokaryotic cell like e-coli bacteria, much of "The Science" is remarkably clueless. Shit "just happens".
This is false, as the proofs of immaterial intellect demonstrate.
But if you think you have a case, then you will have to construct a proof in which a being can have an “illusion”, being very careful to spell out precisely what you mean by “illusion”.
I had no choice but to call your argument is silly. Sorry. Well, not sorry. That’s the “illusion” saying sorry. There is no sorry when there is no free will.
If free will is an illusion, then your conclusion that free will is an illusion is actually caused by laws of physics that are agnostic to truth or logic. Thus, your “reasoning process” is also an illusion, and its conclusion is therefore invalid.
The reasoning process is fundamentally different from the belief in free will. The reasoning process can indeed determine truth through empirical data and logical interpretation. For instance, using actual data from the eyes, one can determine that there are two tomatoes on a plate, not one—assuming no influences such as schizophrenic or drug-induced hallucinations. This observation is grounded in sensory input and cognitive processing, making it a reliable method of understanding reality.
In contrast, the belief in free will is akin to a hallucination. It cannot be seen, it has not been proven, and it remains a highly subjective and philosophical concept. The argument that the conclusion about free will being an illusion is invalid because it is derived from the laws of physics misunderstands the nature of emergent properties in complex systems.
Consider a silicon processor: made from sand, silicon in its raw form is not logical. However, when structured and processed into a CPU, it performs logical operations and processes data accurately. Similarly, the human brain, composed of neurons and other biological components, can exhibit properties of truth and logic through its complex interactions. While individual atoms may be agnostic to truth and logic, the structures they form—such as the human brain—are capable of logical reasoning and perceiving truth.
The analogy extends to our reasoning capabilities. Just as silicon in a CPU performs logical operations despite being made from non-logical sand, the human brain can reason and determine truth, even if the atoms themselves are not intrinsically logical. This emergent property allows us to rely on our reasoning processes, validating our conclusions based on empirical data and logic.
However, it is crucial to differentiate this from the emergence of the concept of free will. The emergence of logical reasoning and truth perception in the brain is based on observable and testable interactions of neurons and cognitive processes. In contrast, the claim that free will emerges in a similar manner lacks empirical evidence and remains a philosophical assertion rather than a scientifically validated phenomenon. While the brain’s structure and function support logical reasoning through observable neural mechanisms, the concept of free will does not have the same basis in empirical science.
To further illustrate, consider slicing those two tomatoes and placing them on the philosophical word salad you provided that is often used to confuse minds unfamiliar with neuroscience. The core argument remains: our reasoning processes, based on empirical data and cognitive interpretation, are valid and reliable, whereas the belief in free will is a separate, more abstract philosophical debate without the same grounding in scientific observation.
Nonsense. Every logical inference is an act of the will. Someone chooses to apply the laws of logic, when they certainly have the capacity not to. This is why mathematics can be taught.
Nonsense, is your oversimplification of complex systems in the brain.
Firstly, logic and mathematical reasoning are skills that must be taught. Without exposure to logical principles and mathematical concepts, no amount of willpower alone can enable someone to perform complex logical or mathematical tasks. For instance, a person who has never been taught algebra cannot simply will themselves to solve algebraic equations.
Furthermore, many cognitive processes, including pattern recognition and abstract reasoning, occur automatically in the brain. Children can solve problems like filling in random abstract shapes (such as those used in the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) project) not through conscious will, but because their neural networks are naturally wired to detect patterns and abstract them. These solutions often “pop” into their heads without a conscious decision to engage in logical reasoning.
Additionally, many complex problems are solved subconsciously. During sleep, the brain continues to process information and form new neural connections, leading to solutions that seem to appear out of nowhere upon waking. This phenomenon demonstrates that reasoning and problem-solving can occur independently of conscious will.
AI systems currently struggle with tasks that require abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, such as those in the ARC project, because AI lacks the neural architecture that humans have, which is inherently capable of such tasks. The human brain’s ability to recognize and abstract patterns is an emergent property of its complex neural structure, not a result of conscious will.
The idea that logical inference is purely an act of will is like claiming a water fountain has control over the underground water pump it relies on. Just as the fountain operates based on the pump’s mechanisms, our logical reasoning is driven by the brain’s neural processes, many of which are automatic and subconscious.
No, it’s not necessary for logic and math to “be taught”. Proof: who taught the first logician or the first mathematician? Whence came their reasoning skills with nobody to teach them?
You seem to be making a religious argument, full of assertions and certainty but with no supporting evidence.
In fact, you even contradict yourself, saying both “logic and mathematical reasoning are skills that must be taught” and “…and abstract reasoning occur automatically in the brain”. Are logic and mathematical reasoning not abstract? Must they be taught or do they occur automatically in the brain? I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you haven’t thought that through. Maybe reasoning isn’t occurring automatically in your brain?
One of the mathematical and logical skills I was taught is to recognize that if you accept contradictory axioms, you can “prove” anything. Your argument seems to be all axiom and very little proof.
I am not saying it is purely an act of the will. I am saying, it requires the will. If you remove the will, you remove the possibility of logical reasoning. Ideas and solutions that pop into your head during sleep still need to be worked through formally and logically - you cannot trust them automatically. Some of them turn out to be false.
I think you’re taking it a bit too literally. The claim is that genes *influence* things, including, crucially, the development of human brains, in such a way that the information content of our genes is causally upstream of our personality traits (alongside other factors, though it is quite plausible that the second biggest factor after genes could turn out to be random informational noise during gestation, with little room for parenting and other more obvious environmental factors), and those personality traits determine how we will act in any given situation.
It's self evident he doesn't believe this, because none of his other beliefs conform to this one.
The only utility this belief has is it allows him to dismiss all other human beings as mere animals, while he is the enlightened being for merely understanding that they are animals.
In reality he's not even smart enough to see the disconnect
Look everyone! ChatGPT here is trying to be philosophical! Fortunately, us humans with free will can ignore the unthinking automata. After all, it can't help being retarded. It has no free will, after all, and its programming makes it say stupid things.
Since free will is an illusion, your genes made you say that. Therefore, it has no truth value, any more than a dog barking or a bird tweeting. So I’m going to ignore it.
No, one wouldn't, because they haven't actually been made to look like fools, although the strawmanned version put up by their detractors is indeed often foolish.
You yourself claim that if someone's genes determined that they would say X, X has no truth value. That is a complete non-sequitur. X is perfectly capable of being either true or false (and we may be perfectly capable of assessing the likely truth or falsity of X) entirely regardless of whether someone said X as a result of a causal chain that their genes are upstream of.
More generally, although Martin Sewell's comment is a bit oversimplified (ignoring the role of non-genetic influences on the development of our personalities, that also influence how we will behave), the core point, that there is no reason to think that there is some sort of extra non-determined determiner that makes choices outside of the chain of physical causality that includes our genetics, and all the non-genetic physical influences on our personalities, is a perfectly reasonable one. It's not so much that free will is an illusion, rather that the idea of what free will would have to be in order to disconnect from deterministic causality, is an *incoherent* idea (though there may of course be politically valid reasons for pretending otherwise in some places at some times; I'm not sure the comments section of a Substack is such a place).
Not just genes and reproduction drive human behavior; various homeostatic mechanisms continually influence the body’s actions, all of which are determined by physiological needs. Imagine free will believers at home deciding to have their next thought be about reproduction. Suddenly, out of nowhere, they think, “I haven’t considered reproducing for a while. I should use my free will to initiate thoughts of pornographic imagination, ensuring it remains within Victorian propriety so as not to anger my lord about the miracle of agency lovingly bestowed upon me.”
This idea of free will is as misguided as a water fountain claiming it has control over the underground water pump its neither aware of nor has thoroughly studied. The fountain spouts water based on the pump’s unseen mechanisms, just as our thoughts and actions stem from underlying biological processes these individuals scarcely comprehend. Believing in free will overlooks the complex, determined systems that govern our behaviour.
For those with brains and who like to uncover actual reality in order to reduce the suffering of all beings rather than trying to hide it behind blind faith or philosophical word salads, I highly recommend reading Sapolsky’s Determined and Richard Oerton’s books on the free will illusion. Between those, they unravel the thousands of years of murdering gays or burning witches because some ‘loving’ god told them if they put their hands together and whisper into their big tech devices all their deepest darkest secrets at night they’ll be saved from eternally burning. Interestingly, no god of any religion even mentioned the brain or its importance in uncovering the truth. Just like he gave commandments on stone rather than iPads (which would have been more believable at the time - I mean god did create the universe supposedly and the material for iPads existed at that time). Some gods murder their only son so you can metaphorically eat his flesh and drink his blood, some aren’t allowed to be named or drawn and some told their followers that they can only charge interest for foreigners - all of them are right and good though. Religious individuals didn’t stop burning witches by praying for the insights science has given us regarding the problems within neuronal structures that we now diagnose as schizophrenia. God failed at that. Just as another (or maybe the same god) is currently failing to stop kids being blown apart in other countries. Praying doesn’t change those things, they are the miserable reality until people change those things. If praying does work it means there’s groups of Christian’s hiding away somewhere using their cheat code to pray for US bombs to land on Palestinian kids heads somewhere right now. I’ll have to pray for dinner later or maybe it requires cumulative ‘whisper wishes’ to take effect - another thing made unclear by this all knowing, loving god who bestowed ‘agency’ upon us so as children in other countries can ‘choose’ to die by shrapnel induced decapitation. Keep listening to the foolish, thoroughly disproven free will arguments (fully discredited in the books I’ve recommended - and many more) and you keep burning witches. People continue to die and be abused day after day because of these kinds of failed arguments. Free will is an illusion, it’s never and will never be proven. Luckily, the general trend of society points to the masses finally understanding these important realities over time. That’ll be due to determinism, curiosity and scientific progress though, not paying for the pope to have some more priceless paintings on his ceiling. I didn’t write this because I have free will. I wrote it because I’ve read those books I mentioned, because this article popped up and the data automatically (without my choice) entered my optic nerve via photons to be converted to signals and pass into the deeper network of processing neurons that saw the data and recognised it was related to the memory of the important teachings. Without reading those books or this article popping up following their reading, I wouldn’t have just wrote and posted this because I wouldn’t have a comment section to post to or the knowledge to even type this.
We are free to choose how we behave within environmental constraints (which gives us the illusion of free will), but we cannot subvert our own motivational set (reproduction).
Except for the insistence on “illusion”, which is not yet defined”, this is closer to our position. The limitations are granted, and our intellect can make choices “inside” those walls. This is not an illusion.
As far as subverting, say, reproduction, let me introduce you to “Pride” parades.
Free will is an illusion in the sense that we believe that we have free will (because our behaviour is flexible), but, strictly speaking, we do not have free will (because we cannot transcend our genes).
Everything that we do is either reproduction, or instrumental to it. Nothing else could have evolved. We are motivated to maximize inclusive fitness. A gay person could help close relatives, or a ‘gay gene’ could enhance fertility when found in women.
I love it when morons disprove their own argument.
There's no reproductive advantage to being an atheist or believing in evolution. Rather, there is a fantastic reproductive disadvantage.
How many kids do you have? How many kids have you helped your family have?
Don't lie, we know the answer is none. This is all about felating your own ego. If you really believed any of this you would be praying a rosary with me in front of planned parenthood as a way of trying to live out your genetic prime directive. It wouldn't matter to you in the least if you believed God was listening or not, you would care that the world sees your opposition.
But again, this very exercise that you are undertaking proves you don't believe the ideas you are defending. Because their existence has no reproductive instrumentation. They only flatter your ego, because or your transcendent will
Not only are we free to choose but we can increase our capacity to choose. A believer in materialistic determinism will have less capacity to choose than he who has the good fortune to be raised amongst a people believing in objective truth goodness and beauty to which we knowingly conform by the exercise of will.
I wish you wouldn’t call it genetic Calvinism, though I admit it is a good jab. We explicitly affirm that free will is compatible with God decreeing whatsoever comes to pass, but we cannot explain how. You can charge us with believing a contradiction, or chide us for failing to explain the mechanism, but you cannot say our logic is “God decrees all things, therefore free will does not exist.” That’s like a Protestant saying Rome teaches salvation by works.
While I appreciate your flexibility, Calvin taught that free will was destroyed in the fall.
As Thomist, I believe God can predestin our future while keeping us free even in our fallen state. But that's a bit different from Calvin's perspective
This is actually common point of confusion. Apologies for the long reply, but it is worth clearing up.
We believe that free will was “destroyed” at the fall in that, since the fall, the will of man is in bondage to sin and we are unable to free ourselves. This is our condition from conception, and it is indeed the Calvinist teaching on original sin. However, this has nothing to do with determinism!
1) We affirm that Adam’s will before the fall was free [WCF IX:2]. God still decreed the fall.
2) When God regenerates a soul, he frees their will [WCF IX:4]. So all Christians have free will — we are no longer slaves to sin. There remains a battle with indwelling sin, but there is now the possibility of winning.
3) Even though the will of unbelievers is in bondage to sin, this does not mean they loose volition [WCF IX:1, IX:3]. They still make real choices, but the condition of their heart is “desperately wicked”, and this necessarily affects their choices.
So you see, predestination in no way rests upon the bondage of the will. On this point, we may differ from Thomists less than you suppose.
I include references to the Westminster Confession of Faith to show that this is not just my personal flexibility, but stock standard reformed doctrine. Everything relevant is in Chapter 9.
Wouldn’t it have been easier for God if He’d made us all machines, with completely predictable, pre-programmed behavior? There’d be no need to go around blowing things up to express His displeasure. God surely must be very regretful of His egregious blunder (perfection notwithstanding) of endowing us with pointless free will so we could do stupid things that make Him mad.
I entertain the thought that God tried that for a while (maybe even an infinite number of times, which only God can do), got bored (because it was so easy) and decided to make things difficult. This may explain why there is evil, because otherwise God would only create copies of Himself.
God doesn't get bored. His perfection means that He is completely satisfied merely being Himself. Creation offers Him no benefit on any level. He creates, not because creation offers Him anything, but only and purely out of the desire that the created thing exist for its own sake.
His needs,all of them.even the social, mental and spiritual needs, are completely satisfied simply by being Himself. He creates only for the sake of the created.
Yes. Choice being the operative word. He also gave us the capacity not only to choose means to an end, which even animals can do, but we also have the gift of the capacity to choose the ends themselves. It’s up to us to make worthy choices.
But there’s no coercion — God wants only volunteers, not conscripts. He gave us agency, and respects the sanctity of that gift.
This was a very interesting article and addressed many questions I planned to ask before the end. I appreciate especially you addressing how indeterminacy would address some commonplace examples of biologically determined traits (humans at large being determined not to fly, persons with Down Syndrome being determined to be mentally simple [an example I was planning to employ myself]). Not sure what I’d want to ask, but perhaps I’ll try and draw something out further: are you one who would say that accounting for the indeterminacy of our nature, and our ability to have awareness about our genes despite “being” genes ourselves, comes down to something that would classically have been called “the soul”?
One of my biggest questions re the difference between us and the other primates is the one of qualitative vs quantitative intelligence; we either are so much smarter that we achieve reason while they are simply much lower down the intellect ring that they can't compete, or that there is something undoubtedly different, a circuit of intelligence in our brain that doesn't exist in monkeys. What's your opinion on this dilemma? Have you found any evidence in either direction?
Excellent. One of your best essays.
So desperate are our elites to purge God from our world, they will produce any manner of nonsense, slap a label of "science" on it, and present these fairy tales as facts.
It’s not about “God” as it is about the ineffable.
obviously the elite is the most obsessed with it but I think the general population is thirsty for "science" also. We lost belief, we have no transcendental future in our life anymore and we lost the ability to just let things work out by itself. Accept the things as they come. The whole population became control freaks due to "science" that we can control everything. I think this control freakiness is also one very foundational reason that we became climate paranoids. If we are advanced technological civilization how it could be possible that we are not in control of climate and that we are up for whatever the environment decides for us.
Good point. Science is our god, and scientism is our poorly expressed worship of our god.
With the loss of the transcendental (God), we lose the Christian notion of human dignity and the sanctity of human life. I fear that things will get really, really ugly.
Every day it is humbling to be confronted with how little I really know. From this day forward, I'll never look at my big toes in the same way again. Respect!
"We have free will, you either believe that or you don't." Fr. John Hardon
Once I realized there wasn’t a study that proved sidewalks support the weight of most every human, every single step I’ve taken has been filled with trepidation.
A tour de force. Just one of many gems:
“We cannot breathe beer (alas), a man, unless initiated into strange practices, will look approvingly on a woman, we must rely absolutely absolutely on others for the first years of our lives, if we have short legs we cannot play basketball against professionals, if we are limited intellectually the best we can do is listen to NPR. And so on.”
Excellent corrective to some of the excesses of determinist thinking (and not just the genetic determinists)
For good reasons you pass over group-level intelligence (discussion of it is not directly to your purpose) while allowing that it is probably biological, at least partially. But don't you think that biologically determined intelligence constrains the expression of Free Will and therefore the environment, which then enters into a feedback loop with biology--and not just as it conditions intelligence but also epigenetic expression of body shape, general health, life expectancy, living conditions etc?
If so, couldn't it be the same with other behaviours? Couldn't varying population-level propensities towards eg trusting others also be biological and involve similar feedback loops? If not, where *does* demonstrated inter-ethnic variation in such behaviours originate? It can't be in the unmodified natural environment, because such a state exists in no niche occupied by human beings. If you'd care to answer, I'd be genuinely curious to know what you think.
Great post! Thank you.
It’s interesting that Richard Dawkins’s doctoral examiner, Denis Noble, has recently stated that ‘purpose, creativity, and innovation are fundamental to evolution.’
But those words, ‘Purpose, creativity, and innovation’ are taken directly from the mission statement of the Discovery Institute (advocates of Intelligent Design)!
Ref:
https://www.denisnoble.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TranscriptReferences.pdf
Very useful essay, thank you for it!
Stove just steamrolls them. He just went up a few notches on my list of books that must be read but likely will not be read ... unless I live to be 125 years old.
Good tip
I will find on libg...I mean consoom from amazon immediately
Very great post. Thank you!
I used to think that the virus-denier people were nut jobs, until I started looking into the molecular biology of gene expression. Even when it comes to a prokaryotic cell like e-coli bacteria, much of "The Science" is remarkably clueless. Shit "just happens".
Free will is an illusion. Our genes dictate that our ultimate goal is reproduction, and we cannot transcend our genes.
This is false, as the proofs of immaterial intellect demonstrate.
But if you think you have a case, then you will have to construct a proof in which a being can have an “illusion”, being very careful to spell out precisely what you mean by “illusion”.
I had no choice but to call your argument is silly. Sorry. Well, not sorry. That’s the “illusion” saying sorry. There is no sorry when there is no free will.
If free will is an illusion, then your conclusion that free will is an illusion is actually caused by laws of physics that are agnostic to truth or logic. Thus, your “reasoning process” is also an illusion, and its conclusion is therefore invalid.
The reasoning process is fundamentally different from the belief in free will. The reasoning process can indeed determine truth through empirical data and logical interpretation. For instance, using actual data from the eyes, one can determine that there are two tomatoes on a plate, not one—assuming no influences such as schizophrenic or drug-induced hallucinations. This observation is grounded in sensory input and cognitive processing, making it a reliable method of understanding reality.
In contrast, the belief in free will is akin to a hallucination. It cannot be seen, it has not been proven, and it remains a highly subjective and philosophical concept. The argument that the conclusion about free will being an illusion is invalid because it is derived from the laws of physics misunderstands the nature of emergent properties in complex systems.
Consider a silicon processor: made from sand, silicon in its raw form is not logical. However, when structured and processed into a CPU, it performs logical operations and processes data accurately. Similarly, the human brain, composed of neurons and other biological components, can exhibit properties of truth and logic through its complex interactions. While individual atoms may be agnostic to truth and logic, the structures they form—such as the human brain—are capable of logical reasoning and perceiving truth.
The analogy extends to our reasoning capabilities. Just as silicon in a CPU performs logical operations despite being made from non-logical sand, the human brain can reason and determine truth, even if the atoms themselves are not intrinsically logical. This emergent property allows us to rely on our reasoning processes, validating our conclusions based on empirical data and logic.
However, it is crucial to differentiate this from the emergence of the concept of free will. The emergence of logical reasoning and truth perception in the brain is based on observable and testable interactions of neurons and cognitive processes. In contrast, the claim that free will emerges in a similar manner lacks empirical evidence and remains a philosophical assertion rather than a scientifically validated phenomenon. While the brain’s structure and function support logical reasoning through observable neural mechanisms, the concept of free will does not have the same basis in empirical science.
To further illustrate, consider slicing those two tomatoes and placing them on the philosophical word salad you provided that is often used to confuse minds unfamiliar with neuroscience. The core argument remains: our reasoning processes, based on empirical data and cognitive interpretation, are valid and reliable, whereas the belief in free will is a separate, more abstract philosophical debate without the same grounding in scientific observation.
Nonsense. Every logical inference is an act of the will. Someone chooses to apply the laws of logic, when they certainly have the capacity not to. This is why mathematics can be taught.
Nonsense, is your oversimplification of complex systems in the brain.
Firstly, logic and mathematical reasoning are skills that must be taught. Without exposure to logical principles and mathematical concepts, no amount of willpower alone can enable someone to perform complex logical or mathematical tasks. For instance, a person who has never been taught algebra cannot simply will themselves to solve algebraic equations.
Furthermore, many cognitive processes, including pattern recognition and abstract reasoning, occur automatically in the brain. Children can solve problems like filling in random abstract shapes (such as those used in the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) project) not through conscious will, but because their neural networks are naturally wired to detect patterns and abstract them. These solutions often “pop” into their heads without a conscious decision to engage in logical reasoning.
Additionally, many complex problems are solved subconsciously. During sleep, the brain continues to process information and form new neural connections, leading to solutions that seem to appear out of nowhere upon waking. This phenomenon demonstrates that reasoning and problem-solving can occur independently of conscious will.
AI systems currently struggle with tasks that require abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, such as those in the ARC project, because AI lacks the neural architecture that humans have, which is inherently capable of such tasks. The human brain’s ability to recognize and abstract patterns is an emergent property of its complex neural structure, not a result of conscious will.
The idea that logical inference is purely an act of will is like claiming a water fountain has control over the underground water pump it relies on. Just as the fountain operates based on the pump’s mechanisms, our logical reasoning is driven by the brain’s neural processes, many of which are automatic and subconscious.
No, it’s not necessary for logic and math to “be taught”. Proof: who taught the first logician or the first mathematician? Whence came their reasoning skills with nobody to teach them?
You seem to be making a religious argument, full of assertions and certainty but with no supporting evidence.
In fact, you even contradict yourself, saying both “logic and mathematical reasoning are skills that must be taught” and “…and abstract reasoning occur automatically in the brain”. Are logic and mathematical reasoning not abstract? Must they be taught or do they occur automatically in the brain? I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you haven’t thought that through. Maybe reasoning isn’t occurring automatically in your brain?
One of the mathematical and logical skills I was taught is to recognize that if you accept contradictory axioms, you can “prove” anything. Your argument seems to be all axiom and very little proof.
I am not saying it is purely an act of the will. I am saying, it requires the will. If you remove the will, you remove the possibility of logical reasoning. Ideas and solutions that pop into your head during sleep still need to be worked through formally and logically - you cannot trust them automatically. Some of them turn out to be false.
Genes don’t “dictate” anything. Genes can’t talk
I think you’re taking it a bit too literally. The claim is that genes *influence* things, including, crucially, the development of human brains, in such a way that the information content of our genes is causally upstream of our personality traits (alongside other factors, though it is quite plausible that the second biggest factor after genes could turn out to be random informational noise during gestation, with little room for parenting and other more obvious environmental factors), and those personality traits determine how we will act in any given situation.
Sometimes low IQ arguments are the best arguments
there is hope me
So your statement itself is nothing more than the ineluctable consequence of your biology. If you cannot choose you cannot choose truth.
It's self evident he doesn't believe this, because none of his other beliefs conform to this one.
The only utility this belief has is it allows him to dismiss all other human beings as mere animals, while he is the enlightened being for merely understanding that they are animals.
In reality he's not even smart enough to see the disconnect
‘Free will is an illusion’
Look everyone! ChatGPT here is trying to be philosophical! Fortunately, us humans with free will can ignore the unthinking automata. After all, it can't help being retarded. It has no free will, after all, and its programming makes it say stupid things.
Since free will is an illusion, your genes made you say that. Therefore, it has no truth value, any more than a dog barking or a bird tweeting. So I’m going to ignore it.
You’d think after decades of this, these clowns would wake up to being made to look like fools.
No, one wouldn't, because they haven't actually been made to look like fools, although the strawmanned version put up by their detractors is indeed often foolish.
You yourself claim that if someone's genes determined that they would say X, X has no truth value. That is a complete non-sequitur. X is perfectly capable of being either true or false (and we may be perfectly capable of assessing the likely truth or falsity of X) entirely regardless of whether someone said X as a result of a causal chain that their genes are upstream of.
More generally, although Martin Sewell's comment is a bit oversimplified (ignoring the role of non-genetic influences on the development of our personalities, that also influence how we will behave), the core point, that there is no reason to think that there is some sort of extra non-determined determiner that makes choices outside of the chain of physical causality that includes our genetics, and all the non-genetic physical influences on our personalities, is a perfectly reasonable one. It's not so much that free will is an illusion, rather that the idea of what free will would have to be in order to disconnect from deterministic causality, is an *incoherent* idea (though there may of course be politically valid reasons for pretending otherwise in some places at some times; I'm not sure the comments section of a Substack is such a place).
A valid correction of the corrective
Not just genes and reproduction drive human behavior; various homeostatic mechanisms continually influence the body’s actions, all of which are determined by physiological needs. Imagine free will believers at home deciding to have their next thought be about reproduction. Suddenly, out of nowhere, they think, “I haven’t considered reproducing for a while. I should use my free will to initiate thoughts of pornographic imagination, ensuring it remains within Victorian propriety so as not to anger my lord about the miracle of agency lovingly bestowed upon me.”
This idea of free will is as misguided as a water fountain claiming it has control over the underground water pump its neither aware of nor has thoroughly studied. The fountain spouts water based on the pump’s unseen mechanisms, just as our thoughts and actions stem from underlying biological processes these individuals scarcely comprehend. Believing in free will overlooks the complex, determined systems that govern our behaviour.
For those with brains and who like to uncover actual reality in order to reduce the suffering of all beings rather than trying to hide it behind blind faith or philosophical word salads, I highly recommend reading Sapolsky’s Determined and Richard Oerton’s books on the free will illusion. Between those, they unravel the thousands of years of murdering gays or burning witches because some ‘loving’ god told them if they put their hands together and whisper into their big tech devices all their deepest darkest secrets at night they’ll be saved from eternally burning. Interestingly, no god of any religion even mentioned the brain or its importance in uncovering the truth. Just like he gave commandments on stone rather than iPads (which would have been more believable at the time - I mean god did create the universe supposedly and the material for iPads existed at that time). Some gods murder their only son so you can metaphorically eat his flesh and drink his blood, some aren’t allowed to be named or drawn and some told their followers that they can only charge interest for foreigners - all of them are right and good though. Religious individuals didn’t stop burning witches by praying for the insights science has given us regarding the problems within neuronal structures that we now diagnose as schizophrenia. God failed at that. Just as another (or maybe the same god) is currently failing to stop kids being blown apart in other countries. Praying doesn’t change those things, they are the miserable reality until people change those things. If praying does work it means there’s groups of Christian’s hiding away somewhere using their cheat code to pray for US bombs to land on Palestinian kids heads somewhere right now. I’ll have to pray for dinner later or maybe it requires cumulative ‘whisper wishes’ to take effect - another thing made unclear by this all knowing, loving god who bestowed ‘agency’ upon us so as children in other countries can ‘choose’ to die by shrapnel induced decapitation. Keep listening to the foolish, thoroughly disproven free will arguments (fully discredited in the books I’ve recommended - and many more) and you keep burning witches. People continue to die and be abused day after day because of these kinds of failed arguments. Free will is an illusion, it’s never and will never be proven. Luckily, the general trend of society points to the masses finally understanding these important realities over time. That’ll be due to determinism, curiosity and scientific progress though, not paying for the pope to have some more priceless paintings on his ceiling. I didn’t write this because I have free will. I wrote it because I’ve read those books I mentioned, because this article popped up and the data automatically (without my choice) entered my optic nerve via photons to be converted to signals and pass into the deeper network of processing neurons that saw the data and recognised it was related to the memory of the important teachings. Without reading those books or this article popping up following their reading, I wouldn’t have just wrote and posted this because I wouldn’t have a comment section to post to or the knowledge to even type this.
Well than, you must agree that abortion ought to be illegal. Right?
Also you must believe that any form of sterlizing healthy adults must be the product of a diseased mind. Right?
Because you've already thrown out the ability to appeal to freedom. Unless of course, you don't actually believe this at all.
We are free to choose how we behave within environmental constraints (which gives us the illusion of free will), but we cannot subvert our own motivational set (reproduction).
Except for the insistence on “illusion”, which is not yet defined”, this is closer to our position. The limitations are granted, and our intellect can make choices “inside” those walls. This is not an illusion.
As far as subverting, say, reproduction, let me introduce you to “Pride” parades.
Free will is an illusion in the sense that we believe that we have free will (because our behaviour is flexible), but, strictly speaking, we do not have free will (because we cannot transcend our genes).
Everything that we do is either reproduction, or instrumental to it. Nothing else could have evolved. We are motivated to maximize inclusive fitness. A gay person could help close relatives, or a ‘gay gene’ could enhance fertility when found in women.
Everything we do is either pooping, or instrumental to it. We cannot transcend poop.
Which gene made you post like an idiot to defend a belief you can’t justify?
The essay argues that Dawkins is too much of a biological determinist, but in fact Dawkins doesn’t go far enough.
• Dawkins (1976) wrote: ‘We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.’ This is incorrect.
• Humans are just intelligent animals.
• Humans cannot transcend their (selfish) genes.
• Humans are each motivated to maximize their inclusive fitness.
• Human behaviour is very flexible.
I love it when morons disprove their own argument.
There's no reproductive advantage to being an atheist or believing in evolution. Rather, there is a fantastic reproductive disadvantage.
How many kids do you have? How many kids have you helped your family have?
Don't lie, we know the answer is none. This is all about felating your own ego. If you really believed any of this you would be praying a rosary with me in front of planned parenthood as a way of trying to live out your genetic prime directive. It wouldn't matter to you in the least if you believed God was listening or not, you would care that the world sees your opposition.
But again, this very exercise that you are undertaking proves you don't believe the ideas you are defending. Because their existence has no reproductive instrumentation. They only flatter your ego, because or your transcendent will
Not only are we free to choose but we can increase our capacity to choose. A believer in materialistic determinism will have less capacity to choose than he who has the good fortune to be raised amongst a people believing in objective truth goodness and beauty to which we knowingly conform by the exercise of will.
This is incoherent. You actually do not know what these words mean when you use them.
You heard it hear first. Straight men cannot choose to become celebrate. Straight women cannot choose to sterilize themselves. It just cannot happen.
I wish you wouldn’t call it genetic Calvinism, though I admit it is a good jab. We explicitly affirm that free will is compatible with God decreeing whatsoever comes to pass, but we cannot explain how. You can charge us with believing a contradiction, or chide us for failing to explain the mechanism, but you cannot say our logic is “God decrees all things, therefore free will does not exist.” That’s like a Protestant saying Rome teaches salvation by works.
To be fair, it's Stove quoting another fellow's coinage. I only borrowed it.
While I appreciate your flexibility, Calvin taught that free will was destroyed in the fall.
As Thomist, I believe God can predestin our future while keeping us free even in our fallen state. But that's a bit different from Calvin's perspective
This is actually common point of confusion. Apologies for the long reply, but it is worth clearing up.
We believe that free will was “destroyed” at the fall in that, since the fall, the will of man is in bondage to sin and we are unable to free ourselves. This is our condition from conception, and it is indeed the Calvinist teaching on original sin. However, this has nothing to do with determinism!
1) We affirm that Adam’s will before the fall was free [WCF IX:2]. God still decreed the fall.
2) When God regenerates a soul, he frees their will [WCF IX:4]. So all Christians have free will — we are no longer slaves to sin. There remains a battle with indwelling sin, but there is now the possibility of winning.
3) Even though the will of unbelievers is in bondage to sin, this does not mean they loose volition [WCF IX:1, IX:3]. They still make real choices, but the condition of their heart is “desperately wicked”, and this necessarily affects their choices.
So you see, predestination in no way rests upon the bondage of the will. On this point, we may differ from Thomists less than you suppose.
I include references to the Westminster Confession of Faith to show that this is not just my personal flexibility, but stock standard reformed doctrine. Everything relevant is in Chapter 9.
Wouldn’t it have been easier for God if He’d made us all machines, with completely predictable, pre-programmed behavior? There’d be no need to go around blowing things up to express His displeasure. God surely must be very regretful of His egregious blunder (perfection notwithstanding) of endowing us with pointless free will so we could do stupid things that make Him mad.
I entertain the thought that God tried that for a while (maybe even an infinite number of times, which only God can do), got bored (because it was so easy) and decided to make things difficult. This may explain why there is evil, because otherwise God would only create copies of Himself.
God doesn't get bored. His perfection means that He is completely satisfied merely being Himself. Creation offers Him no benefit on any level. He creates, not because creation offers Him anything, but only and purely out of the desire that the created thing exist for its own sake.
He made us in his own image, which included agency.
Exactly. So why?
So that we would exist.
His needs,all of them.even the social, mental and spiritual needs, are completely satisfied simply by being Himself. He creates only for the sake of the created.
Because Love is a free choice, and Love is naturally expansive.
Yes. Choice being the operative word. He also gave us the capacity not only to choose means to an end, which even animals can do, but we also have the gift of the capacity to choose the ends themselves. It’s up to us to make worthy choices.
But there’s no coercion — God wants only volunteers, not conscripts. He gave us agency, and respects the sanctity of that gift.
This is a shockingly shallow read
This was a very interesting article and addressed many questions I planned to ask before the end. I appreciate especially you addressing how indeterminacy would address some commonplace examples of biologically determined traits (humans at large being determined not to fly, persons with Down Syndrome being determined to be mentally simple [an example I was planning to employ myself]). Not sure what I’d want to ask, but perhaps I’ll try and draw something out further: are you one who would say that accounting for the indeterminacy of our nature, and our ability to have awareness about our genes despite “being” genes ourselves, comes down to something that would classically have been called “the soul”?
Yes. More to come.
One of my biggest questions re the difference between us and the other primates is the one of qualitative vs quantitative intelligence; we either are so much smarter that we achieve reason while they are simply much lower down the intellect ring that they can't compete, or that there is something undoubtedly different, a circuit of intelligence in our brain that doesn't exist in monkeys. What's your opinion on this dilemma? Have you found any evidence in either direction?