Free will and determinism

So much for the Materialist claims that anesthesia "switches off" consciousness, then...

My experience is that it does.  I don't know where this information comes from.  If I believed this, I would never again go under general anaesthetic.  Pain wakes you up if you are asleep so the comparison between GA and sleep is utter nonsense!

To return to the primary topic of this thread, I have encountered what I consider to be one of the best arguments for free will, a philosophical argument hinging on the concept of coherence, courtesy of poster Origenes on Uncommon Descent:

To say that a person is not free is to say that he is determined by something beyond his control. If a person is determined by something beyond his control, he does not control himself. If a person does not control himself, he also does not control his thoughts.
A person who does not control his thoughts is not a rational being. Something that is not a rational being has no place in a rational discussion about free will. No one can coherently argue that he is not in control of his thoughts.
For the sake of coherency, those who search for the truth and engage in rational inquiry must reject the possibility that free will does not exist.

Any comments on this, like plausible refutations?
 s

A person who does not control his thoughts is not a rational being.

This is the first point in the logic chain that I don't intuitively follow.  I don't see why something can only be rational if it "controls" its thoughts.  Maybe I don't fully understand the notion of a "rational being"?

This is the first point in the logic chain that I don't intuitively follow.  I don't see why something can only be rational if it "controls" its thoughts.  Maybe I don't fully understand the notion of a "rational being"?

I *think* this argument comes from Popper & Eccles, with a summary provided by Feser:

1. Materialism holds that thinking consists of nothing more than the transition from one material process in the brain to another in accordance with causal laws (whether these transitions are conceived of in terms of the processing of symbols according to the rules of an algorithm à la computationalism, or on some other model).

2. Material processes have their causal efficacy, including their ability to generate other material processes, only by virtue of their physical properties (i.e. those described by physical science), and not by virtue of any meaning or semantic content that might be associated with them. (For example, punching the symbols “1,” “+,” “1,” and “=” into a calculator will generate the further symbol “2” whether or not we associate the standard arithmetical meanings with these symbols or instead assign to them some eccentric meanings, because the electronic properties of the calculator alone are what determine what symbols get displayed. Similarly, neural processes that are in fact associated with the thought that all men are mortal and the thought that Socrates is a man would still generate the neural process that is in fact associated with the thought that Socrates is mortal even if these neural processes had all been associated with some other meanings instead, because the neurophysiological properties of the processes alone are what determine which further processes get generated.)

3. But one thought can serve as a rational justification of another thought only by virtue of the meaning or semantic content of the thoughts. (For example, it is only because we associate the symbols “1,” “+,” “1,” “=,” and “2” with the standard meanings that “1 + 1 = 2” expresses an arithmetical truth. Similarly, it is only because “All men are mortal,” “Socrates is a man,” and “Socrates is mortal” have the meanings they do that the first two sentences logically entail the third, and only when the neural processes in question are associated with the corresponding thoughts that the first two provide a rational justification for believing the third.)

4. So if materialism is true, then there is nothing about our thought processes that can make one thought a rational justification of another; for their physical and causal relations alone, and not their semantic and logical relations, determine which thought follows which.

5. So if materialism is true, none of our thoughts ever is rationally justified.

6. But this includes the thoughts of materialists themselves.

Note I believe CS Lewis and a few others have made a similar argument. I personally like the one put forth by Popper though.

This is the first point in the logic chain that I don't intuitively follow.  I don't see why something can only be rational if it "controls" its thoughts.  Maybe I don't fully understand the notion of a "rational being"?

I don't know - you might have a point. But I think the argument follows the dictionary definition of the adjective "rational", which is inextricably linked to thought in mind, in consciousness: "...the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
"there is a close connection between reason and emotion""

Thinking, understanding, emotion, and forming judgements are, like the qualia of subjective perceiving consciousness, immaterial with their true nature a mystery, and therefore supposedly not subject to determinism. So also immaterial and with its true nature an unfathomable mystery, is the notion of a "being". Determinism is based on the observed interactions of physical things.

I don't know - you might have a point. But I think the argument follows the dictionary definition of the adjective "rational", which is inextricably linked to thought in mind, in consciousness: "...the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
"there is a close connection between reason and emotion""

Thinking, understanding, emotion, and forming judgements are, like the qualia of subjective perceiving consciousness, immaterial with their true nature a mystery, and therefore supposedly not subject to determinism. So also immaterial and with its true nature an unfathomable mystery, is the notion of a "being". Determinism is based on the observed interactions of physical things.

This is an interesting statement given there are Idealists who are determinists...but I kinda agree with you that this seems based on observations at the classical level of physics. It seems like that those primordial peoples who started with observations of their own consciousness became animists, figuring that their own internal lives were mirrored in the world around them.

Regarding the argument, I do think it is an argument against physicalism...I'm not sure logical reasoning gives us what is usually regarded as the central piece of freewill which is decision making? I do agree that it would be hard to make sense of reasoning at a personal level if our logical processes are due to some external force whether that's colliding atoms or God...I'm just not sure how to go from there to the mental aspect of possibility selection...

I think Searle might do this in one of his books, will have to check...

Interesting.

The notion of "controlling" thoughts is also a challenge in my mind.  Sam Harris talks about the concept of thoughts most often coming to us vs being something we "will" into our consciousness.  I think we all experience this.  For those that meditate (something I've never had the patience to do myself!), one idea is to "observe" your thoughts.  That's an odd thing to do if the baseline notion is that we "control" our thinking.

I'm a free will guy but I don't have a strong rational basis for why I feel this way.  Its much more emotional for me: I can't imagine this entire existence (mine, yours, everyone's) is just deterministic physicalism.  It doesn't "feel" right.  (Hardly comforting to my rational, scientifically-sensitive self.  )

[Ninshub]

I guess we would have to define what "controlling thoughts" means. I don't subscribe to the view that I control my thoughts in the sense that I will them into being. I do think they just happen. (But perhaps there is a distinction to be made between having most of our minute-to-minute thoughts, and then choosing to engage into sustained reflection or inquiry. But then to complicate things even further, is the thought that decides to initiate such a reflection completely freely willed? Is there a thinker who chooses the thought, or is it just a choosing thought?)

At the same time, I think it's possible to hold such a view and not subscribe to deterministic physicalism.

I guess we would have to define what "controlling thoughts" means. I don't subscribe to the view that I control my thoughts in the sense that I will them into being. I do think they just happen. (But perhaps there is a distinction to be made between having most of our minute-to-minute thoughts, and then choosing to engage into sustained reflection or inquiry. But then to complicate things even further, is the thought that decides to initiate such a reflection completely freely willed? Is there a thinker who chooses the thought, or is it just a choosing thought?)

At the same time, I think it's possible to hold such a view and not subscribe to deterministic physicalism.

I think the absolute control of one's thoughts is impossible, but I would say this is somewhat distinct from decision making.

Additionally one can make an effort to have some degree over what some traditions call the "monkey mind". There's also the idea one can learn to think more positively, or control one's biases, and so on. All of that requires an active decision to do so though...

I'm a free will guy but I don't have a strong rational basis for why I feel this way.  Its much more emotional for me: I can't imagine this entire existence (mine, yours, everyone's) is just deterministic physicalism.  It doesn't "feel" right.  (Hardly comforting to my rational, scientifically-sensitive self.  )

To me it seems there can only be a "lucky streak" of seemingly deterministic phenomena in a physicalist universe as "laws of nature" would be as dualist as souls. Evidence also seems to suggest indeterminism at the quantum level.

I sorta get people saying everything is just random, though puts the meaning of mathematical-logical statements into a weird position along with the question of causality.

Determinism seems to be a position I don't quite get. IIRC Harris has said it's due to every possible reality having natural laws...but why do there need to be laws? Where are the laws and why don't they change? How do they interact with that which they force into a supposed deterministic causal change?