Theism is not the only alternative to materialism

[bertvan]

I urge people interested in psychic phenomena to pay more attention to the intelligent design debate. I know. Psychic phenomena are often portrayed as something espoused by the ignorant. You see scientific evidence for the reality of psychic phenomena and don’t want to be associated with another unpopular concept. However, a loss of academic freedom for one group is a loss for us all. Besides, intelligent design and recognition of psychic phenomena are both concepts that contradict materialism. So far materialists have been successful in depicting intelligent design advocates as religious bigots, and perhaps you aren’t feeling particularly sympathetic toward the political positions of the religious right. True, many supporters of intelligent design are religious. Nevertheless, the concept of intelligence/volition as a force of nature permits, but does not demand, a belief in a personal god. Theism is not the only alternative to materialism.

One alternative is to merely recognize volition/freewill as reality rather than the illusion the materialists espouse. All living systems, not just humans, have some ability to respond to stimuli, intelligently and purposefully.

CELL INTELLIGENCE

Inanimate objects do not. All living systems have some of our own ability to override automatic function in times of emergency, and make novel, fallible, spontaneous, subjective choices. Living systems have ability to monitor their own level of function, recognize weaknesses, and to explore novel responses. Furthermore if function is not immediately restored, intelligently organized biological systems have the ability to explore other possibilities immediately, without being removed from action by “natural selection”. Such adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop, and only become encoded in the genome if persistent over generations. Biological systems do not occur randomly and natural selection plays no role in their organization.

Questions about Materialism

Berthajane Vandegrift, author of A Tiger by the Tail

[David Bailey]

I certainly agree with the title of your post. It seems to me that while there is considerable evidence for Ψ, there is no real evidence at all for a God, and the entire concept seems to be dredged out of the way we humans tend to organise things! Furthermore, the main religions seem to me to be pretty arbitrary collections of ideas held together by an insistence in the virtue of blind belief.

There is one inanimate object which can seem to behave intelligently - the computer - and disentangling the difference between computer 'thought' and human/animal thought is something that interests me - as you may have seen from some of our other discussions here.

I think the religious fundamentalists have done a great deal of damage, and in this debate they have tended to polarise people's views. I suspect that whatever Ψ is, it extends through the animal kingdom, and probably down to single cells. Incidentally, this would instantly violate the teachings of religions such as Christianity, that like to pretend that humans are far removed from the rest of the animal kingdom.

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

there is no real evidence at all for a God,

Bible is THE evidence man.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

Bibile is THE evidence man.

Well you let the church think for you, and I will think for myself!

I know you are being sarcastic, but I fear that for you ultra-orthodox science performs the same role as the church does for others!

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I know you are being sarcastic, but I fear that for you ultra-orthodox science performs the same role as the church does for others!

Well, that's what all anti-science people (creationnist, homeopath, "alternative medecine" people, and so on) think of people arguing for good science, so I'm not really surprise...

I think for you parapsychology textbooks are like the Bible. I mean waw, that's really good argumentation we have here.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by bertvan

One alternative is to merely recognize volition/freewill as reality rather than the illusion the materialists espouse.

Could you define free will before this conversation goes much further?

~~ Paul

[bertvan]

I define free will as the ability to evaluate available information and make unpredictable, fallible, subjective choices based upon that evaluation.

While subjective choices are unpredictable, they are usually statistically predictable. Similar “choosers” will often make similar choices. A mindless, automatic system, such as a thermostat, always makes the “right” choice (unless the system malfunctions). The trouble with automatic systems is their inability to deal with unforeseeable contingencies. An intelligent choice driven system, on the other hand will always include deviation. (A free choice wouldn’t be free without the option of making a bad choice.) But an intelligent choice system has the potential to deal with the unpredictable. A system driven by intelligent choice is like a democracy. In spite of some bad choices, hopefully the majority will get it right much of the time.

Berthajane Vandegrift, author of A Tiger by the Tail
Questions about materialism

[David Bailey]

Defining free will is, I suspect, rather like defining consciousness. As I have argued here at length that this may not be very helpful. I would simply define free will to be what humans normally mean by that expression.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Defining free will is, I suspect, rather like defining consciousness. As I have argued here at length that this may not be very helpful. I would simply define free will to be what humans normally mean by that expression.

I have no idea what the average person means by free will. Do you know? Is it like what the average person means by energy or quantum?

Originally Posted by bertvan

I define free will as the ability to evaluate available information and make unpredictable, fallible, subjective choices based upon that evaluation.

Is this definition compatible with determinism and randomness?

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by bertvan
I define free will as the ability to evaluate available information and make unpredictable, fallible, subjective choices based upon that evaluation.

Reply by Paul .....

Is this definition compatible with determinism and randomness?

Paul, freewill surely requires consciousness? Do you agree? Good Therefore materialism/physicalism cannot sit comfortably with freewill because consciousness to materialists are unconscious responses of the brain i.e. just an illusion of freewill *if* the brain creates consciousness.

Paul I ask you, if choice is just an useful illusion, how did it evolve via natural selection? How can the notion of conscious choice (i.e. freewill) be a useful evolutionary advantage, if it is an illusion?

Nor does 'randomness' help the physicalists stance much. For example one could say quantum events in the brain added an unpredictability to causality however freewill means conscious choice, it does not mean random unpredictability... there is still no good reason for a sense of choice (or consciousness) to evolve in the physicalist/materialist paradigm.