Materialism and Free Will

Here is a major problem I have with materialism, and there are numerous people on this forum that are proponents of materialism so maybe someone can change my mind.

Materialism, a belief that reality does not extend beyond material, or physical existence, always leads to the conclusion that consciousness or mind is epiphenomenal. Epiphenomenalism argues that mind emerges from physical brain phenomena--the electrochemical responses between synapses, and other physical interactions and pathways within the brain and our bodies. Because of this, consciousness, awareness, and in particular free will and our ability to choose are all illusions created by the appearance of consciousness, as if our consciousness exists above (epi~) the phenomena that creates it.

It is interesting that existentialism deals so strongly with subjective free will, and yet it is primarily a materialist philosophy, placing existence above essence, and as Sartre argued in his first chapter of Being and Nothingness, that a belief in a non-physical essence was an embarrassment to the philosophical tradition, pointing out that essence is not some hidden reality that existence arises from, but rather essence arises from the physical existence of the object.

But here is the problem, if consciousness is an illusion then we have no free will. Authentic choice is beyond our control. This is no different than if we were faced with a predetermined universe.

Mind, by definition, is nonphysical. If we accept that we have mind, then we can certainly be influenced by various electrochemical interactions within our brains and bodies, or even subconscious motives and intentions that are below the surface of our awareness, but we also have the power of choice when we choose to use it. There is always an existential choice.

The materialist mind is controlled, not only by physical forces within the brain and the body, but also external physical forces, including environmental, natural, and historical. We think we are making choices, but we are no different from robots responding continuously to phenomena.

This means that our whole legal system, which is heavily dependent on the concept of intention, is fatally flawed. It demands that we take responsibility for that which is illusion and for which we actually have no legitimate responsibility.

If we are destined to commit a horrible crime and spend the rest of our life in prison, then what is the purpose of trying to change that? We may think we are making better choices that will change the course of our life, but in reality, it is going to happen regardless---that is the point of the story of Oedipus.

 

Very good answer, it reminds me of the story of Hui Neng when he saw two monks arguing over a flag blowing in the wind. The first monk said that the wind was moving the flag. The second monk argued that it was the flag moving the wind. Hui Neng answered, 'You both are wrong, it is your mind that is moving.'

Indeed, many people end up in prison because of the circumstances that led to their crime. Likewise, many people end up in prison just because of their race. But either way, if they have a good attorney who can argue that they had no intention of committing the crime, they can escape prosecution. Ultimately it becomes a class issue, where the rich get away with things while the poor languish in jail.

But there is still the problem that if consciousness is epiphenomenal, then the individual had no actual choice whatsoever in the matter, and it is reality alone, or what we could call, fate, that put him into prison. Therefore we are forcing this person to take responsibility for that which he has no control over.

He is no different from a machine that was put on a track to arrive in a specific destructive end. But to make it worse, he was programmed to believe that he could change tracks at any time. But such was only an illusion. This is the end conclusion of the world that Hegel left us with--that mind and even the absolute mind is nothing more than physical phenomena. Ultimately his life, and the reality that controlled him are meaningless.

This is different from an Idealist perspective. If mind is authentic to the definition that it is nonphysical, then your argument has footing. In this case, he does have an authentic choice, even if he gives in, or cannot escape, the reality around him. He still has an existential choice. And the reality around him, as a creation of universal mind, or the Atman, or the Tao, or Quantum Information, or whatever label we give it, also has its intention. In this way he has responsibility and both his life, and the reality around him, has meaning.

Its no wonder that existentialism had its heyday in Europe at the end of World War II as people tried to find meaning out of the horrible and destructive world they had survived, and that this existential search was expressed in the Nihilism of black clothes, cigarettes, and spending the days drinking in cafes, rejecting responsibility. In fact, we could say that everything that happened---from this overlooked problem of existentialism, to the rise of Nazi Nationalism, Fascism, the Soviet Union, to the dehumanizing nature of the rise of industrialism, all goes back to Hegel. Granted, humans can be violent and destructive regardless of their philosophy, but Hegel gave a quasi-metaphysical power to materialism that empowered man as machine, the logical end-conclusion being our self-destruction at the hands of our own creation---such as a Terminator style destruction by AI, or even the gross mismanagement of our resources by a cold self-serving authoritarian government without a soul.

 

I do believe very much in free will. People live it everyday, so I never understood outside of brain- washing, why people debate that we don't have it.

While it is true that we're still animals and still follow natutal instinct and inclinations, we've been taught not to follow them completely all the time, for good and ill. I like to half joke that the first domesticated animal, was actually human beings.

We choose to do what we want, whether its to our benefit or not. We choose to behave or be rebellious. We choose to be mean, we choose to do things that are illegal, we choose to fight justice or injustice. We choose to show kindness and caring. Our hierarchy is mutable, so we can and have kicked out leadership that is cruel and ineffective.

I didn't understand it exactly, but I remember a wise lady talking to me about Gordian knots and chakras and how humans and societies were supposed to evolve past pure survival, and integrate with spirit, knowledge and wisdom through choices, learning, and understanding. I don't think I quite agreed with her entirely on that.

That's my 2 cents, for what little it may contribute to this discussion.

 

Action--reaction. Done both. Did the second follow the first? Or did the first follow the second? Woe is me.

 

Little bit of both probably.

 

I realise that I'm butting in on something that perhaps I don't have a very good grasp of, but one thing I noticed over time was that when my father in law had a series of mini strokes, his whole character changed. This indicated to me that his choices changed when his physical brain was reduced in capacity and ability to think rationally.

So do we have choice? Many argue yes, that mind is not part of physicality, but others say no, and my instance above proves it for me.

 

If only I knew---I'd know how to act.

 

There will always be things out of our control too. Sorry about your FiL.

 

My feeling on this is, that our perceptions of the physical world, and our reactions to stimuli within the physical world are largely limited to our perception of the physical world. This perception is provided by the physical body through which we experience the physical world. Any perception beyond this is labelled as a hunch or intuition, or a subconscious motive. And even that can be influenced by physical stimuli (including electrochemical or other stimuli within the body).

So our perception of the physical world is limited, or you could say, filtered, by both the limits of senses, and the physical limits of our brains to make sense out of the perceptions of our physical senses, and how we process those perceptions and understandings of the same. This does not mean that our minds are the sole result of a physical world, but that the physical world, or physical reality, can of course influence it.

If our brains become damaged through such things as a stroke, mental illness, or injury, then obviously we do not have full use of our senses, or cognition, or both. There can be mood or personality changes, but our essence, or mind, is still there.

I remember one time a doctor in the Philippines had given me some medicine for something, I forget what it was, perhaps an allergy medicine. He forgot to tell me that I should not take alcohol with it. The first night I took it, I drank wine with it, several glasses to be exact. I then got real tired and fell asleep, and didn't wake up until a good twenty hours at least had passed. When I woke up I was very groggy, and for some reason, extremely angry. I shouted at everyone, and that was not like me at all. I even got into an argument with my wife, and ended up slamming a wine glass (I had poured myself some more wine, and had been sipping on it) on the table breaking the glass and slicing my hand with the broken neck of the glass. As all this was happening I was observing myself, wondering why I felt so angry, yet at the same time, I was angry, and I was actually enjoying it. I knew this was not like me, and so much so that my family was more or less keeping their distance.

The funny thing is, that my wife had bought these encyclopedias, and we had not made any payments on them for a while. We had a real estate business and our customers, who all lived in Japan, had not kept up with their payments, and in fact we hadn't received payment from any of them for a little while. So the company that sold the encyclopedias had been trying to get money from us for a while, and we simply kept saying, 'not yet.' So that particular night, the owner of the company had decided to pay us a visit to see if he could get some money from us. Here I was, looking disheveled from sleeping 20 hours, very angry, and my hand bleeding, and the maids let him in to see us. I will never forget how I lectured him and spoke angrily at him, as he sat cowering in his chair at our dining room table. I felt so much power, and anger, and all the while I was self-aware at how I was just letting go without any filter. My wife kept apologizing and trying to explain, "He is normally not like this." And as I heard her, I knew I am normally not like this, and yet I was just letting it all out there.

He quickly left after a good 20 or 30 minutes of my tirade and we never ever heard from that company again. Every time I remember that night, I laugh so hard. That is not me. But yet, it was me, because I was very self-aware of everything I was doing at the time. When I saw the doctor the next day, and told him what had happened, suggesting that it was the medicine, he immediately said yes, you are not supposed to mix it with alcohol.

The medicine had affected me and my personality. I was not acting right, but it was still me, and after the effect of the medicine and alcohol had worn off, I was back to my old self again. It had also served as a catharsis allowing me to remove the anger and stress over the business and the stress of living in a country like the Philippines where there were a lot of hot tempers, and people trying to take advantage of us, and so forth. But I was temporarily not acting myself from this physical impairment that was affecting me. Even in that moment, I felt like there was some sort of a choice, but I did not want to make what would have been the right choice---I simply felt this rage, and at the time---I liked it. Even with that poor victim who had come to my house, there was a part of me that was saying, 'You should be diplomatic with this guy, and explain to him the situation.' But I let the rage win me over. And I enjoyed it.

And the legal system generally understands that there are times we have trouble with the choices we make. We are not excused for causing an accident while under the influence, because we should have avoided the choice to get drunk and drive before we even got drunk. On the other hand if something happened that impaired us after we got behind the wheel and it was beyond our control, this is taken into consideration. Likewise, there is a difference between intentionally killing someone, and accidentally killing them, or even killing them through a temporary moment of rage when our senses are impaired.

There are numerous case studies that validate my feeling on this. For example, there are cases of people who have lost memories through brain injuries. The neural pathways that held those memories being destroyed. And yet, later in life these memories have been restored. Where did these memories get restored from if the neural pathways had been destroyed? There are even stranger cases of people who have suffered brain injuries and then speak a different language after recovery, even though they had never studied that language.

Impairment may take away our ability to process our reality, or understand it, or even properly react to it, but this does not mean that consciousness is an illusion.

 

Most have accepted that we are descended from certain primates who had their own particular problems that were dealt with in ways that were naturally available to them relative to their time and place. I believe that some of the ways our ancestors lived and 'dealt with life on their primitive level occasionally "bleed through " as it were , and that brain memory ( like muscle memory) can activate seemingly hidden passions from long ago, that can surprise us in their intensity.

 

Well said @scratcho and @Mountain Valley Wolf