Answer to the Problem of Evil

[Tassman]

I have a choice between an apple and an orange. I choose to eat the apple. An "act of will" is an emergent property that arises from a conscious act made by a self-aware creature. If a robot was self-aware and made a conscious act, I'd also call that an act of will.

There will be many reasons why you would choose an apple over an orange in a specific circumstance – mostly at the subconscious level and based upon a lifetime of experience and related experiences of apples and oranges.

What would you call a conscious act made by a self-aware person, other than an act of will?

I would call it the illusion of a libertarian free-will act, which is the level at which we all function.

 

[psionl0]

That’s precisely my problem with the notion that an immaterial ‘soul’ can interact with a demonstrably material entity such as our evolved brain and ultimately detach from it after it dies and survive for ever and ever.

It's unscientific?

 

[Tassman]

It's unscientific?

Indeed. It's an article of faith. Nothing that is not testable with empirical means is scientific .

 

[psionl0]

Indeed. It's an article of faith. Nothing that is not testable with empirical means is scientific .

Then I don't understand why you are participating in this thread. You seem to be happy enough to go so far with this hypothetical then you suddenly switch tack and say the hypothetical isn't worth debating because it is "unscientific".

 

[Tassman]

Then I don't understand why you are participating in this thread. You seem to be happy enough to go so far with this hypothetical then you suddenly switch tack and say the hypothetical isn't worth debating because it is "unscientific".

My understanding of the thread was the ‘Answer to the Problem of Evil’, NOT ‘dualism’ and free-will per se - which to my mind don’t exist. There is NO problem of evil only a problem of dysfunctional communal living. “Evil” is what society says it is – it’s not absolute. Morals and ethics are simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history and they have evolved and varied to a degree from culture to culture over time.

 

[psionl0]

My understanding of the thread was the ‘Answer to the Problem of Evil’, NOT ‘dualism’ and free-will per se - which to my mind don’t exist. There is NO problem of evil only a problem of dysfunctional communal living. “Evil” is what society says it is – it’s not absolute. Morals and ethics are simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history and they have evolved and varied to a degree from culture to culture over time.

If you are going to say that there is no such thing as God/Evil/Free will then your role in this thread is limited.

This thread is a hypothetical about why evil exists if God could have prevented it or could rid the world of it. You evidently don't want to engage in the hypothetical.

 

[GDon]

There will be many reasons why you would choose an apple over an orange in a specific circumstance – mostly at the subconscious level and based upon a lifetime of experience and related experiences of apples and oranges.
...
I would call it the illusion of a libertarian free-will act, which is the level at which we all function.

There is a saying "Seeing through everything is the same as being blind." I guess everything could be resolved to "illusion", and how can anyone prove otherwise?

It's a possible rejoinder to Descartes' "I think therefore I am": that is, "You only have the illusion of thinking, therefore can't conclude 'I am'".

We are at an epistemological divide, I think. I think we can make choices that are acts of will; you see them as illusion. Without getting passed that, discussion of "free-will" becomes moot. But that's fair enough, and I'll it at that.

 

[shuttlt]

Are you suggesting humans comprise a non-material component that can rise up above their material body and make decisions NOT grounded in the physical activity and programming of the living brain.

This really doesn't solve the problem anyway. This "non-material component"... how does it make decisions? Are they deterministic? Are they deterministic + an element of randomness? Our all of our spirits somehow little uncaused causes that make decisions by no process? By invoking dualism, all that is achieved is moving the same problem to a new location. Free will as genuine choice appears incoherent whether it is our brains doing the choosing, or some ethereal spirit.

 

[Tassman]

If you are going to say that there is no such thing as God/Evil/Free will then your role in this thread is limited.

This thread is a hypothetical about why evil exists if God could have prevented it or could rid the world of it. You evidently don't want to engage in the hypothetical.

According to the OP the thread is also about the problem of evil in general, which is where I'm coming from.

 

[Tassman]

There is a saying "Seeing through everything is the same as being blind." I guess everything could be resolved to "illusion", and how can anyone prove otherwise?

An “illusion” is something which is wrongly perceived by the senses. We certainly believe and act as though we are making’ free-will’ decisions. Indeed, it is essential for survival that all living creatures do make decisions.

It's a possible rejoinder to Descartes' "I think therefore I am": that is, "You only have the illusion of thinking, therefore can't conclude 'I am'".

ALL self-aware creatures, including humans, instinctively “conclude” that they exist – or that “I am”.

We are at an epistemological divide, I think. I think we can make choices that are acts of will; you see them as illusion.

You have yet to explain how humans make a libertarian act of free-will when they have been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution and programmed by genes and sub-conscious environmental pressures. Just baldly asserting that “I think we can make choices that are acts of will” doesn’t do it.

 

[GDon]

An “illusion” is something which is wrongly perceived by the senses. We certainly believe and act as though we are making’ free-will’ decisions. Indeed, it is essential for survival that all living creatures do make decisions.
...
ALL self-aware creatures, including humans, instinctively “conclude” that they exist – or that “I am”.
...
You have yet to explain how humans make a libertarian act of free-will when they have been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution and programmed by genes and sub-conscious environmental pressures. Just baldly asserting that “I think we can make choices that are acts of will” doesn’t do it.

I think the assertion has 'the high ground' though, as highlighted above. Two people are out walking, one says "I see a tree", the other "that's just an illusion". Unless the other person has good reason for saying it (e.g. they are in the desert), provisionally the first person has the stronger case.

Do we have evidence that the brain can't generate "free-will" decisions? I'd say 'no', and I'll quote Libet for his thoughts below. Evolution might favour the development of a brain capable of "free-will" decisions, or as Dennett calls it, making conscious choices to "avoid the future".

Does physics necessarily rule out the brain making "free-will" decisions? Again, I'd say 'no'. There is only conjecture about how the laws of physics might play into that. Maybe there is an 'immaterial soul', maybe 'quantum indeterminacy' - I know nothing about either topic. But I don't see why the laws of physics necessarily inhibits the brain from evolving a "free-will" engine. It hasn't stopped the development of self-awareness, consciousness and "the illusion" of free-will.

From the Wiki article on Libet:

Libet's experiments suggest to some[10] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation...

Libet himself regards his experimental results to be entirely compatible with the notion of free will.[9] He finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious.

Thus our "conscious mind" is constantly being feed a number of possible actions from our subconscious -- influenced by genes, memories and previous experiences -- and it is the role of our self-aware conscious mind to select one action and veto the others -- Libet's "free won't". That's also consistent with Dennett's version of "avoiding the future" compatibilism.

Perhaps science will come up with good reasons why free-will isn't possible. I don't think it has yet, though. And since we certainly appear to have free-will, that seems to be provisionally the stronger case.

 

[Tassman]

I think the assertion has 'the high ground' though, as highlighted above. Two people are out walking, one says "I see a tree", the other "that's just an illusion". Unless the other person has good reason for saying it (e.g. they are in the desert), provisionally the first person has the stronger case.

Indeed, but observations about the environment are NOT free-will decisions.

Do we have evidence that the brain can't generate "free-will" decisions? I'd say 'no', and I'll quote Libet for his thoughts below. Evolution might favour the development of a brain capable of "free-will" decisions, or as Dennett calls it, making conscious choices to "avoid the future".

Libet’s findings do not support libertarian free-will per se. They support the notion of our subconscious mind doing the deciding. In short – as I’ve argued - it is one of the several causal factors shaping our decision-making processes. And Dennett’s Compatibilism reduces the role of free-will to moral choices as part of the deterministic process of a social species’ need for group cohesion in order to survive.

Does physics necessarily rule out the brain making "free-will" decisions? Again, I'd say 'no'. There is only conjecture about how the laws of physics might play into that.

The “laws of physics” suggest no support for consciousness, intellect and decision-making beyond the physical activity of the living material brain.

Maybe there is an 'immaterial soul', maybe 'quantum indeterminacy' - I know nothing about either topic. But I don't see why the laws of physics necessarily inhibits the brain from evolving a "free-will" engine. It hasn't stopped the development of self-awareness, consciousness and "the illusion" of free-will.

There are many creatures, notably our simian cousins, that are self-aware – “maybe” they too have an immaterial soul and have evolved a “free-will engine”.

Perhaps science will come up with good reasons why free-will isn't possible. I don't think it has yet, though. And since we certainly appear to have free-will, that seems to be provisionally the stronger case.

More to the point, perhaps science will come up with good reasons why libertarian free-will IS possible given the many causal reasons the underlie our decisions – and the decisions of other self-aware creatures.

 

[Navigator]

There is no problem of evil - there is just an illusion of there being a problem of evil.

 

[Darat]

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is no problem of evil - there is just an illusion of there being a problem of evil.

Best read in the voice of Neil from The Young Ones.

 

[Navigator]

It appears that the "problem of evil" is an argument invented by folk who cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation - implying a creator/creators - and thus implying a creator/creators must have to be evil to have created this reality experience.
Said another way, there would not be "the problem of evil" if we do not exist within a creation/if there is no creator/creators.

 

[junkshop]

It appears that the "problem of evil" is an argument invented by folk who cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation - implying a creator/creators - and thus implying a creator/creators must have to be evil to have created this reality experience.
Said another way, there would not be "the problem of evil" if we do not exist within a creation/if there is no creator/creators.

Nice salad, do you have some dressing for that?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It appears that the "problem of evil" is an argument invented by folk who cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation - implying a creator/creators - and thus implying a creator/creators must have to be evil to have created this reality experience.
Said another way, there would not be "the problem of evil" if we do not exist within a creation/if there is no creator/creators.

It appears that you don't actually understand the problem of evil. It's not actually an argument against creation, but an argument against a perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient, infallible creator. You can resolve the problem by simply declaring that the creator is an *******.

 

[Navigator]

I did not forget the idea that the problem of evil is an argument against a perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient, infallible creator.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I did not forget the idea that the problem of evil is an argument against a perfectly good, omnipotent, omniscient, infallible creator.

Well of course you didn't. You just addressed it as an argument made by people who "cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation", for some really clever reason, I'm sure.

In the immortal words of Pee-wee Herman, "I meant to do that".