Category Archives: Free Will

Systematics — Laziness or Avoidance

Posted on by
Reply

It’s annoying. Since one of my interests is in metaphysics and its implications, it annoys me when people offer a metaphysical hypothesis without doing the hard work of systematics. One reason it annoys me is that, from my background as a design engineer, designs have to work. Another more important reason is that worldviews matter, and sloppy formulations can have a deleterious impact on people’s lives.

Except for a two-year stint to study theology, biblical studies, etc., at a Lutheran seminary, I worked for some 40 years as a design engineer. I even received 15 US patents for my inventions. I mention that only to suggest that I know something about design.

The cardinal principle in design engineering is that the design has to work. This means it has to meet the specifications. If it doesn’t, a design engineer may have a short career, or even people could get hurt. Specifications for systems are often very complex.  They include not only the final function but also cost, materials, time frames, production factors, deployment, the functional environment, repair ease, fault detection, and so on. Some of the systems I worked on in the aerospace industry had many pages of specifications.

What it takes
So, what does it take to design something that works? Of course, it takes knowledge and imagination. That requires training, study, and experience. But here I want to talk about why a systematic approach is crucial. Machines, software, and other systems are complicated. They usually have many moving parts that are interrelated. The human body is a good analogy. There are various organs that perform a function, but they are also related to other functions and are integrated into a whole we call a human organism. The various components don’t stand alone. Other factors within the organism impinge on their function as well.

 So, what might this have to do with a sound metaphysics? It’s crucial. One has only to survey the literature of prominent metaphysical systems in history to see that they are complex and expansive. For them, it’s not enough to make some cursory assertion and leave it at that. No. They have to deal with all sorts of implications in how parts of a system are interrelated and affect each other. In other words, each assertion affects what follows. As an example in machine design, each step in the design constrains what is possible going forward. A simple example is that if you take up too much space for some component, then the rest has to be smaller to meet the overall size specification. That may not be adequate for its function. This also applies to materials, power factors, stresses, environments, cost, range of motion, and on and on. So, in designs, there has to be a lot of forward-looking for what comes after. This is systematics — evaluating the implications of each part as it relates to the whole, with the specification in mind.

Metaphysics
What I see consistently from both many academics and social media influencers is laziness or avoidance of systematics. They just make some narrow assertion and leave it at that. It may sound good and be appealing, but if tough questions are asked of it (not often), it can collapse or devolve into all sorts of ridiculous contrivances. Hence my annoyance. Ideas matter.

The essence of systematics in metaphysics is dealing with all the issues at roughly the same time. Now, it’s not necessarily a linear process, but thinking about the effects on other factors in the system can short-circuit a lot of false starts. For instance, in theology or religious philosophy, ontology (about being) is a bedrock from which many things depend. But ontology doesn’t just spring forth from nothing. It is formulated based on prior suppositions, often based on intuitions about reality. For instance, does ontological dualism seem OK or not? Does there seem to be meaning and purpose fundamental for this reality? Is there free will? Is this reality fundamentally flawed or not? Ontologies usually spring forth from both rational, empirical, and intuitional factors. Here again, this is systematics. Lots of factors go into a metaphysical formulation. Each assertion affects what can follow.

Now, if the basic intuition for a metaphysic is that reality is fundamentally non-intentional, the system can be relatively simple. Things just happen for no grand reason. It’s all autonomic. Full stop. Of course, this rarely ends there. That’s because most people have the intuition that there is some sort of libertarian free will and that there are objective values (moral realism). This is the fly in the ointment. Again, so we get contrivances that inevitably don’t work.

However, when it comes to intentional formulations, particularly theism, things get complicated very fast. From that intuition, a vast number of formulations have emerged over the centuries and continue today.

The Key
Now, I wouldn’t presume there is a definitive theistic formulation (even my own) that has no problems. That’s not how finite systems work. Speculations about the fundamental nature of reality are always limited by our knowledge, creaturely strengths and weaknesses, biases, provincial and species inclinations, etc. However, at the very least, we should strive to be comprehensive (systematic) in our efforts. This means not shying away from the complete and difficult questions and issues.

For the theistic system I developed, I have criteria that I think are essential. Others may have different ones. Fine. Mine are the product of logic, empiricism, and experience that in some cases, lead to an intuition (a gestalt) about reality. Here are the criteria I chose.

  • Have verisimilitude (appears to be true)
  • Be monistic
  • Be ontologically personal
  • Be reasonable
  • Be systematic
  • Be science-friendly
  • No violational supernaturalism
  • No eschatology (end times) or soteriology (salvation schemes)
  • Be world-affirming
  • Affirm religious experiences and intuitions
  • Affirm ongoing divine activity
  • Affirm teleology (personal and divine purpose)
  • Affirm objective meaning
  • Affirm objective value (moral realism)
  • Affirm free will
  • Affirm the efficacy of prayer
  • Better address the problem of evil
  • Address consciousness

So, for me, all these factors need to be adequately addressed in the theology, and the answers offered need to be systematically sound and consistent.

Is it too much to ask for others to be systematic before they assert something? Sure, they can pick their own important factors in the system and present arguments for them, but don’t just spout some simple assertion and not address the profound implications of that, taking everything into account.

Why a Divine Idealism?

Posted on by
Reply

On this website, I’ve advocated for a divine idealism ontology (also an aspect monism). I’ve talked about this ontology throughout the website but here, in this short post, I’ll discuss one reason why I think it is a crucial step in choosing an ontology that addresses the perennial issues in religious metaphysics.

Human beings have an intuitive sense that there is a profound meaning to the universe, there is free-will, and there are objective values (morality).  Why should we accept these intuitions? Basically, because in the ontology employed here, everything has a divine depth that informs us.  Here are a couple of short posts addressing this, here and here.

So, how can it be that those issues (meaning, free-will, objective values) are real? Essentially, it comes down to how reality is constituted.  The prevalent view among science-minded individuals and even most religious thinkers is that reality is constituted via laws and chance (quantum indeterminism). Accordingly, every event in the universe is determined by necessity and chance. This is a disastrous choice. It means that reality is autonomic, just doing what it does without intent. Since humans are part of the universe and because of the causal chain of events, humans are just automatons. Autonomic systems don’t have meaning, free-will, or values because they just do what they inevitably do.

If we are to affirm the intuition that we are not mere automatons, what ontology can be chosen? I think a divine idealism offers a solution (the only viable one as I see it). In a divine idealism every event in the universe is intentional in the mind of God. This includes the regularities we see (and science tries to characterize) as well as the novelty that indeterminism affords. There are no laws or chance. Everything occurs according to divine purpose. What purpose? That’s a complicated question that I’ve address in many essays but essential it is that the universe is constituted such that, among many other things, those features I’ve mentioned (meaning, free-will, objective value) are possible. The other element of the ontology I employ is an aspect monism. That means that everything (God-as-living) is an aspect of God-as-transcendent and participates in the divine ultimate meaning, freedom, and value. We are not automatons. Instead, we are parts of the Divine Life where we participate in profound meaning, have some freedom, and must make moral choices. A divine idealism and aspect monism ontology offers a way to think about metaphysics where our deep-seated intuitions can be affirmed.

The Often Ignored Necessary Element for Free Will

Posted on by
Reply

Most people don’t like to think of themselves as automatons — just inevitably doing what they do. But that is the logical inference if reality is constituted by necessity (laws) and chance (quantum indeterminacy). So what do those who subscribe to the non-intentional model of reality do? There are numerous attempts to somehow salvage free will. Some are just nonsense like compatibilism and others try to find some way to use indeterminism. None of that works if necessity and chance determine every event in the universe.

Another thing most people want to believe is that we make conscious decisions. Here the key word is “conscious”. But how would that work? After all, we know that most of the decision-making process is done unconsciously. There are billions of neural processes going on that we have no awareness or experience of. It’s only very late in the process that we experience a decision. So, there is all this processing going on unconsciously and then after all that is done there is suppose to be some other different conscious processing that makes a decision or vetoes the decision make unconsciously. In that case there seems to be a phenomenal (experience based) homunculus (some extra something that has its own decision making processes). Seems like a weird contrivance to me.

Now, even if any of that were truth the missing necessary element in those schemes would be why a certain decision is made. The unconscious neural processes have all sorts of biases in their circuits that determine the processing at every step. Here you can think about a single neural synapse that has a chemical/electrical bias to react a certain way because of an input. Now, obviously there is an incredible complexity at work with all parts of the brain interacting but in the non-intentional model the brain just does what it does, much like a computer. In a computer each bit sets its state based on the input to it. It has a bias that responds to an input.

So in the non-intentional model, our unconscious processes do their biased thing and eventually end up with a decision (sometimes through a very tortuous process). Then the homunculus steps in and accepts or rejects that? Based on what? This is the missing necessary element in this scheme. There should be some other criterion for making a different conscious (homunculus) decision than what the neural process came up with. But what would that be? The non-intentional constitutionalists would need to come up with something here. In years of following this topic I haven’t seen anything like that.

So, instead of the non-intentional approach, here’s what I think may be going on. In a divine idealism every event in the universe is intentional. There are no laws and no chance. Everything happens because of intentionality — both the regularities and novelties. This includes everything in our brains. Every event happens for a reason. Those reasons are twofold. They are twofold because they include those of God-as-transcendent and God-as-living. I’ve talked about this elsewhere — and will in more detail on how this might work in an upcoming essay on divine action. So, the issue at hand is what is involved in why we make a certain decision?

Now, here I’m going to speculate from physics but based on some mainstream models. I think that every event in the universe is connected and integrated with everything else. Thus decisions are not just something “magical” happening. They occur within the life giving constraints of this reality.

In the divine idealism model, there is a teleological impetus involved in every event, even at the microscopic level. I’m using the term “impetus” because it denotes an active, forceful factor. As an analogy, think of how a magnet applies a force to attract a metal object. This is not some passive “lure” like in process theology. It is an active (but not coercive) influence toward a certain direction. The force of the magnet can be resisted but it is still an important factor in a decision. God-as-transcendent provides an impetus according to the divine purposes for this reality. However, God-as-living (that’s us and everything else) also has internal impetuses at work. These ensue from being finite creatures with certain motivations, needs, and desires. Sometimes there may be a competing impetus. I think that competition can occur at every step in the decision making neural processes, not just at the end. Every step is part of an integrated whole within the Divine Life Communion. What this means is that at every point in the process a decision must fit within the statistical model of how reality is constituted and take into account what is possible within those bounds. However, novelties can also occur within those bounds. So, live options are available. At various points in the process the competing teleological impetuses can become pronounced and a decision must be made. There is a constrained free will at work here. Each decision narrows what is possible. Eventually a final decision is made. It’s a decision on what impetus we freely choose to win out.

So, where does consciousness come in? I’m not sure about this, but to avoid the homunculus scenario, I think what consciousness does is experience the decision we made unconsciously. Now some might say, well “that’s not me making the decision”. Of course it is. That would be like having a back pain and saying, “that’s not me I’m experiencing”. A person is a whole, including their unconsciousness. If that wasn’t the case then the “me” would be different from everything else going on in our bodies.

So, the necessary element in free will is the reason for making a decision. That reason comes down to making a free choice between the sometimes competing impetuses of God-as-transcendent and God-as-living. God-as-transcendent has a purpose in mind for this reality. I think a big part of that purpose is the creation of love, beauty, and meaning. God-as-living, as finite constrained beings also have impetuses. The question is which impetus to embrace and act on.

On Focus

Posted on by
Reply

I just watched some videos on panpsychism.  Since I affirm a divine idealism, I think panpsychism is a step in the right direction.  However, I think the focus of this approach is too narrow.  By focus, I mean, to use a photographic metaphor, what is in the frame of interest and concern?  There is a tendency towards reductionism in current scientific and philosophical investigations.  So, the “frame” is narrowed down to what might be considered a manageable level.  This can make things easier to deal with but it can also end up being problematic.

I’ve mentioned this before with regard to religious sentiment on the matter of emphasis. If a particular issue is focused on without paying due regard to other issues, then the resulting “solutions” run the risk of being discarded or in need of major modification when confronted with other big-picture problems.  The thing about a systematic approach is that everything needs to be taken into account and fit together coherently and reasonably.  If certain issues are ignored, they will, more than likely, come back to bite.

So, what’s wrong with the panpsychist approach?  First of all, it has such a laser focus on consciousness.  The thinking might go something like this.  Consciousness is such a real problem for the current materialist paradigm so let’s make that fundamental — it’s all consciousness. How this would work in the grand scheme of things isn’t talked about, as far as I’ve seen.  If the issue is subjective experience (phenomenal consciousness) then how does experience fit into the complex causal network that we see?  How do experiences interact? Are there some additional properties at work?  If so then experiences aren’t fundamental.  I think what we’re seeing here is an attempt to solve a problem without including the broader explanatory picture.  The focus is too narrow.

The other problem with this near-sightedness is that is doesn’t take into consideration existential issues.  Now, many of today’s philosophers may shy away from these issues because it’s not fashionable to talk about deep metaphysics.  So they ignore this and just “talk among themselves” in their cloister or avoid these issues in public discussions.  The problem with this is that it eventually comes out.  I saw a Zoom discussion on panpsychism with prominent philosophers where a viewer asked about the practical implications of the view. That question was totally ignored.  Broadening the focus presents major issues to deal with.

So, what existential issues am I talking about? Here are some:

  • Meaning and purpose
  • The problem of evil
  • Teleology
  • Free will
  • Morality

If a philosophy doesn’t address these, then who personally cares?  It would be just some intellectual tempest in a teapot, signifying nothing.

Most people probably can’t assess very well the technical details of a philosophical discussion. They are not educated or trained for that.  They want to know if a particular system seems right (more in an intuitive sense) and how it affects their worldview and way of thinking and living.  If philosophy is just some intellectual exercise without real-world implications, then why bother? I think these explorations can be but they must broaden their focus just as it did in past centuries.

So, what is the alternative to this near-sightedness?  Obviously, from this site, I think a divine idealism is a viable option that addresses both the problem of consciousness and the existential issues I mentioned.  In a divine idealism, where everything is in the divine mind, consciousness seems to fit in seamlessly.  So, what do we know about mind?  We know that minds are complex with both conscious and unconscious processes going on. There is a lot happening with many interactions.  There is intent, choices, morality, meaning and purpose. The full gamut of existential issues are in play within the mind.  If there is a divine mind as the source of all this then our minds are part of that mind and have a share, within limits, of the Divine Mind.  Of course, even with that model, much must be explored but I think, at least it has a broad enough focus to be meaningful.

Theism – The Only Viable Option

Posted on by
2

In this post, I want to argue that the only viable option from a psychological perspective is theism. The argument is based on causation. Without an intentional cause fundamental to reality, the psychological impact is devastating and cannot lead to a healthy personal psychology and rather leads to denial or irrationality.

First a bit of background on causation. Now, this may be a bit lengthy but hopefully it will set things up for my argument.  Also, this won’t be an extensive treatment of these topics and I’ll leave it to the reader to explore further if they are interested.

There is a long history in thought about the idea of causality.  Causation basically means that events (effects) are preceded by causes.   Causes produce effects. This has been a cornerstone for many fields of thought, especially science.  Science requires causes to produce effects because without it there could be no predictions. Continue reading →