As I am sure is evident, I am not one trained in the language of natural philosophy as you are. I appreciated your consideration of my thoughts.

If anyone cares to answer my basic question, I would sincerely appreciate it. Let me put it more concisely:

We don’t know why gravity works. I expressed what seems to me to be the implications of our not knowing how it works, and pointed out that, “If that sounds unreasonable [as I realized it would], so should assuming that what so plainly and blatantly appears to be the consistent effects of free will are only the appearance of free will.”

If science is convinced of the reality of unobservable gravity due to its observable effects, and is not claiming there is only the “appearance of gravity,” why does it not do the same for unobservable free will due to its many observable effects?

I suggested that was due to a religious (atheistic) / philosophical bias in contemporary science. If there is a better reason I would be delighted to hear it. It seems to me that bias falls far short of the relentless objectivity that is essential for science to remain science and not become a forum for a particular religious/philosophical viewpoint.

One final thought: Why is an apple falling to the ground from a tree more convincing than one deciding to tap the tip of one’s nose with one’s finger and then deciding to stop doing that, or deciding not to do that at all, or deciding to start doing that and not stop (which would become awkward during a job interview, even if one explained this one being done in the interests of science ;o) In other words, it seems to me things like Newton’s apple falling were there for everyone to see all along, as is the everyday application of our free will. Have we missed the obvious? Or has atheistic science simply not liked the obvious, with the rest of us going along with that so as not to appear to be “unscientific”?

I can see where you’re going with it, but it’s burdened by a strange interpretation of natural philosophy.

Unless I’m mistaken, you questioned not just the future magnitude of gravity but its future existence(!) and then used that to support a free-will argument. Harry, that was truly awesome.

Let’s just leave it at that. We might not be on different sides regarding the final conclusion, but we speak a COMPLETELY different language.

Best of luck – JM.

You wrote:

“I have to put my faith in check for a moment to consider the situation objectively. There is no way for the observer to distinguish between choice and non-choice in this configuration. There is only the opportunity to see what one already assumes true.”

There is also no way for the observer to detect gravity in itself. There is only the opportunity to see (in its effects) what one already assumes true: that gravity is a reality.

Why was it so easy for materialistic science to accept the reality of unobserved gravity due to its observable effects and so difficult for it to accept the reality of unobserved free will due to its many, many observable effects? Ultimately, is materialistic science taking the reality of gravity on faith? It seems to me that the reality of free will is no more a matter of faith than is the reality of gravity.

Yes, one could argue that the “observable effects” of free will really just provide the appearance of free will. And one could also argue that gravity may, for all we know, stop working. That its effects seem to have been and continue to be consistent is not proof that it will continue to have those same effects or any effect at all. Since we don’t really know WHY it works, we don’t know that whatever causes have made it work in such a reliable fashion won’t come to an end. If that sounds unreasonable, so should assuming that what so plainly and blatantly appears to be the consistent effects of free will are only the appearance of free will. I think that is a religious/philosophical assumption, not a scientific one.

I say “religious/philosophical assumption” and not just “philosophical assumption” because the atheistic materialist cannot prove God and immaterial realities do not exist. He must take that belief on faith. Belief regarding the existence of God and immaterial realities which one must take on faith is clearly a religious belief — even if the belief is that there are no such things. (Which, by the way, is an irrational belief since it is evident that immaterial abstract concepts exist, since we can grasp them and communicate them to others. Or are we to assume “abstract concept particles” of some kind, like the hypothetical gravitron, are sent by one mind and received by another in that case? I hereby coin the term “absconitron.” ;o) And even if belief in the non-existence of God and immaterial realities is not a religious belief, still, even though some philosophical assumptions are necessary for science – like the assumption that the Universe is intelligible – other philosophical assumptions cease to be scientifically valid if they result in a departure from the relentless objectivity necessary in order for science to seek out the truth by following the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the philosophical implications of the evidence and the truth to which it leads. The assumption that the “effects” of free will are just the illusory appearance of its reality and do not demonstrate its reality until proven otherwise springs from a philosophy that is unfit for science in so far as it is in opposition to the relentless objectivity science requires. Or is it scientifically valid to claim the effects of gravity do not demonstrate its reality?

In short, no, it is not enough. I have to put my faith in check for a moment to consider the situation objectively. There is no way for the observer to distinguish between choice and non-choice in this configuration. There is only the opportunity to see what one already assumes true.

Please don’t assume that I don’t have faith in choice. I am simply separating my faith from an analysis of my faith which you asked for. I am very conservative with respect to how I draw my conclusions.

“The creation account tells us, then, that the world is a product of creative Reason. Hence it tells us that, far from there being an absence of reason and freedom at the origin of all things, the source of everything is creative Reason, love, and freedom. Here we are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis. As believers we answer, with the creation account and with Saint John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom.

“Hence it is good to be a human person. It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.

“Hence a thick black line, so to speak, has been drawn across the structure of the universe and across the nature of man. But despite this contradiction, creation itself remains good, life remains good, because at the beginning is good Reason, God’s creative love.

“Hence the world can be saved. Hence we can and must place ourselves on the side of reason, freedom and love – on the side of God who loves us so much that he suffered for us, that from his death there might emerge a new, definitive and healed life.”

– The above is from the Pope’s Easter Vigil homily

Reason and freedom began spiritually and remain essentially spiritual. They are supernatural. They are impossibilities in a strictly natural, materialistic Universe.

Immaterial, abstract concepts can never be seized upon by, or affect, that which is strictly material. Reason must be essentially spiritual.

The concept of randomness has been invented by Man because of his inability to understand the cause of some events. Our inablility to predict some events does not mean they had no cause and is not the basis of free will. Our freedom, being essentially spiritual, cannot be observed scientifically, yet can be shown to exist by its effects in the same way other realities than cannot be observed scientifically are demonstrated to exist by their observable effects.

An Easter morning revision of my last post:

Consider the case where where One did something that was extremely painful and took a long time, something that should cause others to realize that such a One must love mightily.

Did that demonstrate the existence of the reality of free will in that there was action “counter to the direction that the materialistic environment demanded of it,” the continued action being counter to the materialistic environment created by that person’s nervous system and brain signalling extreme pain?

Yes it did. And the reality of love. He is risen. May His love rise up in all of us.

You are quite right. ;o)

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Let me try again.

Consider the case where where one does something that is extremely painful and that takes a long time, something that would cause others to remark that such a one must have a lot of “will power.”

Does that demonstrate the existence of the reality of free will in that there is action “counter to the direction that the materialistic environment demands of it,” the continued action being counter to the materialistic environment created by the person’s nervous system and brain signalling extreme pain?

A: If they are ‘freely’ doing it, it is clearly a demonstration of free-will. I don’t think I had a choice (:)) in answering that question any other way.

“Another example: the electrochemical reactions in the material brain, like the electrochemical reactions in a recording video camera, are both brought about by photons.”

I should have said, “Another example: In the case of vision, the electrochemical reactions …”

You wrote:

“All good questions from Harry, but I’m not sure if the implied conclusions are refined yet. Because morality and freedom are consequences that arise from free will, we really should not use them in an argument to support the existence of free will. Such circular arguments are too easily unraveled.”

You make a very good point. While it doesn’t prove the existence of free will, I thought it would be good to point out that if we accept the belief that we have no free will due to our thoughts being strictly materialistic and deterministic, we must also give up all hope of ever having certainty regarding objective reality.

As for my asking just who is managing a mind that appears to be well managed, yet the owner of which insists he is not managing due to his not having a free will with which to do so: I was just wanting to provoke thought in those who believe in spiritual realities and for whom the difference between a managed and an unmanaged mind is evident.

If you want a few more thoughts from an amateur, read on. ;o)

You also wrote:

“May I suggest finding an explanation (need not be materialistic) for free-will that:
(A) Is independent of the down-stream implications such as freedom, morality and accountability.
(B) Shows unambiguously how the mind has the ability to act counter to the direction that the materialistic environment demands of it.”

I think the mind is essentially spiritual. So I don’t think we will ever demonstrates how it “acts” in the way we demonstrate how material things must act. Somehow, in a way we do not understand, the mind, or if you will, the rational soul, is integrated with our material body, constituting a whole. That there is an immaterial component to the mind is evident in that the mind can grasp and be affected by that which is immaterial, as in its ability to grasp immaterial abstract concepts which can never be seized upon by or affect that which is strictly material.

Another example: the electrochemical reactions in the material brain, like the electrochemical reactions in a recording video camera, are both brought about by photons. The material video camera does not “see” anything. It just reacts to photons. In the same way, the material electrochemical reactions in the brain do not “see” anything. There is nowhere to be found in the material brain a display of what is being seen, yet there is a display being seen. Where is that display and where is it seen? In the immaterial soul.

It is the same with our other senses.

So, if free will resides in the immaterial soul, or in the immaterial component of the mind if you will, we can’t show, in terms of the material brain anyway, “unambiguously how the mind has the ability to act counter to the direction that the materialistic environment demands of it.” We have to demonstrate the existence of the immaterial soul and its attributes, those being at least rationality and free will, like we demonstrate the existence of other realities that are unobserved, yet the existence of which is demonstrated by their visible effects (like gravity).

What do you think about people freely doing things that they know will be extremely painful? Does that demonstrate the existence of the reality of free will in that there is action “counter to the direction that the materialistic environment demands of it”?

You also wrote:

“Harry – If you can refine the argument, I think you’re on to something really strong.”

You are very kind. ;o)