You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Determined Will - A brief look at how determinism and choice co-exist - A Jave Rant
I've read it theorized that will is a sort of "top-down" causation made possible as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system, vs. the "bottom-up" causation of atoms and cells and whatnot. It's similar to e.g. economics, where we can both look at a market as the aggregate functioning of numerous individual actors, and as an entity in itself with its own behaviors.
I'm not sure I totally follow - but through my understanding here, a conscious being's will is a link in the causal chain. Pretty much like a cue ball hits a striped billiards ball, which then sends the eight ball into the pocket. Which thing "caused" the eight ball to drop into the pocket? Most recently, the striped ball; before that, the cue ball, before that, the stick, before that, the hand, before that, the neuron that moved the hand... etc. :)
Well, under a strict materialist paradigm, the will can't be a link in the causal chain because it's not an observable physical process. (The person with the will can observe it, but it's said to be an illusion. Under strict materialism, everyone is a p-zombie.) But perhaps you're not a strict materialist! In which case, if the will has causal force but is a nonphysical process, we'd expect to hit a limit on empirical observation. Somewhere in following the physical causal chain, we will see something appear to happen spontaneously, correlated only to the reported subjective experience of will. Perhaps at the quantum level?
Meh. This sounds like behaviorism. Just because something can't be currently observed objectively doesn't mean it's not part of a materialist causal chain. It just means we don't yet have the tools of observation. Whatever we want to call will, it has to be a physical process; but only because all that is is physical. :)
I think you're getting caught up on the subjective experience part. Whatever our ability to discern the world, it doesn't affect that which is. I'm assuming by "spontaneous" you mean "without cause"? But if something appears spontaneous to an observer, it is only an appearance due to the finite nature of perspective. Reality happens outside of perspective.
I would venture that qualia, acts of will, etc. are in principle unobservable, not simply contingently unobservable based on our present technology or understanding. But the omniscience of empiricism is the core unprovable article of faith for the materialist, so I won't begrudge you that. ;)
Well, again, I don't think "observable" is a necessary distinction or quality of causality. That may mean my line of thinking extends somewhat beyond empiricism (though I think it's a natural extrapolation of it), but I grant you there is some faith involved. :) And no matter what, I do have to grapple, at some point, with an un-caused cause.
Unless, of course, time is a flat circle...