The Atheism of the Gaps

First Things ^ | Stephen M. Barr

[Phaedrus]

The Materialists would say, I suppose, that the material is the message but this is definitionally inconsistent, which they realize, so they would further say, I suppose, that any message is imagined. But then the unanswered question is: "What is imagination?" Would not imagination be impossible in a wholly and truly material universe? They would then say, I suppose, that there is always noise in any system. But, then, Look Out! We have a "gap".

Is it fair to say, Vade, that quantum mechanics "proves" that "particality", the Universe at its most funadmental level (and thus all of the Universe), is an unanswered question since the best that can be done is a probability distribution? Does Free Will answer this question, fill this "gap"? Can there be Free Will without consciousness?

Fun Stuff.

[VadeRetro]

Would not imagination be impossible in a wholly and truly material universe?

The problem is all inside your head.

[What about Bob?]

I don't buy that the mind is not a machine operating under the laws of physics.

Okay, then you would also agree that you have no free will then, correct? And please, don't point to the heisenberg uncertainty principle or chaos theory as you will then be merely passing the buck, as it were, onto another kind of phyiscs, all be it a much more complex one. Explain to me how, given your statement, "you" have genuine free will, and are not just a slave to the laws of physics and chemistry.

[What about Bob?]

It assumes, without any basis, that any purely material brain must necessarily operate as a Turing machine.

Can you explain to me where you came up with this? I'm a computer scientist, and I did not see that assumption anywhere in this piece.

[What about Bob?]

It relies on an inconsistent usage of terms such as "physical" and "material." Sometimes these terms are used to mean "anything which is real." Other times, they are used as antonyms of "spiritual" and/or "abstract." Penrose's proof is based on slyly using these terms with first one meaning, and then the other. Unfortunately for the validity of Penrose's argument, an argument that uses terms with inconsistent semantics is invalid on its face.

Can you be more specific? In what way, specifically, does he misuse the words, and in what way, specifically, would he be wrong and/or invalid were he to adhere to one specific semantical usage?

[What about Bob?]

There is no reason that material minds cannot exist whose principles of operation transcend those of humans, just as ours transcend those of ants. Our ability to prove what ants cannot no more implies that our minds are immaterial than does the fact that the aliens from the next galaxy can prove what we cannot.

This is rather obvious. Since nobody knows everything, then clearly there could be a whole galaxy of beings with more complex material brains. Can you explain what your point here is, and how this invalidates Penrose's thesis? I would still also be interested in hearing an account of genuine free will given a purely material mind.

[What about Bob?]

We're seeing the usual hijacking of a more-or-less sober scientist by an "anti-materialist" whose axe grinds loudly throughout the article. Barr loves Penrose for giving him some good ammo against that evil, materialism. Then he gets mad at him for not going far enough, for not rejecting materialism himself.

Yes, Barr is a Physicist at U. Delaware. He also writes articles about the anthropic principle proving the universe was made for us. That doesn't wash with me either but it's another story.

What, may I ask, is your point here?

[What about Bob?]

That religious people made the mistake of only assigning the unexplainable and the mysterious to the work of a god, gods or God. As the unexplained grew smaller, the space for God in our lives grew correspondingly smaller. There is no natural.

Actually "religious" people find the idea that the laws of physics, the configuration of the phyiscal universe, the formation of planets and the development of non-living matter into living matter and its subsequent evolution to the point that it becomes self-aware, all some big natural accident, to be so preposterous as to warrant dismissal (Occam's razor). I think the universe exhibits design, and I do not find it irrational or silly to have this belief. Search for my past posts and you'll find an article that has about 30 quotes or so from very well known scientists who all say the same thing; of course given the current academic climate they stop short of calling the intelligence "god". You can call it Bob the Pink Elephant for all I care.

[What about Bob?]

Now as for the above, I'd like to ask the Creationists lurking here to explain how using Religion to supply irrational explanations for the very real and documented evidence supporting Evolution is any different than primitive people using their religious beliefs to explain away lightning as the raging of the gods? Or do most Creationists still believe that lightning is the raging of gods? And if not, what does that tell you?

Why do you seek out "Creationists" for your little diatribes? Can you please define "Creationist"? I see that term so flagrantly tossed about by people such as yourself that I'm really not sure what it means anymore. Once upon a time, for serious people, it meant that you believe in a literal 6 day creation as described literally in Genesis. Therefore, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a "Creationist". However, I know why you do it. It's much easier for you to take on a Biblical literallist than someone, such as myself, who actually knows science very very well.

[Lev]

Explain to me how, given your statement, "you" have genuine free will, and are not just a slave to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Why are you assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry are incompatible with free will?

[What about Bob?]

Bump for an excellent article -- alternate title: "Materialism on the Run".

Indeed. I wonder what the Atheists will find shelter under next. :)

[What about Bob?]

Lev, the laws of physics and chemistry are not incompatible with free will if you assume, as I do, the existance of an incorporeal soul. However, for the materialist, all that exists is matter, and laws acting upon it. Therefore, the mind, while reducible or irreducible, is still fully supervenient on the physical brain. Thus, "you" do not have any free will. You are a conglomeration of matter and chemical reactions upon which laws are acting. In this scenario, you may "think" "you" have "free will", but this is of course merely an illusion. You are a slave to matter and law, and nothing besides. Is that clear?

[Phaedrus]

The problem is all inside your head.

Har! Yes, and yours.

[VadeRetro]

Okay, then you would also agree that you have no free will then, correct?

My behavior is theoretically deterministic, yes. But even I don't often know what I'm going to do next. To know everything about what I'm going to do, someone has to know everthing else in the world that might influence me over the period of interest and model it completely before it happens. You basically have to put the whole world into your model to model perfectly. For any and all practical purposes I have free will.

At least, I feel compelled to say that.

[Lev]

Thus, "you" do not have any free will. You are a conglomeration of matter and chemical reactions upon which laws are acting.

Nope, still not clear. You are assuming that sufficiently complex "conglomeration of matter and chemical reactions" can't produce free will. Why? Isn't it what we are trying to discover?

[VadeRetro]

What, may I ask, is your point here?

Much as Southack was doing with Hawking and Prigogene on that PBS Memo thread, Barr and you have hijacked poor well-intentioned Penrose's out-there idea for purposes he explicitly anticipates and disagrees with.

Moreover, he asks, "if mentality is something quite separate from physicality, then why do our mental selves seem to need our physical brains at all?" "It is quite clear," he goes on, "that differences in mental states can come about from changes in the physical states of the associated brains."

It is quite clear indeed. Ingest a too much mercury and you go nuts. Get too much nitrogen in your blood and you get "rapture of the deep," bane of scuba divers. Or try alcohol, PCP, crack cocaine, a stroke, or a tumor. Your mind is in your brain. It's physical and chemical in its underpinnings.

Penrose knows this. He's simply the latest in a long line of real scientists (Gould, Hawking, everyone who's ever critiqued a fossil . . .) whose works have been hijacked for creationism. If Penrose's hypothethis is the mathematical destruction of evolution you tried to cite on that other thread, you exaggerate its significance. It just isn't close to what you would make it.

[VadeRetro]

What, may I ask, is your point here?

Simpler yet:

Creationists, having none of their own, will try to borrow anybody else's credibility.

[What about Bob?]

Nope, still not clear. You are assuming that sufficiently complex "conglomeration of matter and chemical reactions" can't produce free will. Why? Isn't it what we are trying to discover?

Lev, do you recall elementary chemistry? Have you taken basic partical physics courses or read a book about physical law and chemistry? Do you understand what it is to have true free will? Do you recognize what you said? You said "produce free will". If free will is "produced" by law and matter, then it is not free will, even if we would like to "imagine" that it is. If this is still unclear, you should head to your local library and learn about materialism, dualism, determinism, and the philosophy of mind. All very "thought" provoking stuff.

[What about Bob?]

Creationists, having none of their own, will try to borrow anybody else's credibility.

Perhaps you ought to find a Creationist then, since I'm not one.

[The_Reader_David]

Sorry to disillusion you, but the class of computations possible for a neural network with finitely many neuron each of which has finitely many states is describable by a formal system. Goedel's result applies. The only thing you get by going to neural networks is run-time efficiencies. The materialists last refuge is a notion of mind (or brain capabilities) which are strongly dependent upon quantum mechanical or quantum gravitational phenomena as yet not understood. This is the point: when materialism approaches consciousness, it becomes a faith in the gaps. This, however, is not very satisfying for the materialists, since quantum phenomena are inherently non-local. A non-local quantum mechanical mind interacting with the large (and therefore classically describable) body sounds dismayingly like a soul. That it may not exist without a body to support it could be trouble for faiths which profess a transmigration of the soul, but leaves "I believe in the resurrection of the body" and all of traditional Christianity unscathed.

Incidentally, I have worked through the proof of Goedel's theorem, and am familiar with neural computation from a mathematical point of view. I am reporting mathematical facts, not interpretations, conjectures or suppositions.