INTERLOCUTOR:
the point I believe Jacob is making is this - by “make choices” he means the ability to make a selection that is a product of your independent will for which you are wholly accountable for. Such a choice would not be predetermined by any third-party inputs or some form of predetermined processes. A robot on the other hand follows a program. The governing code may include value hierarchies or coded preferences but those violate the principles previously mentioned - thus a robot never makes a true “choice”
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
What would be the structural difference between a free agent's will (human) and a non-free agent's will (robot)? What is the anatomy of a free choice such that it isn't based on value hierarchies or coded preferences?
INTERLOCUTOR:
that is a fundamental question and goes to the heart of the issue. If you accept what the Church teaches - namely that each person is an independent, eternal intelligence that was not created but simply is what it is then you have the first step in establishing a foundation for human agency and accountability. If instead you accept that humans are entirely the creation of God or of natural evolutionary processes then humans are nothing more than highly sophisticated and complex programs that are no different than robots (other than a difference in scale and complexity) and ultimately are not truly accountable for anything they do.
the relevant question isn’t whether choice is based on value hierarchies and preferences (because it always is) but what is the source of those value hierarchies and preferences
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Would you agree that it fair to say that this type of free agency requires control over our value hierarchies and preferences?
A materialist could say that value hierarchies are sourced in the body, which is sourced in biology, which is sourced within the determinism of physics.
A theist might say that value hierarchies are sourced in the soul - but then the soul would be sourced within the biology of souls, which would be sourced within the determinism of the mechanics of souls.
One sources decisions to DNA, the other sources decisions to spiritual DNA. If we don't control either, how is the source relevant?
INTERLOCUTOR:
what is spiritual DNA? What is the biology of souls? Sorry, but no, I would not agree that this is what all theists would say. Now I would agree if you were referring to a Calvinist, but no, LDS theology would not agree with your characterization.
The point of an intelligence is that it is the fundamental element that makes up our nature. It is who we are and it is 100% ours to control through the exercise of our will. There is no further reduction to component parts. It is the fundamental, eternal self.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
You understand that saying "intelligence is fundamental" means that there are no smaller parts than this right? But you simultaneously admit that even spiritual decisions must be based upon value hierarchies. If an intelligence is using a value hierarchy, that admits that the value hierarchy is a smaller component within that intelligence, and hence the intelligence is not fundamental. This results in a contradiction, which means there is an error in your formulation.
INTERLOCUTOR:
No. A value hierarchy is not a component part of an intelligence and the use of a value hierarchy does not admit such. You can use a hammer to pound a nail - does that make the hammer a part of your body? There is a clear delineation between what is your body and what is the tool. Value hierarchies are tools (just like hammers) that an intelligence will use but that doesn’t make the hierarchy a component part of itself. Furthermore, it is the very fact that the value hierarchy is not a component part that enables the intelligence to have an independent Will and thus Agency. The intelligence decides what value hierarchy to use and is free to change hierarchies at any time just as you can decide whether to use a hammer or a saw to accomplish a particular task. So no, I am not contradicting myself.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
How does an intelligence decide which tool to use? The intelligence must appeal to an internal value hierarchy in order to decide which external value hierarchy tool to use. The ability to choose values necessitates deeper values, and hence choice falls into an infinite regress of deeper values. What is at rock bottom?
INTERLOCUTOR:
I don’t know how to say it more clearly- the intelligence I am referring to IS that rock bottom. It IS the will that chooses. You insist that there is an internal value hierarchy - there isn’t. There is only the intelligence; it is eternal and there are no further fundamental component parts. You have hit rock bottom.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
I have already exposed the contradiction here. Intelligences CANNOT choose values if intelligences are rock bottom, and hence intelligences don't have free will since they cannot choose. There is no such thing as a choice without values behind that choice.
INTERLOCUTOR:
you have merely asserted intelligences cannot choose based on your assertion that there must be a deeper value hierarchy. I do not concede that a deeper value hierarchy is necessary to make a choice. You have not exposed any contradiction.
You asserted the problem of infinite regress and asked for the rock bottom. I gave you rock bottom but you rejected it because you seem to be insisting that there must be an infinite regress.
I am rejecting your assertion that intelligences cannot choose because I maintain that that is precisely the function of the intelligence. It is the rock bottom aspect of a person’s fundamental eternal nature that makes choices based on the values and preferences it freely selects as a product of the exercise of its Agency.
Honestly- where are you going with this discussion? Are you seriously trying to contend for the proposition that humans do not have Agency?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
"the relevant question isn’t whether choice is based on value hierarchies and preferences (because it always is)"
"I do not concede that a deeper value hierarchy is necessary to make a choice."
Your position is self-contradictory. You would do well to ponder this a bit more.
INTERLOCUTOR:
there isn’t an inconsistency if you listened to what I said in its entirety rather than cherry picking two sentences in an attempt to force an inconsistency. I asked you some important questions in my last comment- your failure to answer them is telling.
I will try to help you out once more by explaining again. Are value hierarchies and preferences used to make choices? Of course. But you are continuing to fail to understand the very nature of an intelligence. I have repeatedly explained- the intelligence is the irreducible fundamental component of self. It is your will, desire, the very core of your identity. It is the agent that freely shapes itself as it is will itself. It doesn’t have a will or preferences it IS will and preference. Why are you having such a hard time with this concept? And please stop repeating your continued insistence that the Will has to have a smaller Will inside of it- it is getting silly at this point.
So I stand by what I said and maintain that there is no inconsistency- just your refusal to understand - likely because conceding the point will undermine whatever is your true objective in this conversation. Again - if you read what the two sentences you selected carefully you will see that they do not contradict and when you place them in the context of everything else I said the lack of contradiction becomes painfully obvious. Your insistence on there being a contradiction however gives a insight into your own objectives. What you are hiding behind that particular curtain is rather terrifying indeed. I would advise you to follow your own advice and invest in some pondering of your own as I suspect that if we turned the tables and had you explain your own thoughts on the nature of Agency I think I would have a field day deconstructing it 😁
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
There is no refusal to understand anything. Your "model" of how will works is internally inconsistent and therefore impossible. Your explanation completely fails to address the infinite regress problem. Why don't you try to walk through a decision algorithm with your model and see how ridiculous it sounds?
"Today I want to make a choice. What choice will I make? I must appeal to my fundamental intelligence. Uh oh. There are millions of pieces of data in my environment, and there are an infinite number of ways to interpret them, and some are more relevant than others. I have a variety of drives, both biological and spiritual, and different data is relevant to different drives. So I have this complex ecosystem of competing values that change from moment to moment as my needs change. And ALL of this reduces to "fundamental intelligence". I value salty food right now because my salt system is low on resources, so salt is chosen over sugary food. That drive is equal to intelligence. I value reading my scriptures over prayer because the "knowledge" drive within my soul is more depleted than my "divine connection" drive. Yet that is just equivalent to my "fundamental intelligence". Somehow, my knowledge drive is now satisfied, but my "charity" drive is now feeling empty so I now prefer acts of service over anything else. And I have this algorithmic system of rising values and falling values within this complex hierarchy of values in which my actions are constantly changing with whether or not each need is regenerating its neediness or not. And then somehow sin creeps in and I suddenly value the opposite of my values and this is also just "fundamental intelligence". Then I realize I have a value system I don't like! The value for sin! Now I must change my value system. So I appeal to my deeper value system of "repentance" and begin changing my other value systems in an attempt to starve off the "sin" value system. And this deeper mechanism is ALSO fundamental intelligence. But where did this deeper value system of "repentance" come from? It came from my desire for righteousness! A deeper value system! My repentance value system isn't strong enough so I must appeal to my righteousness value system to boost it! But where did this righteousness value system come from? Was I just born with it? Is it just a fundamental part of my intelligence? What about Lucifer? Was he just not born with a value for righteousness? How can one repent if they don't value righteousness? Any spirit created without this value system - what are they to do? Change their values? How can they start to want righteousness if they don't want righteousness? Now we have landed on rock bottom - spiritual DNA. A spirit is either born with the deepest value system oriented towards righteousness, or they are born without that. But regardless, all of this is just fundamental intelligence."
Your "fundamental intelligence" is so overloaded with attributes, systems, parts, and processes that no rational person would call this fundamental. But by all means keep being you and continue to justify it.
INTERLOCUTOR:
suit yourself. You asked for an answer. You were given one you don’t like. I can live with that.
The answer I gave you already addresses the avalanche of questions you asked. Whether you are able to understand it or not is up to you.
Again - don’t think that it escaped my notice that you failed to address my questions regarding your own objectives and your own answer to the question of agency. I noticed. Based on your comments I think I have a pretty good idea though of what your answers would be. I wonder if you have the integrity to actually share it. Do you? Deconstructing is easy - defending an idea - that takes guts. Gonna rise to the challenge? The floor is yours…
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Lol... Nice conspiracy you are building there.... "I have detected Satanic energy, its so deceptive and lacking in integrity, it must be scheming to destroy things...lets see if I can coax it out of the darkness and into the light"...Lol Mormon brains are hilarious.
I'm an exmormon atheist as the admins know. There is no conspiracy or lack of integrity. I don't believe free will exists and I can back up my reasons. I have a fairly developed perspective on philosophic foundations. Feel free to ask any question you like.
INTERLOCUTOR:
I already assumed this would be your answer- Just wanted you to stop hiding the ball and pretending like you didn’t already know the answers to your questions.
Out of morbid curiosity- if you don’t believe in free will how are you ascribing accountability to people for their actions? Or is there no real accountability as we are just robots following our biological and chemical programming?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Social accountability as opposed to divine accountability. The question of accountability is to who and by what power. No God, so no moral accountability in the divine sense. Society exists, so yes, there is moral accountability in the social sense - we owe it to society to be moral to society, and if we don't we will suffer the wrath of the power of society.
To address the second question - yes, I view humans as robots that follow our programming. I do make an important distinction between the two though - robots follow determinism without feelings, humans follow determinism with our feelings. So sentience is the attribute of humanity that makes us morally valuable in such a way that traditional robots are not. The day robots are able to obtain sentience is the day they get moral consideration.
INTERLOCUTOR:
whether it is divine or societally accountability makes little difference on this particular point. How is that societal accountability justifiable if the offender didn’t make a choice? Or is it just arbitrary?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Free choice is not relevant in my model of accountability, rather agency and consequences are relevant. Agency is not free agency; agency is the ability to act as an agent, and agents are unified entities with their own goals (deterministic they may be).
If we develop a species of AI robot agents that learn how to metallically reproduce in the wild, but are nevertheless slaves of their programming, the fact that they have no free will does not mean we make it legal for them to hunt humans for sport. AI robots are socially accountable to us, and if they violate our rules, we can punish them with social power.
INTERLOCUTOR:
what does “agency is the ability to act as an agent” mean? You said you view people as robots following their programming. Are agency and programming synonymous?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
"Agency is the ability to act as an agent, and agents are unified entities with their own goals" - the ability to act in the pursuit of one's goals makes one an agent with agency. This means that bacteria are agents when they act to satisfy their goal for food. A chess software algorithm is also an agent as it takes actions in the game of chess to accomplish its goal of winning the game.
INTERLOCUTOR:
how do you distinguish agency and programming? Based on your response it appears you are saying that they are synonymous. Is that correct?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
No, they are not synonymous because not all programming results in agency. In order to be an agent, a software program needs to be a unified entity with goals, observations, a value system, decision functions, and action potential. Not all software programs have these features.
INTERLOCUTOR:
Would it be fair to say that an agent is a specific subset of program? Not all programs are agents but all agents are programs?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Depends on how people think of programs. Programming can imply the usage of machine code binary logic, which agents are not limited to. I would agree with the phrase "all agents are deterministically programmed by physics."
INTERLOCUTOR:
you brought up infinite regress- is physics the rock bottom of your model?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Epistemologically yes, ontologically no. I believe in an ontological infinite regress, but we have no epistemic access to anything earlier than the big bang.
INTERLOCUTOR:
ok as I understand you - we are robots whose decision-making directives are a product of an infinite regress of causes that we cannot explain or understand. Society punishes us if our directives cause us to do something society doesn’t like and that is the basis of “morality”. Society is justified in punishing us for actions we don’t control because we “owe” society. Admittedly I am simplifying- but does that sound about right?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Yeah, that's pretty good, just some minor edits - "We are *sentient* robots whose decision-making directives are a product of an infinite regress of causes that we cannot *fully* explain or understand. Society punishes us if our directives cause us to do something society doesn’t like and that is the *social* basis of “morality” (evolution is the deeper basis). Society is *socially* justified in punishing us for actions we don’t control because we “owe” society."
INTERLOCUTOR:
so as a sentient robot why are we having this conversation? What directive are you obeying?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Evolution teleologically produces all the drives. The fundamental evolutionary drive is "I ought to exist". All further values are built upon this foundation. "I ought to eat" because I ought to exist. As truth becomes important for existence, a drive to value truth evolves. As existence becomes dependent upon groups, social values evolve. When collective understanding of truth becomes needed for collective existence, the value of educating and persuading the group towards a collective understanding of truth becomes valued.
So yes, I am participating in the process of promoting truth in my society's information ecosystem so we can exist more successfully. These values come from my evolution.
INTERLOCUTOR:
what makes you think it is truth that you are promoting? What if “truth” contradicts your personal programming? Would you ever know? Aren’t you simply promoting what your programming dictates to you is “truth?” How can you ever know you have found real “truth” if you lack the capacity to defy your programming?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
As programmed creatures, we are vulnerable to the delusions of our programming. We are not only biologically programmed but also socially programmed. That is why so many religions, ideologies, and cultures exist - social programming that is often the source of types of delusions. But we have epistemological tools at our disposal for overcoming these delusions.
We are not single-thread software programs - we are multi-threaded. This means that we are not a slave to one process or logical algorithm, we are a slave to an ecosystem of processes and algorithms.
Some algorithms may be truth-oriented, since that is useful. Some may be value-oriented, since that is also useful. The combination of which gives us the ingredients for successful decisions which are also useful.
One day I woke up, and in a daze, I saw something unusual - a black comb hovering in the air attached to the black blinds against my bedroom window. My visual algorithms were attempting to give me the truth - a black comb was detected defying gravity. If I was a one algorithm species, I would easily get fooled by this hallucination. But I knew that I had other truth-verifying algorithms at my disposal. Was this comb touchable? Smellable? Tastable? Hearable? I also have pattern-recognition algorithms that tell me that never in 30 years have combs been able to defy gravity, so the probabilities of this being true were low.
So, the virtue of having many algorithms is we can use them synergistically to fact-check ourselves to see if we have fallen into delusion. So the more epistemological tools you utilize in your process of coming to knowledge, the more confidence you can have in your conclusion being true. The better you are at detecting and debunking delusions, the more confidence you can have in your conclusions being true.
The fact that we are programmed, hence, in no way blocks our ability to find truth. The fact that science exists shows that we are exceptionally good at discovering very counterintuitive truths (like the earth is round) despite our programming.
INTERLOCUTOR:
yeah… that is just a really wordy answer that fails. Whether you are a slave to one process or to an ecosystem of processes doesn’t change the simple fact that you are still a slave. As a slave to your “ecosystem of processes” you have absolutely zero ability to think outside that programming- the assertion that your programming is sophisticated and multi faceted doesn’t change the fact that it is programming. So no, it was a long answer but it fails.
But you are just a slave so what difference does it make whether you understand this or not anyway?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
My first sentence agrees with you that we are fallible due to our programming. No disagreement there. If your conclusion is that knowledge is impossible for programs, then we have to disagree. Plenty of robots have knowledge and AI has even more knowledge than humans.
Sentience is why things matter.
INTERLOCUTOR:
fallibility and enslavement are completely different concepts. The issue isn’t whether people are infallible in their search for truth - the issue is a question of whether you are actually free to recognize and accept truth for what it is. Your entire philosophy is one of enslavement. The fact that you accept and take a perverse pride in that enslavement is the issue.
I just find it humorous for you - a slave - to be here trying to advocate that others join you in slavery.
I’m quite happy being free and I intend to CHOOSE to continue being so.
For as Lehi said to his sons:
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
By your own admission- you are a slave. It is a good thing your programming doesn’t allow you to think about that fact too hard.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Yes, its quite obvious that I don't think very hard about my positions because I have almost nothing to say by way of justification for any of them. *sarcasm*
I think it is highly immoral to promote lies and falsehoods that make the world a more illogical and more harmful place. The libertarian idea of freedom is completely incoherent and it is a lie that makes the world a worse place.
Imagine telling a child on a hiking trip - "You are free to hike as you please. You are free to defy the laws of gravity. Your molecules are not slaves to gravity, you can easily defy them, so feel free to play on the edge of the cliff. Your environment isn't important because you have freedom!"
That would both false and harmful. That is exactly what unthinking free will advocates are doing. They feel so inspired by the delusional idea that that they are free to defy the laws of physics that they will recklessly ignore how the laws of physics impact people's wellbeing.
Spare me the moral outrage until you can show a neuroscientist which part of the brain is free to defy the laws of physics.
INTERLOCUTOR:
“laws of physics” huh? How come we have such different opinions if we are both simply following the “laws of physics?” Why is “physics” failing to give me the “correct” answer? Why do you trust your “physics” rather my “physics”? Seems rather convenient that only your “physics” are working properly right now…
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Because you are a slave to the Mormon software which forces you to believe in free agency. You have less epistemological tools at your disposal since Mormon software prioritizes single-thread spiritual feelings over multi-threaded systems of evidence. Your physics are incorporating less epistemological tools.
Still waiting on a rational explanation for the ontological location of freedom in the brain.
INTERLOCUTOR:
rather presumptuous to think you know what my “physics” are doing. Also you dismissal of “Mormon software” as “single-thread” demonstrates you don’t know what you are talking about.
But since you mentioned it - don’t you have it backwards? You’re entire argument is that you are limited to pure physicalism. In fact, you are a slave to the program so how can you possibly CHOOSE to use any particular epistemological tool regardless of how many tools you think are in your toolbox? Epistemologically - aren’t you VASTLY out gunned when it comes to the potential range of epistemological tools seeing as you are so limited in your available options? I mean the “single-thread” of spirituality that you ascribe to the “Mormon software” isn’t even in your toolbox…
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Programming does not preclude the ability to choose, as software agents make choices every day. There is no issue with choice - the issue is with FREE choice.
I know how Mormon software works because I used to run it on my own brain. Hallucinations are not quality evidence that should override all other evidence, but this is exactly how Mormon software works - "Who cares about evidence, my hallucinations revealed to me the truth." Hallucinations can be debunked when you factcheck them against other evidence, but Mormons don't do this do they?
I don't think I am at an epistemological disadvantage for no longer taking hallucinations so seriously.
Still anxious to learn which part of the brain is free to defy the laws of physics.
INTERLOCUTOR:
No. You are creating this idea of “free choice” as opposed to choice and no such distinction exists. A selection between options that is the inevitable result of programming is not a choice because the so called “choice” is illusory. Options may exist but if there is no real option to select the alternative then no choice was made. The existence of the alternatives is irrelevant.
Your “choice” to reframe spiritual experience as “hallucinations” does provide some interesting insight into your biases. I find it a fascinating study of your psychological makeup to see you so obviously imprisoned by materialistic philosophy yet ironically claiming to have more epistemological tools when you are so obviously limited. You literally admit to being a slave and get annoyed when others don’t join you in slavery. What difference does it make to exchange one slave master for another - you are a slave regardless? It’s not like agreeing with you will give anyone greater freedom. You accuse others of being delusional because they believe they are free but ironically claim to feel free now that you realized you are really a slave.
As for you being anxious to learn which part of the brain defies physics- this is another humorous problem you have. Your enslavement to materialism limits your epistemological toolbox to such a degree that you aren’t permitted to consider non-physical concepts and dismiss such concepts as “hallucinations”. Yet as you chuck your tools out the window your programming causes you to blatantly lie about the number of tools that you actually have. Your insistence to limit the mind to the physical is just a product of your enslavement- you aren’t free to explore non-physical phenomena. So to end your suspense - the premise of your question is fallacious. The mind and brain are separate things and the mind is not bound by physics as it is non-physical.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
I'm going to try to explain this again. There is no such thing as free choice. There can be no such thing as free choice. This can be logically proven via the law of non-contradiction - "contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time". Freeness is fundamentally contradictory with choice. The definition of freeness reduces to randomness, as lacking constraints means they don't follow any patterns that constraints might provide. The definition of choice reduces to non-randomness, as the only way to follow a specific path is to not be random. Free choice is hence as illogical as "randomly non-random."
If you want to say that there is no such thing as deterministic choice, then the only valid conclusion is that no choices exist, since it is impossible for a non-deterministic (i.e. random) choice to exist.
I don't need you to join me in slavery. You already are a slave. The only think you need to join me in is a better understanding of reality so you can be a slave to the truth instead of a slave to lies.
Why do you think freedom is a good thing? Perhaps because this is how Mormonism has programmed you? What is the foundation for this? There is none. Freedom is a bad thing. The child with CIPA is free to not feel the pain of a burning stove. She is free to ignore the laws of physics that would otherwise tell her something bad is happening. Then her hand is burnt to a stub and now she has lost all of her functionality. What about freedom was good for her? Why should she be happy that she was free from pain? We want to be slaves to pain. We want our bodies to force our hands away from the flame so that our wellbeing is preserved. We want the external world to have a causal impact upon us. We want logical algorithms to control our lungs and heartbeat - we don't want to be free to just breathe at random and beat our heart at random. We want our brains to follow the flow of attention that is good for us, we don't want our brains to be free to not notice the relevant things. We want our arms to move in logical sequences for our goals - we don't want our arms to just be free to flail around randomly and accidentally injure yourself and others. Your worship of the idea of freedom shows how deeply Mormon biases have rooted themselves within your software.
We are slaves no matter what. The only things that might be free are quantum particles who can move randomly. We should want to become a slave to the right things as opposed to the wrong things. If an algorithm can make us and the world better, we should want to be a slave to that algorithm.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
"Your enslavement to materialism limits your epistemological toolbox to such a degree that you aren’t permitted to consider non-physical concepts." pretty audacious to assume that it is impossible for me to consider non-physical concepts, as earlier in our discussion I showed you how shallow your understanding of "intelligences" are because you have zero depth in your conceptual framework for the causal implications of "intelligence" while I built out a extensive narrative framework highlighting all of the problems with "intelligence reductionism". How is it that I am able to do that if I can't even THINK about non-physical concepts? Perhaps it isn't me who is narrow-minded and blinded by biases?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Why would you assume I "chuck" epistemological tools out of the metaphoric window for no reason? Am I just an irrational creature who deliberately tries to make myself less accurate in understanding the world? Or, perhaps, did I take advantage of my other epistemological tools, like the scientific research of spiritual experiences, and determine that there is empirical evidence that hallucinations guide you away from the truth with much greater likelihood than they guide you towards the truth?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
But just to humor you, lets play your game. Maybe supernatural epistemologies are valid. Well why should we stop with the "holy ghost" epistemological tool? Why not add astrology? Why not add Zeus worship? Why not add Pagan rock divination? Why not add meditation in front of a Buddhist idol? Perhaps because you intuit that other group's spiritual epistemology is irrational but for some reason your spiritual epistemology is not irrational? And who is the one being biased?
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
"The mind and brain are separate things and the mind is not bound by physics as it is non-physical." So, your answer to the ontological location of free will is within a non-physical spirit - and hence you subscribe to Cartesian dualism? Great. Well, why don't we try to apply some epistemological tools to this hypothesis? Non-physical substances - do our scientific methods find justification for the existence of this? Nope. Do our logical methods find justification for this? Nope. So why should we take this hypothesis seriously?
Well the problem for dualism is worse than a mere lack of evidence or justification. The problem is we know that dualism is both logically and empirically wrong.
Logically, it is incoherent for a non-physical substance to control a physical substance, because that control requires an interaction mechanism, and that interaction mechanism must be physical if it is to have physical results, since physical things react to physics, and hence spirits must have a physical component.
Empirically, we know that consciousness is not based on a substance independent of the physicality of the body, since we know that changes in the body/brain result in changes in consciousness. If consciousness was independent of the brain, then consciousness should not change in response to brain damage, drugs, chemicals, anesthetics, etc. Dualism related scientific predictions all fail in this manner, because consciousness is bottom-up, not top-down.
Based on the laws of physics, we know that energy must be conserved. If spirits are to play a causal role in manipulating or moving around physical pieces in the brain, then spirits must be exerting an energetic force on these particles. This means that the spirit is summoning energy from beyond the veil, violating the law of conservation of energy. Such violations should be detectable by scientific equipment, yet they have not been detected.
Based on neuroscience, we know that we can stimulate singular neurons to stimulate conscious experience, showing a bottom-up relationship, rather than a top-down relationship. We can also scan the shape of activity in the brain to infer thought patterns. We can map the location of data in the brain, like the place where words are stored. We can perform brain surgery to physically disconnect parts of the brain, and we can see that consciousness changes. In split-brain patients, two personalities emergy, one for each half of the brain. The left brain personality was an atheist and the right brain personality was religious. For compound words (like firetruck), the left brain could say one half of compound words (fire) and the right brain could say the other half of compound words (truck), but neither could articulate a compound word, because different words are stored in opposite halves of the brain. This clearly shows that consciousness is based on the brain materials, and to the extent the brain materials are connected, consciousness expands, and to the extent brain materials are disconnected, consciousness fractures. None of this would occur if consciousness was stored within some spiritual material.
But, even if I grant you that dualism is a justified perspective, you still have not located the free will, you have merely pushed the problem up a layer. As we already discussed, the problem of free will is just as difficult for physical systems as it is for spiritual systems. The existence of a spirit in no way guarantees you free will. You must point to which location within the spirit's anatomy is the free will and how it functions in relation to the rest of the spirit. Attempts to reduce spirits to a free will substance are merely unjustified assertions that logically fail upon scrutiny as I have already shown.
INTERLOCUTOR:
Freedom and the non-existence of consequences are not synonymous. Your definitions of freedom and choice are distorted. Freedom is not randomness and choice is not non-randomness. Those are false definitions.
Then you try to define “choice” as either deterministic or random - where either one is a contradiction of the the word choice.
I still find your claim to care about truth while simultaneously admitting that you are a slave who doesn’t think for himself because physics dictates your thoughts to you to be amusing.
Why is freedom a good thing? I’d like to see what your opinion on the matter would be if you ever had the opportunity to experience actual slavery. I think the radical shift in your worldview would be fascinating. There have been many people throughout history who have made the same case as you - that people shouldn’t have freedom - you should look into them. I wouldn’t select them as compatriots myself but whose to say - you might fit right in.
There are these fun movies with Arnold Schwarzenegger where a bunch of robots are controlled by this great algorithm that try to make the world a “better” place. Have you seen them? The poor misunderstood robots lost in the end though so maybe you wouldn’t like them. Although I would only really recommend the first two movies - the franchise only goes downhill after that
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Obviously we are talking about metaphysical freedom not agentic freedom. Freedom from physics is different from freedom from oppressive agents. There could be many mean robots that try to bully a smaller robot into being their slave. None of them are metaphysically free - they are slaves to their programming. But the robot that escapes being controlled by a mean robot is agentically free - his programming is not interfered with by external agents! He is not obstructed in accomplishing his programmatic goals! The robot that is captured is an agentic slave. The distinction is between their goals and their actions. None of the robots have ultimate freedom in controlling their own goals, due to the infinite regress problem of values we have already discussed, which you didn't have an answer for. Robots that can actualize their goals are agentically free. Robots that have external constraints that stop them from pursuing their goals are not agentically free.
Agentic freedom is good. Metaphysical freedom is bad.
INTERLOCUTOR:
how would you know whether you are rational? The universe was created as the result of uncountable random events which led to you but you have no basis on which to ground that anything in your mind is rational. As the byproduct of random unguided processes nothing about any of that implies anything rational. If you handed me a laptop and told me it manifested as the result of random unguided processes - I certainly wouldn’t trust it. Frankly, you have absolutely no conceivable framework from which to even pretend to know whether or not you are rational.
you are able to think about these concepts because you are an intelligence like I described to you. The fact that you are able to think about these things doesn’t support your position - it undermines it. A purely physical deterministic mind wouldn’t be capable- the fact that you are capable is proof that you are not a slave to physics
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
"𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐥𝐲, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥." - Wrong, I already debunked this point. Only determined minds have a chance at measuring rationality (quality and quantity of epistemological tools). Undetermined minds are full of random chaos and can't measure anything. Your conclusion is upside-down. Thinking is only possible under deterministic conditions, where one idea logically connects to another relevant idea, forming a chain of ideas that are causally linked, the prior idea causing the later, and they flow together like a deterministic river of thought.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
"𝐛𝐲𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬" - This is a classic statement of theistic confusion. Evolution is not random. Mutations are random. The pattern of which mutations succeed is guided by the environment. Desert environments guide desert mutations. Aquatic environments guide aquatic mutations. Environments that require rationality (societies) guide rational mutations.
INTERLOCUTOR:
no matter how you try to argue your way out of it - rationality is presupposed by your model. You don’t prove human rationality when it is one of your presuppositions. An “environment” doesn’t make the process “guided” as it begs the question of what guided the environment. By your admission you subscribe to an infinite regress of causes - not a single one of those causes are independently rational thus you have no basis on which to claim any subsequent step miraculously becomes rational. Claiming that some collection of irrational underlying causes somehow manifests rationality is nonsense.
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
How is rationality presupposed by my model? I don't think it is. I can explain the emergence of rationality from raw materials. I don't need it as a primordial axiom. "𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭" - of course that which preceded the environment is what guided the environment. " 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞." - this is a fairly intelligent comment, but it just fails to understand and appreciate emergence.
I still don't see any defense about how rationality exists in your model. As far as I can tell, your model is - "spiritual intelligences = free will = hierarchies of value that magically don't fall into an infinite regress = decision functions that are both random and not random = unexplainable rationality = self-contradictory ecosystem of unexplainable magic = stuff that doesn't exist".
INTERLOCUTOR:
the point where you and I diverge is at the most fundamental point. You are prescribing to an infinite regression or irrationality at some unspecified point emerging into rationality. Since all underlying causes are irrational I find your assertion that rationality emerges to be utterly baseless. On the other hand you assert that my claim of foundationalism to end the infinite regress is unconvincing.
Ultimately, I accept a foundation ending infinite regress and you are dissatisfied by the insistence that the infinite regress ends there whereas I find your reliance on on irrational infinite regress to manifesting something opposite of its nature to be baseless. We each have points we are willing to accept that the other rejects as nonsense
TRANSCENDENT PHILOSOPHY:
Rationality is a complex function, and complex functions must be built up from smaller building blocks. The ability to choose is a complex function, and likewise must be built up from smaller building blocks. Just asserting that all of that complexity is fundamental misses the point of reductionism and sounds a lot like an appeal to magic.