Problems with the Concepts of Spirit and "Free Will"
04/06/2004, updated subsequently
Dualism
What’s Wrong With Dualism
Soul and Spirit: A Look at the Origins of the Words
Solution – Monism, Unity in Diversity
Corporeality
Terminology: “Nature/Natural,” “Physics/Physical,” and “Matter/Material”
Idealists vs. Materialists
Spirits, God(s), the Afterlife
God and a ‘Spirit’-world Outside Space-Time
Free Will and Determinism
Conclusions
Options
Odds and Ends
Question-Response Correspondence
Bibliography
Mind - n. A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. - Ambrose Bierce (It's a joke, but insightful!)
Many ancient cultures divided the world into 2 categories:
what people can see and touch
what people cannot see and touch.
There is not really any problem with this distinction, as long as we remember that it is only a matter of perspective and degree.
However, a significant number of people took an extra step, asserting that these 2 categories were mutually exclusive, separate substances, 2 different worlds coexisting – that the ‘spiritual’/ unseen world was somehow separate from the physical/seen world. This is sometimes called mind/body dualism.
Dualism was an unnecessary leap and a mistake in logic. Today we know that just because one cannot see something does not mean the thing is made of some separate, special substance.
Dualism asserts that mind is thinking, completely non-physical substance and that matter is physical, completely non-thinking substance. Dualism makes mind and matter mutually exclusive. Yet it also states that mind and matter interact. The problem: if 2 things are truly mutually exclusive, they cannot interact [‘exclusive’ = ‘shut out’ < Latin, ex: out + claudo, -ere, clausī, clausum: to shut/close].
For there to be interaction between two things, they must have something in common, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other.
For one thing to influence another, there must be some point/region/area of contact, even if that area of contact cannot be seen with the naked eye. At that area of contact, some amount of energy is mutual/shared/transferred. At that region of contact, the ‘two’ things have something in common. Between two things, if each has a capacity to be influenced by the other, then they share that capacity for interaction, and are, thus, NOT mutually exclusive.
mind: has the capacity to influence and be influenced by matter
matter: has the capacity to influence and be influenced by mind
Each thing (mind and matter) is an integral part of the ‘definition’ of the other thing. Thus, they are not mutually exclusive.
The word “influence” itself means “flowing into” [from Latin, in: into + fluō, fluere: to flow]. Literally, to say that mind ‘influences’ matter is to say that mind flows into matter. To say that matter influences mind is to say that matter flows into mind.
Mind and matter must be made of the same "stuff" or the same types of components.
Understanding the history behind the terms “soul” and “spirit” reveals significant problems. In the ancient societies from which we derive our ideas of soul and spirit, the words for “soul” and/or “spirit” are the very same words that were used to refer to air, wind, breath.
The ancients believed in cause and effect. Sometimes causes and effects were visible, sometimes not. Cultures developed linguistic terms to indicate things/forces which were invisible to the naked eye, yet were still discernible from their effects – like thoughts, breath, and air/wind.
One of the questions they attempted to answer was, “What makes people/animals alive?” “What makes us move and think and act?” Ancient cultures noticed that when someone dies, that person stops breathing. Observers thus concluded that invisible wind, or breath, was what made people and other animals alive AND conscious. This concept was popular among the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans from whom we have derived our ideas, and we can see the rationale underlying their concepts when we study their languages.
Romans:
The word "spirit" comes from Latin (Roman) spiritus (breathing, breath, breeze). The verb form is spiro, spirare – to breathe. We see it in our word “respiration,” breathing. The Romans had another word, animus, which we also sometimes translate as "spirit" or “mind.” Animus is from anima (wind, breath). We see it in our word “animal,” literally a breathing thing. The Greek word anemos also meant wind.
Hebrews/Jews:
The Hebrews had a word nephesh (something that breathes, a breathing being, like Latin "animal") from their word naphash (to breathe). The ancient Hebrews believed that man was dirt which El/Yahweh had shaped and breathed the air of life into:
Man = dirt + wind/breath/air (see Genesis 2.7, 3.19; Ecclesiastes 3.20-21).
Genesis 2.7: Then YHWH Elohim formed a man (ha adam) from the dust (aphar) of the ground (adamah) and breathed/blew (naphach) into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life, and the man became a living being (nephesh, linguistically a "breathing thing").
The term nephesh applied both to humans and to other animals, as both were breathing things.
Genesis 2.19-20: Now YHWH Elohim had formed out of the ground (ha adamah) all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man (ha adam) to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature (nephesh, breathing thing), that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Hebrew has another word, ruach, which meant "wind," and often by association "breath."
Ecclesiastes 3.19-21: Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the one (same) fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have one (the same) wind/breath/spirit (ruach); humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to one (the same) place. All came from the dust (aphar) and all return to the dust (aphar). Who knows whether the wind/breath/spirit (ruach) of man goes upward and the wind/breath/spirit (ruach) of the beast goes down into the earth?
The Hebrews believed their god El/Elohim/Eloha/YHWH was (or had) wind/breath/ruach, and they thought that ruach was also the same wind/breath that blew the leaves and the clouds and gave people thoughts and emotions and made them alive. When you see the word "spirit" in the English Old Testament, it is actually translating the Hebrew word “ruach.” But what many do not realize is that every time you read the word "wind" in the English version of the Old Testament, it is likewise translating the exact same Hebrew word, ruach! The ancient Hebrews made NO linguistic distinctions at all between
the ruach/wind/spirit that blows storms (Psalm 107.25 "For He spoke and raised up a stormy ruach, which lifted up the waves of the sea"; 2 Sam 22.7 "He/ Elohim/ YHWH mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the ruach"), blusters across the sky (Psalm 104.3 "He/God makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the ruach"; Psalm 104.5 "He makes the winds (ruachot) His messengers/angels"), blows locusts (Exodus 10.13 "So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and YHWH brought an east ruach/wind across the land"), and accompanies clouds (1 Kg. 18.45 "the heaven was black with clouds and ruach/wind, and there was a great rain), and blows dust (Ps. 18.42 "I beat them small as dust in the face of the ruach/wind"), and blows from the cardinal directions (Ezekiel 42.16-20 "He measured on the east ruach [wind-side] with the measuring reed ... on the north ruach [wind-side] ... on the south ruach [wind-side] ... on the west ruach [wind-side] ... So he measured the area by the 4 ruachot [by the 4 winds = on all four sides]."),
the ruach/wind/spirit that we breathe and smell (Ecc 3.19-21; Job 9.18 "He/God does not let me catch my breath/ruach"; Job 19.17 "my ruach/ breath/ smell is offensive to my wife"; Job 16.3 "Is there no end to your windy/ ruach/ airy/ vain/ blustering words?"; Job 27.3 "as long as I have life within me, the ruach of Eloah/God in my nostrils"; Isaiah 42.5 "Thus says Elohim YHWH, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth and what comes out of it; he that gives breath (neshamah) to the people on it, and wind (ruach) to them that walk"),
what they called the ruach/wind/spirit of El/Elohim/YHWH/God (Gen 1.2 "the ruach of Elohim [usu. transl. 'spirit' of God instead of 'wind'] moved on the face of the waters"; Gen 6.3 "YHWH said, 'My ruach/spirit/breath shall not always strive with man, for certainly he is flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."; Job 15.30 "the breath/ruach of his/God's mouth"; Ps 143.10 "the good ruach of Eloah/God"), including the "wind of YHWH" (usu. transl. "Spirit of the Lord") that supposedly led the prophets (like Moses and the elders in Num 11.17, 25, 26, 29; like prophets in 1 Sam 10.6, 10; 19.20-23; like Elijah in 1 Kings 18.12; 2 Kings 2.16; as in Ezekiel's visions, Ezekiel 2.2 "the wind/ruach/spirit came into me and raised me to my feet," see also Ezekiel 3.12,14,24; 8.3; 11.1,5,24; 37.1; 43.5) or represented good morals (Isaiah 30.1), or even served as an evil or troubling mood or psychological condition (1 Sam 16.14-15 "Now the ruach of YHWH [transl. 'Spirit of the Lord'] had departed from Saul, and an evil ruach from YHWH tormented him. ... 'See, an evil ruach from Elohim is tormenting you," also in 16.23; 18.10; 19.9),
the ruach/wind/spirit that they primitively thought was responsible for
thoughts / the mind (Exodus 28.3 "all the skilled craftsmen whom I have filled with the ruach/wind/spirit of wisdom"; Deut. 34.9 "Joshua son of Nun was filled with the ruach/wind/spirit of wisdom"; Isaiah 29.24 "Those who are errant/wayward in ruach/wind/mind will gain understanding")
and emotions like jealousy (Num. 5.30 "when a ruach of jealousy comes over a man because he suspects his wife"), wisdom (Ex. 28.3), anguish (Exodus 6.9 "they did not listen to him because of their despondency/ discouragement/ impatience of ruach), anger / temper / strife (Ecc. 7.9 "Don't be hasty/eager in your ruach to be angry"; 10.4; Judges 8.3; 9.23 "Elohim/God sent an evil ruach between Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem"; Proverbs 16.32 "A patient person is better than a warrior, one who controls his ruach/temper is better than one who takes a city"; 25.28; 29.11; Job 15.13; Zechariah 6.8),
and one's will/mood/disposition (Psalm 51.12 "grant me a willing ruach/wind/spirit to sustain me"; Exodus 35.21 "everyone whose heart stirred him up and whose ruach/wind made him willing [or moved him] came and brought an offering),
a bad, evil, or troubling mood or psychological condition (Job 21.4 "why should not my ruach/wind/breath/mind be troubled"; 1 Sam 16.14-15 "Now the ruach/breath/wind of YHWH [transl. 'Spirit of the Lord'] had departed from Saul, and an evil ruach/breath/wind from YHWH tormented him. ... 'See, an evil ruach from Elohim is tormenting you," also in 16.23; 18.10; 19.9)
and prophetic abilities (2 Kings 2.15 "The ruach of Elijah is resting on Elisha.”).
They thought that all of these phenomena were caused by the mysterious wind force – invisible air. And they came to believe that air was "non-physical" because they could not see it. Modern translations of Hebrew scriptures disguise this basic fact by translating the word "ruach" with different English words, depending on context. One should look at the original Hebrew or do a word study on "ruach" to verify what I am explaining.
Greeks:
The New Testament contains two important Greek words relevant to our discussion: psyche and pneuma. The English translated psyche as soul, and pneuma as spirit. But this might be misleading. Psyche was more originally Greek for "breath", from the Greek verb psychein (to breathe, blow air). However, we see this root in our word "psychology", because Greeks over time decided that air/breath was also responsible for human thinking abilities (as the ancient Hebrews also thought). Pneuma means "a blowing, a breeze, wind, blast, breath, odor" and comes from Greek pneo (blow, breathe). In fact, the Greek word for the body's breathing organ, the lungs, was pneumon. We see that root in our word "pneumonia."
What is the point?
My point is that we now know that air (spiritus, anima, ruach, neshamah, napham, psyche, pneuma) is made of the same elemental stuff as our bodies and everything else. Just because air is invisible does not mean it is of a separate substance. We also know that air, our breath, is not of itself alone the thing that allows us to think and feel emotions.
Those ancients who assumed that the seen and the unseen were 2 separate substances were wrong.
All of the functions that ancient Jews, Greeks, and Romans attributed to soul/ spirit/ wind/ breath (ruach, pneuma, psyche, anima, spiritus) would in modern times be attributed to physical systems. In other words, their primitive notions amounted mostly to hot air.
The mind is a physical thing; emotions and thinking are physical, chemical, electrical processes of energy transference.
A sample proof:
The mind includes thoughts, perceptions, will, emotions, memory.
Chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity influence/affect thoughts, perceptions, will, emotions, memory.
Therefore, chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity influence/affect the mind.
For there to be interaction/influence between two things, they must have something in common, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other.
Mind must have something in common with chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity.
Chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity are called “physical.”
Mind has something in common with physicality and, therefore, cannot be a separate substance from the physical world.
Such a "proof" really should not be necessary, since a person can watch educational documentaries on the brain and see that the part of us that thinks and knows and feels is a physical system, just like the rest of us.
Your brain contains neuron cells that send electrochemical signals to other cells. That is how thinking works. The thinking "you" is not some imaginary non-physical "spiritual" substance.
Scientists can even turn these neurons on and off and adjust the thinking of humans and other animals (see sources below for examples).
If someone takes a certain drug, it will change the thinking process. Chemicals make people feel love, affection, sadness, happiness, indifference, pleasure, pain. Drugs can cause people to see and hear things that others do not see or hear. If thinking were a spiritual, non-physical process, then why would physical chemicals affect human thoughts or even destroy them? Depressed individuals often take pills to alter their mood, their temperament.
Human [and non-human] thinking starts to deteriorate at the same time as the brain starts to deteriorate in old age. As people’s brains decay, their memory and thoughts decay also. If you doubt this, try spending more time with very old people or individuals with Alzheimer's disease. In the same way, one's mind and thoughts grow and develop as the rest of the body grows and develops. The health of the body and the health of the mind are interrelated because the mind is not separate from the body.
Our intellect is a function of our brain chemistry, and if there is an imbalance in our brain chemistry, it can affect the intellect. Consider, for example, thyroid hormone. In addition to many other functions throughout the body, it also promotes the healthy functioning of the nervous system. If an adult's body fails to produce enough thyroid hormone, the adult will experience mental dulling, depression, paresthesias, memory impairment, and hypoactive reflexes. Intellectual functions are not functions of an immaterial "soul." A severe shortage of thyroid hormone in infants (if, for example, the body does not have enough iodine to make thyroid hormone) causes the child to be intellectually disabled, in addition to some physical abnormalities. Thyroid hormone replacement therapy can prevent cretinism if doctors diagnose the problem early enough, but once intellectual disabilities occur, they are not reversible, even with thyroid hormone replacement therapy. Now, is it the case that the person's soul can think and feel just fine, yet simply cannot communicate through the body? No way. Our thinking brain is an integral part of our body, and our persona develops along with our body. The mind is not a non-physical "soul" or "spiritual."
If you start poking holes in your brain, do you think your thoughts will go on as normal because they are really spiritual? If you do, I dare you to try it and prove me wrong!
Dogs, cats, monkeys, dolphins, and other animals have thoughts and emotions too, even if they are not quite as complex because of genetic differences in their DNA. Yet many Christians deny that animals have souls. Why?
There is no reason to believe that people have a non-physical soul or spirit made of any energy other than that which makes up everything else.
If spirit existed, it would have to be made of the same substances that make up matter; otherwise spirit could have no interaction with matter at all. For there to be interaction between two things, they must have something in common, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other. If “spiritual beings” can see, or feel, or think, you might as well say they are physical beings, because seeing, feeling, and thinking are all physical activities/interactions. Our bodies/brains can sense light and objects because everything is made from the same energy in the form of atoms and sub-atomic particles and the forces among them. If our minds were not made of ‘matter,’ or of that which also makes up matter, they would have no way to sense or contact material things.[i]
Here are some other sample sources related to this topic:
"Ed Boyden: A Light Switch for Neurons," a 19-minute lecture for TED, March, 2011. http://www.ted.com/talks/ed_boyden.html.
"Ed Boyden shows how, by inserting genes for light-sensitive proteins into brain cells, he can selectively activate or de-activate specific neurons with fiber-optic implants. With this unprecedented level of control, he's managed to cure mice of analogs of PTSD and certain forms of blindness. On the horizon: neural prosthetics. Session host Juan Enriquez leads a brief post-talk Q&A."
Memory Implant Gives Rats Sharper Recollection," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, Science section, June 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/science/17memory.html.
"the implant demonstrates for the first time that a cognitive function can be improved with a device that mimics the firing patterns of neurons. In recent years neuroscientists have developed implants that allow paralyzed people to move prosthetic limbs or a computer cursor, using their thoughts to activate the machines. In the new work, being published Friday, researchers at Wake Forest University and the University of Southern California used some of the same techniques to read neural activity. But they translated those signals internally, to improve brain function rather than to activate outside appendages."
"Monkeys control robots with their minds," CNN, May 28, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/29/monkey.robots/index.html
(CNN) -- "Scientists have trained a group of monkeys to feed themselves marshmallows using a robot arm controlled by sensors implanted in their brains, a feat that could one day help paralyzed people operate prosthetic limbs on their own ..."
Scientists have said that if the nucleus of an atom were enlarged to the size of the period at the end of this sentence, then the nearest electron might be across the street.
So it seems that there is more “space” than “substance” to the physical world. But this refers only to what we are able to detect/sense with our instruments/analyses. Even otherwise, the shifty, ephemeral, elusive, illusive nature of our existence does not warrant the dismissal of the term “physical;” it rather demands a deeper understand of what “physical” means.
When acquiring knowledge, it only makes sense to proceed from what is readily visible to us, perceptible by us, and use that as a basis for understanding the invisible.
PHYSICS/PHYSICAL:
physis (noun, feminine) nature, the law/order of nature
physikos (adjective) natural; of or in the order of nature; physical; relating to nature
The root is related to:
phyo [1] (verb) to bring forth, produce, beget, generate, procreate, put forth (offspring, leaves, hair, shoots); to grow, wax, spring up, arise
NATURE/NATURAL:
Our word ‘nature’ is from a Latin noun ‘natura’, from a verb ‘nascī’ (gnasci), which is basically a passive/deponent equivalent of the Greek verb phuo:
nascor, nascī, nātus sum (gnasci)[2] – to be born, to arise, to spring up, to be produced / begotten / generated
Physics IS nature. To be natural is to be physical and to be physical is to be natural.
MATTER/MATERIAL:
‘Matter’ really means source, ‘mother material,’ ‘mother substance,’ that of which something consists or, more accurately, from which something arises. It comes from Latin:
māteria - wood, timber, matter ... which, in turn, is from
māter – mother
Presumably wood was called ‘materia’ because the woody part of a plant was seen as the source of growth.
Here are two typical solutions to the mind/body Problem. The “idealist” looks at the transitory, illusory nature of supposedly ‘solid,’ visible things, and says, “Everything is ultimately Mind.” The materialist looks at the biochemistry of psychology and says, “The mind is the brain, and everything is Matter.” In a way, both are saying the same thing: Mind and body cannot be separate substances; mind and body share the same underlying composition (substance/s).
Both idealists and materialists deny dualism, and both adhere to a form of monism, asserting that there is ultimately only one kind of substance; they merely have different names for that underlying substance: "idea" vs. "matter"/"energy." Is this distinction, in terminology only, between idealists and materialists superficial? Does calling the ‘one substance’ by different names even matter, provided people at least realize that mind and body are made of the same "stuff"?
Mind is matter/energy. Matter/energy is/composes mind. Mind is a quality of matter/energy in certain configurations. Matter/energy has a quality called mind when in certain configurations.
Here is a little etymological game, just for fun. Consider again the root meaning of ‘matter’ given above -- "mother source." If everything were Mind, then Mind would be the Matter, the materia, the mother source, from which all arises. Even those who think everything comes from a God should consider their God to be the materia from which all arises. They would be "materialists" too, from this perspective.
One potential problem with "idealism" is that some may derive from it the mistaken notion that their imagination/will/ideas alone can bend natural laws, i.e. that their personal will or imagination actually determines reality. However, neurological studies in humans show that the unconscious brain has already acted in favor of a particular action before the conscious mind is even aware of it.
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 April 2008. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm>.
"Eric Kandel: Unconscious Decision Making," pub. by BigThink, June 7, 2012, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph7LcupAENw).
In other words, not only are natural occurrences determined by chemical 'laws,' even human actions themselves are determined by biochemical processes in the brain and the general body. Chemistry is chemistry, whether in a brain or in a forest.
Given the progress of biology and chemistry, it is much easier and more productive now to investigate the mind in terms of biochemistry (matter) than it is to investigate chemistry by referring to human will or idealism.
It should be stated clearly that the arguments above do NOT by themselves preclude the existence of “ghosts,” “spirits,” “God(s),” or "life after death." At the moment, I merely point out that whatever theoretical forms such lives might take, they would have to be made of the same energy/substance(s) which compose(s) everything else; otherwise, to speak of them would be irrelevant, for one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of them.
However, I believe, as did the writer of Ecclesiastes (in the Jewish scriptures, the Christian Old Testament), that in many ways there is little fundamental difference between humans and other animals. I believe what nature shows me, that our bodies/thoughts decay/disappear when we die. Animals and their thoughts disappear; their energy dissipates and changes forms. Nature gives me no evidence that I am permanent (as an ego, as a complex system with a peculiar perspective), only that the ultimate energy of which I consist is permanent, in one form or another.
It is theoretically possible that thoughts, as subtler forms of energy, could continue existing for a time without the rest of the body. But such thoughts would eventually fade/dissipate too, unless there were regular energy input to propagate them, store them, and/or reproduce them. For our thoughts seem to be in continuous relationship with other functions/concerns of the body. [Can you tell me anything you have ever thought about which did not in some way arise from or relate to your bodily existence? If so, I want to know. Does not the mind appear to be an interaction/reaction mechanism relating the body (of which it is part) to the environment (of which it and the body are both part)?]
I am not saying that mortality is necessarily easy to accept, but mortality is harder to accept when we are presented empty promises of eternal egoistic life either in the sky or in some fantastic unseen dimension. It is perhaps easier if we think of death as merely the changing of our energy into other forms. And it is logical to think so.
It is theoretically possible that we could learn to extend our bodily lives indefinitely, or that some have already learned this (though I doubt the latter).
Note also: If you are inseparable from the Whole, and if you are ultimately energy that never dies, only changes forms, then you might choose to identify with the larger self, which is immortal and all-inclusive, and let go of the ego or little self, when the time comes. But to the contrary, most people seem to wish to retain their finite, egoistic perspectives, attempting to prolong and augment them indefinitely.
The idea sometimes surfaces in Christian circles that God / Spirit exists outside space and time. The idea that spirit is outside of space and time is likely a not-too-thoroughly-considered mistake, and the Bible does not even teach that to begin with. To exist is to occupy space-time. Without time, also, there could be no thinking, for an entity could not have one thought before or after another – so such a God or spirit could not think or compare thoughts, or even be known or sensed or contemplated. And without time, one could not live forever, because there would be no . Without space-time, number would not exist, so there could not be multiple spirit beings; a person would not be able to distinguish between one thing and another, or (more accurately worded) between one part of the whole and another part. For example, if there were no space-time in heaven, a person could not claim to be separate from God, since the word "separate" necessarily implies differentiation, which is space-time. "Separation" is a relative word; a thing is said to be separate "from" another thing. And there is no such thing as complete separation anyway; for example, I say my head is separate from my foot, but that does not mean that my head and foot are not connected. All things are connected in space-time. Without space-time, there can be no change. Without change there can be no thought or desire. Without change we cannot talk about life. To live, to know, to love, to think – all imply change, differentiation between multiple entities and events, i.e. space-time. If you exist, you are, or are in, space-time. If there were such a thing as a spiritual world, it would still have space-time.
I have seen a suggestion, in reply, that space-time is not so much reality as it is our perception of reality. To which i respond, “OK. So what?"
I think the problem of free will is another linguistic problem, a misunderstanding.
Do actions have consequences? Do you believe in cause and effect?
If not, then the universe is meaningless, as things happen for no reason/cause. Any future expectations are futile. In 2 seconds your hand could turn into a goldfish speaking Portuguese, and your elbow may be a black rock.
If yes, you are really a determinist, whether you know it or not, since by definition effects are determined by their causes. Thus, anything having causes is determined by those causes. That is fairly simple.
It is almost [iii] always meaningless for us to speak of an event which has no cause. For any event which we imagine, we presuppose that something, some set of influences, caused that event. To say that an event simply occurred, with no preceding influences, defies our logic. Therefore, we should either admit that we believe all events to be determined by their causes, or else admit that things can happen senselessly for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and, thus, cannot be controlled.[iii]
If an event has cause(s), that does not necessarily mean we are aware of the cause(s). Even if events are determined by causes, that does not mean we are aware of how they are determined. Our unawareness accounts for the way things (i.e. future things) appear “undetermined,” “open to possibility.”
The “freedom” of one’s will is a relative matter which depends on perspective. I should also say that “will” seems hardly separable from “desire” or “attraction.” People do not choose their will/attraction/desires. People notice/feel/recognize that they have a certain will/attraction. The desires either have causes in our selves and in our environment, and the desires are determined by those causes, or else the desires are uncaused and exist for no reason. Either way, they are not “free” in the sense of being chosen.
However, once we notice that we have will/desires, we may talk about our relative freedom to pursue those desires, to pursue the fulfillment/realization of our will. “Freedom” should be used only to refer to our relative ability to pursue desires without obstruction. “Freedom” is the relative absence of perceptible constraints.
Again, “free” is a relative term. You cannot simply be “free”; you must be free FROM something. John says, “I’m free!!!” Mary says, “Free from what? Free from financial obligations, free from demands on your time, free to pursue your desires without someone hindering you?”
“Choice” is a process in which we realize we are about to take action after first becoming aware of multiple imagined, theoretical, future scenarios, and then feeling those options being weighed and sorted. The action we take is determined by our desires or by outside forces. If our choice is not determined, if it has no cause, then it is certainly not “free” in any meaningful way, and we have no control over it.
Possibilities are imagined scenarios. Potentiality (in typical usage) is never “real” until it is put into action.[3]
Neurological studies show that the human brain has chemically determined to take action before the individual is conscious of the choice (see bibliography below). The consciousness participates in choice, but that choice is determined by mostly unconscious processes. Unconscious choice precedes conscious choice.
People sometimes develop the mistaken notion that determinism is gloomy, and removes hope from life. There is no good reason for determinism to make us feel bound, to make us mope around, griping that we have “no choice”, that "we have to be and stay this way," that "there is nothing one can do about the way things are or will be"! That is shortsighted and a grave misunderstanding. In fact, the laws of cause and effect are the only reason we could ever have hope at all. Every action has a consequence. Therefore, we can and should choose/perform those actions which will bring the results we desire. Without cause/effect determinism, life would lack meaning. You might choose to tell the truth, but an uncaused lie may pop out of your mouth instead. Or a star may suddenly be born from your ass.[4] What kind of life would that be?
It is short-sighted to say, as some have, “Everything is determined. Why should I try?”
Do not be silly. You should try because every action has consequences, and those consequences affect you.
The belief that our choices are determined by processes of which we are often unaware does not remove choice from our lives. We still face multiple, conflicting desires which must compete for fulfillment. You still must face the questions, “What am I?” “What do I want?” and “What shall I become?” And you should still work hard to achieve your goals, or face the disappointment which will result from inaction.
So, is there free will? Yes and no. The will itself is determined, not absolutely free, but one may refer to one's ability to pursue one's will in relative freedom from perceptible constraints. That is, as long as you see nothing to stop you, you are still relatively "free" to choose according to your desire.
Invisible does NOT mean Immaterial.
Soul and/or Spirit and/or Mind cannot be made of a substance separate from the substance making up everything else.
Our minds are part of our bodies and must be made of the same kind of stuff.
There is no conclusive evidence that the ‘mind’ of a human continues to live ‘forever’ after the rest of the body decays.
Events within the universe are determined by causes.
The phrase “free will” is a linguistic problem. A person's will could never actually be "free" in any absolute sense. However, even though the will is determined by forces such as genetics, one's environment, biochemistry, etc., there may be relative freedom to pursue one’s will, as opposed to situations in which one has no ability to pursue or carry out one's will.
Give up the word “spirit” in favor of the word “energy.”
Give up the word “soul” in favor of less elusive words like “brain,” “thought,” “feeling,” and “emotion,” “perception.”
Continue to use the words “spirit” and “soul,” emphasizing their non-separateness from matter/physicality.
1. Someone posed this question: “Materialists, how does my body do the things it does that seem to require a mind?”
I ask,
What does your body do that seems to require a “non-physical” mind?
Also, what does your body do that other animals cannot do?
Also, what does your mind do that does not somehow relate to your body?
Does not the mind appear to be a reaction mechanism relating to the body (of which it is part) and to the environment (of which both it and the body are part)?
2. Concerning the God(s) issue:
If one assumed that ‘God(s)’ existed, then if God(s) were not at least partially physical, he/they could not understand the physical.
If there were an omnipresent God, he/she/it would have to be present in evil as well as good, if evil or good exist. For the word "omnipresent" is all-inclusive. "Omni" means "all."
If there were an omnipresent God, nothing could be separate from that God. It would be all-inclusive.
If there were an omnipresent God, he/she/it would be synonymous with the universe. Since we know the universe exists, it is not necessary to have the additional terms “omnipresent God.” However, calling the universe “God” is NOT illogical. It is simply a matter of terminology and definition. It may give the universe a more personal feel, and I guess it might as well feel personal, since our personalities are manifestations of it. But it might be misleading to say “omnipresent God” if the term “God” only invokes the old image of a great personality – a bigger, better human-like being with individual thoughts, desires, and emotions, living up in the sky apart from people.
If there is no omnipresent God, a God or Gods may still exist, only without the “omni-“ qualities traditionally associated with the Jewish/Christian/Muslim concept of God – omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Such God(s) would be made of the same energy as everything else, and would be subject to relativity.
3. Lucretius: The arguments of the ancient Roman philosopher an poet Lucretius (De Rerum Natura, 1st century BCE) are set up to answer the question, “Are unseen things actually separate from physical/seen things?” His 2nd position attempts what I have attempted – to show that unseen causes/things are not of a substance different/separate from that of visible things. Unseen things affect physical things; to affect is to touch; only the physical can affect/touch the physical; therefore, unseen things that affect the physical are physical too.
Question-Response Correspondence:
A reader comments:
“I agree that there must be a connexion between mind and matter, and they must be made of the same "stuff." However, does the mind exist? I defend the existence of my mind because it is the only factor that defines "me" from everything else. Only I see the world from my perspective. But if mind and matter are composed of the same "energy" and matter can interact with and be perceived by everyone, shouldn't the same connexion exist with mind? The problem lies in that only I can perceive/interact with my mind, and only my mind. Same with each of you. So for each person, mind exists only within himself, what he perceives as his mind. But how can it be that one's mind exists for oneself but not for anyone else? If all our minds coexist, why can we only see our own? Does that mean that all our minds are a collective Mind?”
My Response:
Very nice thoughts.
> Does the mind exist?
Is your mind not your thoughts, emotions, will, desires/attractions, senses, perspective, etc.?
> But if mind and matter are composed of the same "energy" and matter can interact with and be perceived by everyone, shouldn't the same connexion exist with mind?
Connexion is one thing; the nature of the connexion is another. Just because matter interacts with us doesn't mean we always perceive it. And just because all things are made of matter, doesn't mean that all things interact directly. Ex. Isn't it true that some elements (special arrangements of matter) do not readily interact with certain other elements? Yet they are still made of the same 'matter.' And these elements can change; they can be broken into components. They may interact only indirectly for long periods of time. But this can be changed.
> ... only I can perceive/interact with my mind ...
Do we not all interact with others' minds all the time? Was I not interacting with your mind when you sent your words into my head? And weren't those words reaction to my mind? Do people not share thoughts, emotions, desires? It seems to me that these are 'chain' reactions.
But you are wishing for more direct interaction, yes? I do too. And I will seek it.
> But how can it be that one's mind exists for oneself but not for anyone else?
I would say your mind does exist for me, but this does not mean that I see from your 'perspective' - i.e. it does not mean that I am aware of your mind in exactly the same way you are aware of it.
To interact with a sandwich does not mean we necessarily have the same perspective as a sandwich. Yet we still interact. We interact with each other's minds, but do not normally share each other's perspective precisely. To do that precisely wouldn't we have to occupy the same space/time? (OR, relatively - Not only would we have to share the same ratios in measurements from perceiver to perceived, but we would need to share exactly the same 'hardware,' at least in configuration. Everybody's hardware seems at least a little different.) And even one's unique perspective seems in constant flux. Are you the 'same' you from moment to moment?
You can hide your thoughts from me, yes? - In the same way many other subtle natural processes are hidden from my perception. Is photosynthesis hidden from my perception? Poor perception?
Also, I perceive a physical plant or a rock. That does not mean that I know what it is like to BE that plant or rock.
It seems to me that in some ways even I myself am hidden from my own perception!!!
(subconscious)
So I will a deeper consciousness.
Are you saying you want behind the masques?
> Does that mean that all our minds are a collective Mind?
In some ways ???
Dialogue with a Friend Who Insisted that Consciousness Was Separate from the Physical, Material World. October 2014.
End Notes:
[1] also: physa – (noun, fem.) bellows; a wind, blast; stream of air or fire;
physao – (verb) to blow; puff; kindle (a fire)
[2] gigno, gignere, genuī, genitum – to beget, bear, bring forth (root of English ‘generate’)
[3] However, it also seems true that everything is potentiality.
[4] I do not intend to deny the possibility that this could happen. : )
[i] … if physical things are said to be made of matter.
Also, in relation to Christianity, if the soul/spirit is not affected by the material world, why do Christians believe that material sins affect the soul/spirit? Christians also have trouble clearly separating their concepts of soul, mind, and spirit. What is the difference between the soul and the spirit? If your spirit cannot think or feel, what can it do?
[iii]- Only it seems that everyone must suppose that the Universe as a Whole, the Entirety, or ‘God’ if you cautiously prefer, simply IS. Either It is said to be Its own cause, or cause is said to be irrelevant to It. The Universe as a Whole, the All-Encompassing, can have no ultimate meaning or purpose, except that It simply IS.
Any attempt to suppose a cause of the Universe (God) requires the cause itself to be labeled as part of the Universe. Can anyone meaningfully say that the Universe “came into being” because of something preceding it? Does not this statement imply the existence of “time before” the Universe? Any such “time” must be part of the Universe, so the Universe would have existed before itself. Anyway, the words “came into” imply process, source, and directionality.
Cause/effect are said to operate within the Universe; they cannot be applied ‘from without’ to the Universe as a whole.
Annotated Bibliography for Determinism and the Self as the Brain:
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 April 2008. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm>.
Cashmore, Anthony R. (2010) "The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system," PNAS, March 9, 2010, vol. 107, no. 10, pp. 4499–4504, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0915161107.
This University of Pennsylvania professor argues that the concept of "Free Will" is outdated, erroneous, and has no rightful place in modern biology or in any realistic view of life. He discusses some of the neurological studies mentioned below.
Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK (1983) "Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act." Brain 106:623–642.
Studies indicate that consciousness follows, and does not precede, unconscious neural activity in the brain. In experiments performed by Libet et al., subjects were asked to move a finger at “will.” Electrophysiological measurements were determined, both for the finger and the brain. Activity of the brain preceded finger movement by ≈500 ms. When the participants were asked to record the time of their conscious decision to move their finger, this also preceded finger movement (in keeping with the apparent causal relationship between will and behavior). However, this conscious awareness followed in time, by a full 300 ms, the initial onset of neural activity. Such experiments are not proof that consciousness is nothing more than a mechanism of following the activity of the brain, but the observations are in keeping with this line of thought.
Libet B (2005) The Temporal Factor in Consciousness (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).
Wegner DM (2003) The Illusion of Conscious Will (MIT Press, Cambridge).
Soon CS, Brass M, Heinze HJ, Haynes JD (2008) Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nat Neurosci 11:543–545.
In this study, neural activity was measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Brain activity was detected in the prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before subjects were conscious of any decision-making process.
Weiskrantz L (1997) Consciousness Lost and Found (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).
Blindsight is another phenomenon consistent with the idea that consciousness is only peripherally part of behavior. People who have suffered damage to the striate cortex of the brain often show varying degrees of blindness; they are not aware of being able to see. However, when such patients are asked to make decisions that are dependent on their visual ability, they clearly demonstrate some capacity to see, even though they are not conscious of it. A lesion in the brain has disrupted the link between the neural basis of vision and conscious awareness. Other behavioral phenomena that indicate a non-essential role for the conscious mind are sleepwalking and some forms of concussion.
Churchland, Patricia S. (2013) Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain (Norton)
Carey, Benedict, "Decoding the Brain’s Cacophony," NYTimes, October 31, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/science/telling-the-story-of-the-brains-cacophony-of-competing-voices.html.
This articles highlights the work of Dr. Gazzaniga, 71, professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His book is Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (2011, Harper Collins). He is "best known for a dazzling series of studies that revealed the brain’s split personality, the division of labor between its left and right hemispheres."
"new knowledge about neural processes is raising important questions about human responsibility. Scientists now know that the brain runs largely on autopilot; it acts first and asks questions later, often explaining behavior after the fact. So if much of behavior is automatic, then how responsible are people for their actions?"
"The brain’s cacophony of competing voices feels coherent because some module or network somewhere in the left hemisphere is providing a running narration. ... Dr. Gazzaniga decided to call the left-brain narrating system “the interpreter.” ... The interpreter creates the illusion of a meaningful script, as well as a coherent self. Working on the fly, it furiously reconstructs not only what happened but why, inserting motives here, intentions there — based on limited, sometimes flawed information. ... We are not who we think we are. We narrate our lives, shading every last detail, and even changing the script retrospectively, depending on the event, most of the time subconsciously. The storyteller never stops, except perhaps during deep sleep. ... If our sense of control is built on an unreliable account from automatic brain processes, how much control do we really have?"
“My contention is that, ultimately, responsibility is a contract between two people rather than a property of the brain, and determinism has no meaning in this context,” he writes in “Who’s in Charge?”
Gazzaniga, Michael S. Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (2011, Harper Collins).
Blakeslee, Sandra. "Humanity? Maybe It's in the Wiring," December 9, 2003, NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/science/humanity-maybe-it-s-in-the-wiring.html.
"Ed Boyden: A Light Switch for Neurons," a 19-minute lecture for TED, March, 2011. http://www.ted.com/talks/ed_boyden.html.
"Ed Boyden shows how, by inserting genes for light-sensitive proteins into brain cells, he can selectively activate or de-activate specific neurons with fiber-optic implants. With this unprecedented level of control, he's managed to cure mice of analogs of PTSD and certain forms of blindness. On the horizon: neural prosthetics. Session host Juan Enriquez leads a brief post-talk Q&A."
"Memory Implant Gives Rats Sharper Recollection," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, Science section, June 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/science/17memory.html.
"the implant demonstrates for the first time that a cognitive function can be improved with a device that mimics the firing patterns of neurons. In recent years neuroscientists have developed implants that allow paralyzed people to move prosthetic limbs or a computer cursor, using their thoughts to activate the machines. In the new work, being published Friday, researchers at Wake Forest University and the University of Southern California used some of the same techniques to read neural activity. But they translated those signals internally, to improve brain function rather than to activate outside appendages."
"Monkeys control robots with their minds," CNN, May 28, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/29/monkey.robots/index.html.
(CNN) -- "Scientists have trained a group of monkeys to feed themselves marshmallows using a robot arm controlled by sensors implanted in their brains, a feat that could one day help paralyzed people operate prosthetic limbs on their own ..."
"Eric Kandel: Unconscious Decision Making," pub. by BigThink, June 7, 2012, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph7LcupAENw).