RE: TE, souls, and freedom

John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:26:46 -0500

> > So I was wondering how the diverse advocates of TE on this list think
> > about either souls or freedom in light of science.
> > (I realize dualism is not necc. required for faith but the "soul" still
> > seems a problem.) BTW this is not a challenge to TE as I am
> more and more
> > there these days so if we could avoid the banterfest on this
> one and just
> > assume TE for this thread (if anyone takes it) that would be cool,
>
> For me, the question of the soul is very simple. As I have already
> mentioned, I believe that there are two universes, the physical and the
> non-physical, and that the natural universe of science is part of the
> physical universe. I also believe that the soul is a gift from God that
> makes mankind spiritual creatures, so that we can interact
> directly with God.
> As such, I believe that the soul is spiritual and comes from the
> non-physical universe. Since science can only deal with the natural
> universe, by definition the soul is outside the jurisdiction of
> science. In
> other words, since science can neither validate nor invalidate
> the existence
> of the soul, people who "claim" on the basis of science that the
> soul does
> not exist are actually voicing a personal religious belief and not a
> scientifically defensible claim at all.
>
> The question of freedom is more problematical. It is my opinion
> that what we
> call the mind is a result of the physical neuronal structure and the
> electrical/biochemical activity of the brain. Since freedom is a
> concept of
> the mind, the concept of freedom is also a result of the physical
> brain as
> well. That does NOT, however, mean that I believe that freedom
> is simply a
> result of randomly firing neurons, or is the result of millions
> of years of
> evolution, or any other such extremist creationist clap-trap. What I
> actually believe is harder to put into words, but it goes
> something like this.
>
> Like any other property of our physical bodies, the mind is subject to
> evolution, but unlike the brain itself it is not limited to physical
> evolution. I believe that the mind undergoes what I call cognitive
> evolution, which is much faster than either physical evolution or
> cultural
> evolution. However, I believe that cognitive evolution works
> very much the
> same as physical evolution. Just as their are physical traits that are
> selected for on the basis of which enhance physical
> survivability, so too are
> there cognitive traits that can be selected for to enhance cognitive
> survivability. Freedom is one of these traits that has been selected for
> because it enhances cognitive survivability. I tend to believe that
> cognitive traits, like physical traits, are created by
> unconscious cognitive
> processes, but I would not say that they are the result of
> "random mutation".
> Rather I believe they are a pre-determined result of our mind as it is
> currently structured. However, that does not mean that we have
> no choice as
> to what traits we accept. Out of all the many traits that exist,
> we tend to
> select only those few that best enhance our own cogntive
> survivability. (I
> cannot as yet adequately define this term. In essence it is a
> combination of
> mental well-being, intellectual capacity and emotional well-being.) For
> example, many of us tend to select freedom, because it gives us
> the ability
> and the confidence to deal with life as we see fit, but there are
> those who
> believe that freedom is a handicap. They see freedom as chaotic
> and prefer
> some form of ideology to guide them through life. In other
> words, whereas
> most of us prefer to handle the aspects of life in whatever
> manner best suits
> us at the time, others prefer to use a pre-determined set of
> instructions.
> The manner in which we select which traits we want to have is partially
> conscious, but it is also partially sub- or unconscious. Some of
> it is based
> on our unique personalities, some of it on how we are raised and
> what we are
> taught, and some of it on our conscious thoughts and desires.
>
> In any event, because the mind is a part of the natural universe,
> I believe
> that it is possible for science to understand and explain the
> mind and mental
> concepts, like freedom. However, since I believe the mind is a physical
> feature, as are the mental concepts, I do not see freedom as an illusion.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien

Kevin,

Thanks for your thought-provoking post. Two quick questions, and I
apologize in advance for being slow to answer:

(1) In your view, is morally significant freedom compatible with all of our
thinking and behavior ultimately being completely determined by events
beyond our control? (I might add: I think if -current- science is
considered exhaustive on this subject, this determination inevitably
follows, even accepting quantum indeterminacy, which is traditionally
understood to be indeterminate, but not in a way under our control.)

(2) Are humans sometimes conscious? If so, are conscious states material
objects (hard to imagine), or natural properties of material objects
(according to what laws of science?), or...?

If you've read my other posts, you'll know I think this is an area where
science doesn't have plausible answers yet. (That's no criticism of
science, in my book, since I'm not scientistic.) But I'm interested in
knowing what you think.

John