> Thanks for your thought-provoking post. Two quick questions, and I
> apologize in advance for being slow to answer:
>
You are most welcome; please, take your time.
>
> (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.)
>
Short answer: No, morally significant freedom is not compatible with all of
our thinking and behavior ultimately being completely determined by events
beyond our control.
Long answer: I do not believe that all of our thinking and behavior is
ultimately completely determined by events beyond our control. There is to
my knowledge no scientific evidence to even be able to speculate on this
subject, but if we take as an analogy the demonstrated fact that emotional
states can affect physical systems, I do not consider it inconceivable that
conscious thought could influence those parts of the brain that generate
conscious thought in a complex feedback system that nonetheless permits us to
control our own thinking and behavior.
>
> (2) Are humans sometimes conscious?
>
All the time, except when asleep, comatose, dead or watching TV ;-).
>
> If so, are conscious states material
> objects (hard to imagine), or natural properties of material objects
> (according to what laws of science?), or...?
>
I believe they are physical properties that emerge from the organization and
structure of the mind itself, which in turn is an emergent property of the
organization and structure of the physical brain. As such they are subject
to the same physiochemical laws that govern any form of physical interaction.
The only difference is the level of complexity involved in the interaction.
>
> 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.
>
I agree that research into the structural, physiological and biochemical
basis of the mind is still pretty much in the fetal state. We've made some
large strides, such as the discovery of the physical bases for psychoses and
the isolation of behavioral neuropeptides like scotophobin, but we still have
a long, long way to go.
Kevin L. O'Brien