Human Intelligence is an Illusion

[The__Chameleon]

As I stated, the secular idea of "Nature" is something purely deterministic, mechanical, algorithmic, or random. Something bound to a set of arbitrary laws or conditions, or something that arises from random chance without any form of mindful choice.

The concept of free will therefore is the idea that through conscious contemplation a process can be initiated that is not entirely governed by nature as defined above. If I stub my toe going to the bathroom then it would be my natural reaction to yell in pain, but if there are others sleeping I can use free will to choose to suppress this natural reaction out of conscious consideration of those who are sleeping.

If however the notion to suppress my natural reaction to pain didn't in fact come from my conscious mind but was processed prior to my awareness of it then I have no way of knowing if the methods used were deterministic (x in conditions of y always result in z) or chosen by a consciousness that operates behind the scenes that applies it's own free will. If you are only aware of your destination upon arrival then you can't claim to have chosen the route freely. The secular definition of intelligence can therefore only be applied to mental processes of which one is consciously aware and which one has consciously initiated.

[Angrboda]

As I stated, the secular idea of "Nature" is something purely deterministic, mechanical, algorithmic, or random. Something bound to a set of arbitrary laws or conditions, or something that arises from random chance without any form of mindful choice.

I believe it's still an open question whether the universe is deterministic in some sense. There are senses in which it appears to clearly not be deterministic, given that there appear to be uncaused effects. Whether effect determinately follows cause for things that require causes or not is the trickier question. Saying yes to that question would seem to open the door for magic, among which, free will is but one species. I suppose it also depends upon what you mean by nature as well, as this term is not that easy to pin down.

If however the notion to suppress my natural reaction to pain didn't in fact come from my conscious mind but was processed prior to my awareness of it then I have no way of knowing if the methods used were deterministic (x in conditions of y always result in z) or chosen by a consciousness that operates behind the scenes that applies it's own free will. If you are only aware of your destination upon arrival then you can't claim to have chosen the route freely. The secular definition of intelligence can therefore only be applied to mental processes of which one is consciously aware and which one has consciously initiated.

What secular definition of intelligence are you referring to here? My understanding is that intelligence is roughly defined as the ability to solve novel problems. I don't see conscious or unconscious anywhere in that. If I have an unconscious ability to intuitively pick the right diagnosis as a doctor, and many do, that is still an example of intelligence as it is an ability to solve novel problems. The goal itself may be held consciously while the process of reaching that goal is not. I would have to suspect there is a causal relationship between holding a goal, consciously, and our subconscious processes working on that goal. That would seem to undermine any claimed independence of the subconscious processes.

[The__Chameleon]

To refine what is generally meant when Atheists refer to intelligence as opposed to nature I could say that a calculator is deterministic and not intelligent as it can not choose to initiate calculations or what calculations it initiates. It can also not choose to provide a result other than that which it a been programmed to provide. A calculator cannot supersede it's inherent nature. It's inherent nature was provided by an intelligent being, but the calculator itself is limited to it and cannot act contrary to it. It is not intelligent in the sense of free-thinking, but is an example of intelligent design as it's creator could have designed it any way he or she chose. Would it be battery or solar powered? Would it be able to perform higher math functions? What color would the casing be? Were those decisions made independent of fixed predetermining factors? If so, then the source of those choices is intelligent, but if not then the source of those choices is "natural" (limited by it's inherent nature).

Another example is, if you have multiple instances of the same intelligent (free thinking) being in multiple identical universes with identical conditions then these beings will make a variety of choices as to how they will react. But if they are natural (deterministic) beings rather than free thinking then they will all make the same decision in reaction to their identical circumstances.

The general idea of nature is that x in conditions of y always result in z. If an animal is hungry it will eat. If it is more tired than hungry it will sleep first then eat, and so on. That which is not bound to it's nature is a free agent. If I am a free thinking being then if I am hungry, I may or may not choose to wait for the commercial break to go eat. x in conditions of y always result in whatever the hell I consciously choose it to result in.

[Alan V]

As I stated, the secular idea of "Nature" is something purely deterministic, mechanical, algorithmic, or random. Something bound to a set of arbitrary laws or conditions, or something that arises from random chance without any form of mindful choice.

My bolding.

Chance combinations of materials, rather than deterministic laws of physics, lead to abiogenesis and biological evolution.  That being the case, there is no problem with evolution creating selves which make efforts to load the dice of chance events for their own benefit.  At more complex levels of evolution, reason is involved in that process of making choices.  Thus free will evolves from chance events.

Your confusions arise from the belief that all things we observe are reducible to the laws of physics, when they observably are not. Life is not. Consciousness is not. Free will is not.

[Angrboda]

Oh, now we have what 'atheists' mean when they refer to intelligence. Well. That's different. Where did you derive that fact from? Did you take a survey?

I doubt strongly that atheists have their own, uniquely atheist definition of intelligence. What you have described is the presence or absence of will. It's not at all clear that will is predicated upon intelligence as a necessary and sufficient condition, nor that, even if it is, that intelligence cannot exist without will. It's not clear which direction you are claiming the arrows are pointing. If they are the other direction, that will is a necessary precondition for intelligence, then I'd say you haven't demonstrated that so much as simply asserted that will as you conceive it, essentially libertarian will, is a necessary aspect of intelligence. It would seem that freedom to act, deterministic or not, is the only necessary constraint upon intelligence, and on that account, the calculator is indeed intelligent, as it meets the earlier definition of the ability to solve novel problems (the novel part may be in doubt, but I know from my experience studying the design of logical circuits that it is so). So, at issue the only thing under debate is your definition of intelligence versus other possible definitions of intelligence. You were offered an alternative, which you have summarily ignored, simply to push your own, rather idiosyncratic definition. Even then, you aren't particularly convincing. It seems that you've accomplished little more than straw manning common definitions of intelligence and introducing one of your own invention that's not particularly compelling. What had you hoped to accomplish?

[The__Chameleon]

Let me say then instead that in my experience in discussing matters of philosophy with atheists, particularly with respect to matters related to libertarian free will, the way they commonly describe or utilize the word intelligence is consistent with "the ability to consciously reason in a manner independent from deterministic factors". This, therefore has been the word I have chosen to describe this capacity. I am hoping to move past semantic issues so I can make clear my underlying point.

I can confidently say that Atheists cannot logically accept that the universe has libertarian free will (or intelligence as it is used in that context) because that would be belief in a god. Yet at the same time your typical Atheist (from what I can determine) wants to feel that they are the masters of their own destiny. That they can make conscious choices that are not dictated by deterministic factors). If a decision is made outside of their conscious awareness then there is no way to be certain that the decision was arrived at through libertarian free will or processing based entirely on deterministic factors. Since I have demonstrated that all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness, how can one claim they are the masters of their own destiny if they are not even conscious of when, how, or by who or what those decisions are made. If those processes are free thinking in nature then that free thinking quality is not sourced in that persons conscious mind, but in an independent consciousness that operates outside of the awareness of their own (you see this is where semantics can get tricky). If I say I have libertarian free will and my choices are made before I am aware of them, then I (my conscious sense of self) did not initiate nor determine the method for arriving at those choices. The libertarian free agency is sourced outside of my conscious mind which precludes me as a conscious identity from being the master of my own destiny.


Just a question to everyone When you use the word "I" precisely what are you identifying as you? Particularly in the context of making choices? There's a lot of ways a person can identify their perceived nature of self.

[Angrboda]

Let me say then instead that in my experience in discussing matters of philosophy with atheists, particularly with respect to matters related to libertarian free will,  the way they commonly describe or utilize the word intelligence is consistent with "the ability to consciously reason in a manner independent from deterministic factors". This, therefore has been the word I have chosen to describe this capacity. I am hoping to move past semantic issues so I can make clear my underlying point.

Well, fine, but then you're equivocating because you aren't talking about intelligence but something else, the details of which are far from clear, as are the reasons that anyone should care. It sounds like you are simply broadening the scope of will to include things that ordinarily wouldn't be considered inclusive. What you're doing is similar to people who posit that the unthinking universe is God. Well, that's fine if you want to use words that way, but all you've really done is create an arbitrary new name for something we already have words for. Doing so accomplishes nothing.

I can confidently say that Atheists cannot logically accept that the universe has libertarian free will (or intelligence as it is used in that context) because that would be belief in a god.

No, it wouldn't. There are Buddhist atheists who believe in libertarian free will. Nothing to do with god. Even metaphysical naturalism is not an absolute bar to belief in libertarian free will, only that no account consistent with metaphysical naturalism appears on offer. But that's a moot point, as atheism doesn't obligate you to subscribe to metaphysical naturalism. As a side note, if this is an example of something you assert with confidence, that doesn't bode particularly well for any of your other ideas.

Yet at the same time your typical Atheist (from what I can determine) wants to feel that they are the masters of their own destiny. That they can make conscious choices that are not dictated by deterministic factors).  If a decision is made outside of their conscious awareness then there is no way to be certain that the decision was arrived at through libertarian free will or processing based entirely on deterministic factors. Since I have demonstrated that all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness, how can one claim they are the masters of their own destiny if they are not even conscious of when, how, or by who or what those decisions are made. If those processes are free thinking in nature then that free thinking quality is not sourced in that persons conscious mind, but in an independent consciousness that operates outside of the awareness of their own (you see this is where semantics can get tricky). If I say I have libertarian free will and my choices are made before I am aware of them, then I (my conscious sense of self) did not initiate nor determine the method for arriving at those choices. The libertarian free agency is sourced outside of my conscious mind which precludes me as a conscious identity from being the master of my own destiny.

This seems a question having to do with the meaning of free will, and having nothing to do with intelligence. And it's not even necessarily valid as compatibilistic accounts of free will dodge all your objections. There is nothing about atheism that obligates an atheist to deny compatibilism. That in itself is sufficient to unlink this nonsense from anything having to do with atheism, but as noted, atheism doesn't commit one to metaphysical naturalism, nor does metaphysical naturalism necessarily preclude libertarian free will, so this package is pretty much a total failure. And I don't know whether it was this thread or not, but you seem to be making a necessary connection betweeen conscious choice and self identity. That's highly speculative at best, and likely incomplete at worst. Problems sourcing identity and self in consciousness alone have a long history in the literature.

Just a question to everyone When you use the word "I" precisely what are you identifying as you? Particularly in the context of making choices? There's a lot of ways a person can identify their perceived nature of self.

I could tell you what I consider the 'I' or self to be, but since the answer would involve personal theoretical ideas about it, I doubt it would have much practical value in this discussion, other than to say that it doesn't appear to align with yours. There is basically little or no commitment to any specific theory of self based on atheism, so you're likely to get as many answers as there are people. I don't see how that would be of any practical value.

[Alan V]

Since I have demonstrated that all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness, how can one claim they are the masters of their own destiny if they are not even conscious of when, how, or by who or what those decisions are made.

You shouldn't lie. It's bad form.

[brewer]

Since I have demonstrated that all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness, how can one claim they are the masters of their own destiny if they are not even conscious of when, how, or by who or what those decisions are made.

You shouldn't lie.  It's bad form.

Yep, there has only been a philosophical position argued (they didn't actually demonstrate a damn thing), one that I don't hold.

[Angrboda]

You shouldn't lie.  It's bad form.

Yep, there has only been a philosophical position argued (they didn't actually demonstrate a damn thing), one that I don't hold.

Imagine a master painter creating a masterpiece one brush stroke at a time. Each movement of his hand meticulously chosen to create the desired effect. Yet, what if each of those motions was chosen for him before he was consciously aware of the choice and only took credit for it upon the moment of that awareness? Experiments by Libet, Soon, Fried, Haynes and others suggest exactly that.