Q&A: Regarding the Foolish Circle Argument
Regarding the Foolish Circle Argument
Question
I read your book The Sciences of Freedom very carefully. I wanted to comment on the argument that, in my view, is the most basic proof that determinism fails logically: the foolish circle. The basic premise of the question is that determinism holds that our thought and consciousness are a direct product of our brain, and from there the circle begins.
My question is this: the central motivation for deterministic thinking is the principle of causality and the physical claim that matter is affected by matter and not by spirit. Now, one could argue that consciousness, to the same degree, is not affected by matter either. Let us put aside for the moment the various proofs that spirit is in fact affected by matter in a cause-and-effect relation—you addressed that elsewhere in the book; I mean certain parts of consciousness, as in the libertarian picture. The physical-brain level leads to the physical-motor level, but the mental level conducts its affairs completely freely, exactly as in the libertarian picture. It may perhaps make adjustments to the physical situation, like the illusion it produces of choice and logical decisions, while in truth everything is conducted only on the neural level—but none of that requires it itself to be a product of a physical system.
In summary: ostensibly, the deterministic view grants more freedom to the mental, in that it does not affect the physical and perhaps is not even affected by it either (at least not always). The free space required for judgment certainly exists in this picture. What does the foolish circle have to do with determinism?
P.S. It is true that the determinist has bitter experience with illusions and therefore, because of that, must be extra cautious with his reason, but there is no a priori proof here—at most, experience that arouses skepticism.
Answer
Hello,
I am not sure I understood the question, but I will try to answer, and I will do so on two levels:
In the book I explain at length that the position I am dealing with is materialist determinism (emergentism). Although a deterministic view could in principle be dualistic (that is, one that accepts the existence of spirit in addition to matter), that is not the common approach, and so I do not see much point in contending with it. Therefore I do not see how you are speaking about determinism that accepts autonomous activity of the spirit in a way that is not affected by the neural dimension.
Beyond that, even if we do speak about dualistic determinism, if the mental dimension operates independently and is not affected by biology, then how does it draw conclusions? Even recognizing and understanding some physical event takes place by way of that event affecting the intellect and consciousness. Is that not influence? Not to mention decisions and desires in the mental dimension that cause our physical actions. Is that not influence? Either way, determinations and conclusions of the mental realm in a manner detached from the physical cannot be valid. That is a priori thinking, and the a priori cannot produce science.
Moreover, even if the mental reaches conclusions independently and is not subject to the foolish circle, what is the significance of those conclusions? After all, I will not implement them, and I cannot even say them, because moving the lips is a physical action that cannot occur as a result of the mental layer. So it remains inside my mind, and that is all. That is not especially interesting and not really relevant.
As a rule, if the spirit conducts itself deterministically on its own (according to its own independent laws), then once again we have returned to the foolish circle. And if not—then it makes decisions that are irrelevant and uninteresting.
All the best,