Q&A: Points on The Science of Freedom
Points on The Science of Freedom
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I would appreciate some clarification on a few points from the book The Science of Freedom:
1. Does every materialist position necessarily subscribe to strong emergence, or is it only materialism that tries to incorporate free will within itself that relies on emergence?
2. Did Libet's experiments actually show cases in which there was an RP, and the person vetoed it and decided not to press the button, or is that only a hypothesis? Because if the findings really showed that a person did not raise his hand despite the RP, then seemingly the experiment proves free will and there is no basis at all for materialism. Am I mistaken?
3. I would appreciate an explanation of the claim about the unity of consciousness—namely, why does the very fact that we do not experience polyphony indicate a soul? After all, the materialist would explain that the left hemisphere unifies all our experiences (just as you showed in the book), and in addition is itself the source of the experience. So on the face of it, it seems that the libertarian does not necessarily gain anything from the argument from the unity of consciousness (though not necessarily lose anything either).
4. In the book Does God Play Dice, do you address the question of the relationship between evolution and consciousness in a more detailed and deeper way?
Thank you very much.
Answer
1. As far as free will is concerned, that is clear. But strong emergence could also exist with respect to other phenomena. For example, the mental phenomena themselves are hard to see as being explained on the basis of the body by way of weak emergence.
2. I no longer remember exactly, but Libet explained the results of his experiments that way. That also emerged from later experiments. In any case, one should remember that they used various averages there, so these are not entirely pure phenomena.
3. One can always argue that some of the voices are silenced by others. But the fact is that there are several voices within us, and each of them finds expression if you neutralize the bridge or one of the sides.
4. No. I do not have anything especially intelligent to say about that.
Discussion on Answer
- That is what I answered. Simply put, it seems that materialism also needs this.
The very existence of spirit is mysticism (because it is a non-physical matter). Therefore I do not see why the formation of spirit or its entry into the body should belong to physics or biology.
Thank you very much for the quick reply.
Regarding 1—I did not fully understand… My question was whether the materialist view as a whole (both the deterministic kind and the kind that tries to find freedom within materialism) today is based on the idea of the emergence of spirit from matter, or whether materialism as such does not need that kind of explanation / has other explanations for the origin of spirit, and only materialism that tries to incorporate free will within itself needs the explanation of emergence.
One more thing—after we have reached the conclusion that spirit is not a product of matter, but rather is different in its essence, we are left with the big question: where does the soul come from? And to that question there are not really any answers in philosophical-rational literature, at least as far as I know. Are we doomed to remain only with the question, or perhaps glance toward somewhat more mystical realms? In any case, what is your opinion about the origin of the soul itself?
Thanks again.