philosophical materialism's problems

What I am talking about is philosophical materialism, which says that there is no such thing as the "mental." This is the real reason why there is so much objection to the theory of evolution: because if there is no such thing as mentality then of course there can be no such thing as free will, because what is done physically is not free. It is an automatic reaction, like eye-blinking.In that case, life is meaningless. We are nothing but robots.If one accepts the reality of mentality, then it is hard to explain how that could evolve. Mentality from physicality?

This has already been discussed a couple of times at EvC. A short synopsis of my position is that material processes can still create systems which are independent and autonomous (free will).I am not claiming that I know that materalism is absolutely true, I am agnostic on such matters and am even curious to explore alternatives. However, there are no limits in strict materialism such that minds are incapable of forming.What this would require is systems that react to the environment, slowly growing in complexity as greater reactions, and reactions to reactions become allowed. Thus all the aforementioned may be hardwired and strictly action-response on the part of the nerve/brain system. Once the system develops the ability to check its own reactions against reactions, responses to them, and potential future responses, then one has a mind which is independent. It only needs to grow in complexity from there.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Any scientific evidence for this?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, to some extent.You can see that entities with less developed brains have systems which are more or less stimulus-response engines with no selective (or novel) ability. It is even more restrictive than what we might call instinct, in that it absorbs the whole of the entity's life choices.More cognitive function is generally associated with greater (more) responses available per stimulus, and an ability to select based on secondary and tertiary criteria. This is to say as an entity shows more diversity in action we view it as more autonomous.Mammals and especially certain primates (though one should not rule out others) have even greater levels of assessment including recognition of similarity between past environments, and projecting possible actions from old environments into new ones. That moves beyond simply forming new stimulus/response pairs, to actual "learning" and "conjecture".Humans have the most overtly recognizable ability along this line. What is free will, but the ability to learn and speculate about our choices and environments so as to make our stimulus/response systems more diverse and complex and internally validating?AI, which is the endeavour to create computational (usually silicon based) brains, use feedback systems and the capabality of learning "rules" to grow independence, or the appearance of such within computers.One can of course work in the opposite direction and pull apart the mind so as to reduce or alter how the brains physical neural processes can interact with itself.I will recommend yet again Oliver Sacks' interesting book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat. It is a series of accounts from a neurologist regarding the nature of human ability to conceive of the world and act within it, when the physical brain has been changed. It is a rather large testament that we owe more of ourselves and our "free will" to physical processes, rather than some spiritual aspect.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)