Why does anyone pay attention to P.Z. Myers?

P.Z. Myers has a characteristically incoherent post on free will. I've included my comments:

I was compelled to post this

December 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm PZ Myers

I said I didn’t want to say anything about free will, and I still don’t, but Massimo Pigliucci weighed in, and Jerry Coyne responded, and so did Sean Carroll, and of course I created a free will thread for everyone else to talk about it, so I guess there’s a fair bit of momentum behind it all.

I don’t understand why free will was getting all tangled up in indeterminacy vs. determinism, since that seems to be a completely independent issue.

There are philosophers who believe that free will and determinism are not incompatible. I think they're wrong.

Free will and determinism are linked. If all human acts are determined-- i.e. completely in accordance with past events and the laws of physics-- then there is no room for libertarian free will. Human will can change neither the past nor physical laws.

Myers:

I’ll sum up my opinion by agreeing with Jerry Coyne:

[Coyne] Of course, whether the laws of physics are deterministic or probabilistic is, to me, irrelevant to whether there’s free will, which in my take means that we can override the laws of physics with some intangible “will” that allows us to make different decisions given identical configurations of the molecules of the universe. That kind of dualism is palpable nonsense, of course, which is why I think the commonsense notion of free will is wrong.

Absolute gibberish. Coyne's idiotic view that we have no genuine libertarian free will entails three consequences:

 1) Our acts are determined by agency (history and physics) over which we have no control. We bear no responsibility for our acts.

2) Our acts are determined by agency (history and physics) which have no reference to truth. A neurochemical reaction isn't "true" or "false". It just is. If our acts and thoughts are neurochemical, and we have no genuine choice in our opinions, then our opinions can be neither true nor false, anymore than  mixing chemicals in a beaker can be true or false.

If determinism and lack of libertarian free will are true, we can't meaningfully argue that they are true.

3) If the past and physical law fully determine our future, then what happens to us has nothing to do with our "choices". Just history and physics. What happens, happens. The future is set- only one outcome is possible, and we can't choose it.

So why bother to do anything? Why does Myers bother to post on his blog? What shows up on his blog is determined by the history of the universe and the laws of physics. He can change neither. Why do anything?

Myers:

My mind is a product of the physical properties of my brain; it is not above them or beyond them or somehow independent of them.

If Myers' mind is a product of his brain, it is by definition something other than his brain. What is it?

... birds chirping...

And how is it that a physical object (Myers' brain) has reference to something external to itself? This is the classical problem of intentionality. Myers brain doesn't mean anything. It's just a few pounds of meat. But Myers means things. He writes about them daily.

Where does the meaning come from?

Myers:

It doesn’t even make sense to talk about “me”, which is ultimately simply yet another emergent property of the substrate of the brain, modifying the how the brain acts. It is how the brain acts.

Perhaps Myers can inform the payroll department at the university that his "me" doesn't really exist. They can stop cutting paychecks to emergent properties of brain substrates.

I think consciousness is a product of self-referential modeling of how decisions are made in the brain in the absence of any specific information about the mechanisms of decision-making — it’s an illusion generated by a high-level ‘theory of mind’ module that generates highly simplified, highly derived models of how brains work that also happens to be applied to our own brain.

Let's take it one bit of gibberish at a time:

I think consciousness is a product of self-referential modeling of how decisions are made in the brain...

A self-referential model presupposes a self. Decisions presuppose a decider. Myers' explanation for self presupposes self. Back to the drawing board.

...in the absence of any specific information about the mechanisms of decision-making —...

Myers has no clue about how any of this works. None. Zippo. But he's sure it's materialistic, and people who disagree with him are fools who believe things on faith.

...it’s an illusion generated by a high-level ‘theory of mind’ module...

A delusion presupposes a self which is deluded. Thus the delusion cannot create the self.

[... it’s an illusion generated by a high-level ‘theory of mind’ module] that generates highly simplified, highly derived models of how brains work that also happens to be applied to our own brain. 

Myers is saying that consciousness doesn't exist in the absence of a 'high-level theory of mind module'. So module-less people who don't contemplate theories of the mind-- children, disinterested or uneducated adults-- aren't, by Myers theory, conscious.

Myers is a fool. Why anyone-- me included-- pays any attention to this idiot is a mystery. One of the unresolved questions of science...

George Mason Law School Dean stands up for academic freedom

From William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

George Mason University School of Law is considered “conservative,” at least by law school standards.

So when CAIR played the Islamophobe card and demanded that the school shut down a speech by Nonie Darwish , Dean Daniel Polsby said no thanks to CAIR’s attempt to squelch dissenting voices:

"It appears that there is need to clarify the policy affecting speakers at the law school.

Student organizations are allocated budget by the Student Bar Association in order to allow them, among other things, to bring speakers to the law school. Neither the law school nor the university can be taken to endorse such speakers or what they say. Law school administration is not consulted about these invitations, nor should we be. Sometimes speakers are invited who are known to espouse controversial points of view. So be it. So long as they are here, they are free to say whatever is on their mind within the bounds of law. They cannot be silenced and they will not be.

Just as speakers are free to speak, protesters are free to protest. They must do so in a place and in a manner that respects the rights of speakers to speak and listeners to listen, and that is in all other ways consistent with the educational mission of the university. Student organizations which hold contrary points of view have every right to schedule their own programs with their own speakers, and these speakers’ rights will be protected in just the same way.

The law school will not exercise editorial control over the words of speakers invited by student organizations, nor will we take responsibility for them, nor will we endorse or condemn them. There has to be a place in the world where controversial ideas and points of view are aired out and given space. This is that place.

Daniel D. Polsby

Professor of Law, Dean

Nonie Darwish is a Muslim apostate who converted to Christianity and who is director of "Arabs for Israel" and "Former Muslims United". CAIR obviously wants her silenced, and, like good Islamists, they use whatever means are at their disposal to censor dissent, including intimidation of the university. CAIR has deep roots in the Islamist Movement and has been credibly accused of funding Hamas.

Academia is the place in which controversial ideas should be aired and discussed. Yet soft totalitarianism infests most American universities today. Dean Polsby's eloquent statement defends our tradition of free speech and open exchange of ideas.

Bravo to Dean Polsby for his eloquent defense of academic freedom.

Why Cat is an atheist

P.Z. Myers has a series of guest posts by folks who have decided that they are atheists.

Here's "Cat's" story, with my commentary:

Why I am an atheist – Cat

I’m an atheist because I don’t “believe in” God. Yes, it’s as simple as that.

Calling a definition a reason is indeed simple.

I don’t see any evidence that such a being exists (or plays an active role in the world, which amounts to the same thing).

Classical philosophers for several millennia have pointed out that that existence of nature itself presupposes Someone who is uncaused existence. The evidence for an Uncaused Cause is massive-- you can fill a library with the arguments in its favor. Aquinas alone devoted hundreds of pages of Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles to meticulous explication of the argument. Atheist philosophers (Flew), pagan philosophers (Aristotle), Jewish philosophers (Maimonidies), and Islamic philosophers (Avarroes) have made the same argument. But that's not simple enough for Cat.

That’s actually stating things too narrowly: the truth is, I don’t believe in gods. Or spirits, or the supernatural in any form, really.

Notice the sloppiness, characteristic of the godless "Brights". What does Cat mean by "spirits"? Things that are immaterial? Of course, all sorts of things are immaterial. Universals are immaterial-- truth, beauty, goodness, love. Reason is immaterial. The aspects of Cat's intellect that use reason are immaterial. Matter can refer only to itself-- a particular-- and inherently cannot manipulate universals, which is the domain of reason. So Cat is making the argument against immaterial reality with her  intellect, which is immaterial (spirit).  Self-refutation is characteristic of atheist metaphysics.

If something is genuinely supernatural – truly “beyond” or “outside of” the natural world – then by definition it can’t affect us. If it can affect us, it isn’t supernatural; it’s just a part of nature we don’t understand (yet).

Huh? Cat declines to inform us how she defines "nature". The classical definition is that nature is that which is a composite of potency and act and can undergo change. Supernatural is pure act.

She declares that she doesn't see any evidence for the supernatural, then defines supernatural as 'that for which there can't be evidence' (i.e. that which can't effect the natural world).

My head hurts.

So it’s fair to say that I’m an atheist precisely because I’m a materialist.

O.K. Cat, what's "material" about about your argument that atheism and materialism are true? The very act of asserting that your viewpoint is true is a repudiation of materialism, which entails the denial that immaterial entities (such as Truth) exist.

My head is throbbing now.

There’s a classic accusation leveled against people who’ve left their faith. “You were never a Christian (or whatever) to begin with!” That’s… actually kind of true, when it comes to me. I was raised Christian, but it was never a big part of my identity. It was just one more item in a long list of things that didn’t make much sense to me, but seemed to be very important to everyone else.

A lot of things don't make sense to Cat.

As I got older, and looked at it more critically, I quit identifying as Christian at all.

As you got older, you looked at things less critically. That's how you became an atheist. The usual story is that as one gets older, one begins to want things that Christianity says are bad for us. We face temptation.

Christians try to be good and pray for Christ's grace.

Atheists say 'Bye-Bye Christianity'.

The big turning point for me wasn’t realizing “I just can’t believe this” so much as realizing that the fact that I couldn’t believe it didn’t necessarily mean that something was wrong with me.

"Belief" is one thing, Cat. Logic is another. Belief is complex even for devout Christians. Even the greatest saints have struggled with faith. But the boilerplate atheist arguments-- 'there's no evidence... only material things really exist... science is the only way to truth...' -- are so transparently stupid that they deserve only derision.

That's where I come in.

Sunday Egnorance: God's Will; Martina McBride

A beautiful song from Martina McBride, From Mihai Caragiu at RO-THEORIA.

The problem of suffering is difficult for all of us. Why do innocents suffer? Why do even the guilty suffer-- often the suffering seems disproportionate to whatever evil we could have done. In my day job, I see a lot of innocents suffering. I don't fully know why God allows it.

Many years ago, before I was a Christian, I was caring for a 6 year old boy with a malignant brain tumor who was dying. He was a sweet little boy, from a lovely family, and I had been his doctor since the moment of diagnosis, when he had a seizure, just a few months before. I had removed the tumor, and it had recurred twice, each time traveling to a different part of his brain. Now it was in many places, and all of our treatments had failed.

It was the middle of the night, and he was not going to make it to the morning. I came in to be with him and his family. I didn't know what to say. I asked the nurses to make sure that he had enough pain medication to keep him comfortable.

Our hospital's chaplain was there, a Lutheran pastor named Steve. We had become friends. We sat in the pediatric ICU, and I told him that I wanted to believe in God, but that I found this kind of suffering inexplicable. How could God allow it? What sense of all of this could Christianity possibly draw out?

Steve told me his own story, of his own illness in his agnostic days, when he was on a respirator and not expected to survive. He said that for the first time in his life (he was in his 20's) he prayed, and he asked God to spare him. He got an answer-- God told him that he would live, and that He wanted him to devote his life to ministering to the sick and dying. He became a pastor and a hospital chaplain.

"But why does God allow suffering at all?" I asked him.

His answer startled me. "He never said that we will not suffer. Suffering is a part of what it means to be human. He only promised us one thing: that we would never suffer alone. He will always be with us, and especially in our darkness. He suffered. He understands. Suffering draws us to Him."

That shook me. It haunts me still. There is something about suffering that is fundamental to existence. He uses it to draw us to Him. He is most present in our weakness and our agony. Of course, from the beginning He told us. He is most with us in the least of our brethren.

I know my combox will fill with the usual atheist sneers: 'if He loves us so, why didn't he just cure the kid instead of letting him suffer?'

My answer to them is: if God doesn't exist, why do you care? Nothing really matters, ultimately, in a Godless world. Why would dust lament the passing of dust?

I find, in the Christian answer, a gleam of real truth. The truth is Love Himself, and to suffer in darkness is to know Love more intimately, without anodyne. In our desolation we know Him in a way we could not have known Him in our complacency.

Weekend Egnorance: Just in case you didn't already have a headache today...

A math problem.

My answer would be the same one Joe Carter endorses.

My head still hurts, though.

Ann Coulter on what liberals do to black conservatives who get lippy

Ann Coulter has a great post on the "allegations" against Hermann Cain. Summary:

These women [Cain's accusers] are like triple-A ball players with the stats being: number of bankruptcies, smallest bank account, number of liens, most false claims, number of children out of wedlock, degrees of separation from David Axelrod, total trips to human resources and so on.

That wouldn't be dispositive -- except for the fact that their only evidence is their word.

But this is how liberals dirty you up when they've got nothing: They launch a series of false accusations, knowing that Americans with busy lives won't follow each story to the end and notice that they were all blind alleys.

The liberal media is an old story, but it's still a big story when it comes to creating the impression of scandal out of thin air.

Most people say, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." I say, "Where there's smoke around a conservative, there are journalists furiously rubbing two sticks together."

Coulter compares the patina-thin substance of the allegations against Cain to the very well substantiated allegations against Bill Clinton and John Edwards-- to which the media gave a collective yawn for a very long time.

Filthy politics. We should be talking about Cain's ideas, not his private life, whatever it is.

If you're a black conservative, watch your back.

Frank Rich is nuts

When I was in Dallas a few years ago, I went to the Sixth Floor Museum, in the Texas Schoolbook Depository from which Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. It brought back memories. JFK's assassination was one of my first clear memories of childhood. I was eight years old, leaving school to walk home, when my father picked me up in our car. He was very upset, and said that someone killed the president. I watched the assassination coverage on T.V. For the next year, my dad would tear up and cry when someone mentioned JFK.

When I was in the museum, I noticed a display on the 'culture of hate' in Dallas at the time of the assassination. It implicated conservatives and the right for the political climate at the time. I was angry. The right had nothing to do with Kennedy's assassination. Nothing. Kennedy was killed by a Marxist. Oswald was a man wholly of the left, who had defected to the Soviet Union, passionately admired Castro's Cuba, and even tried to kill prominent right-wing activist Gen. Edwin Walker several months before he killed Kennedy. The museum slandered conservatives by implying that anti-Kennedy political sentiment from the right had anything to do with his murder. If anything, conservatives would have been harder on leftist psychopaths like Oswald.

Yet the left can't seem to come to grips with the responsibility of one of its own for Kennedy's murder. Batshit conspiracy theories abound, all fabricated by leftie nuts (the CIA did it.... no, it was the FBI... no... no... it was the mob or... or... Lyndon Johnson...).

Former New York Times leftie crank Frank Rich has penned a fatuous essay comparing the current political atmosphere to that of 1963 America:

But if the JFK story has resonance in our era, that is not because it triggers the vaguely noble sentiments of affection, loss, and nostalgia that keepers of the Kennedy flame would like to believe. Even the romantic Broadway musical that bequeathed Camelot its brand is not much revived anymore. What defines the Kennedy legacy today is less the fallen president’s short, often admirable life than the particular strain of virulent hatred that helped bring him down. After JFK was killed, that hate went into only temporary hiding. It has been a growth industry ever since and has been flourishing in the Obama years. There are plenty of comparisons to be made between the two men, but the most telling is the vitriol that engulfed both their presidencies... America’s violent culture wars had started before JFK was shot. They were all on display in Oswald’s Dallas. At least in 1963, polling showed that only 5 percent of the country—a fringe—subscribed to the radical anti-government views championed by the John Birch Society and other militants of the right. These days, that fringe, whether in the form of birthers or the tea party or the hosts of Fox & Friends, gives marching orders to a major political party.

The only similarities between Obama and JFK is youth and Democratic party membership. They are otherwise radically unalike. JFK was a decorated war hero with a long record of public service in Congress and the Senate. Obama is a 'community organizer' who never held a genuine political position (he abstained on most votes in Illinois, and campaigned for the presidency as soon has he came to the Senate). Prior to the presidency Obama never had a real job.

JFK was a tax-cutter and a strong proponent of free market capitalism. He coined the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats". Obama is a hard leftist and one-time A.C.O.R.N. lawyer who has worked feverishly to raise taxes, expand the federal government and worsen our national debt.

JFK was a defense hawk; he ran to Nixon's right during the 1960 campaign (remember the 'missile gap'), and he decisively confronted the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile crisis. JFK was a fierce anti-communist and a close friend of Joe McCarthy's, and JFK was the only Democratic senator who did not support the Senate censure of McCarthy. Obama was mentored as a youth by communist Franklin Marshall Davis and began his political career with the support of violent leftists (e.g. Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn) and hard left Chicago Alynskyites with whom Oswald would have felt right at home and of the sort that Jack Kennedy and Joe McCarthy despised and fought all their lives.

Succinctly, Obama is a man of the hard left. Kennedy was a passionate anti-communist tax-cutting military hawk-- a man of the 1950's and 1960's Democrat right-- which is a political philosophy nowadays referred to as... conservative Republican.

And what of Rich's bizarre assertion that the right is the source for America's political violence? Bullshit. The American left has always been extraordinarily and uniquely violent-- Obama's friend Bill Ayers-- in whose living room he began his political career--  is an admitted proud serial bomber. Virtually all American political killers and would-be killers have been one of two things:

1) Democrats (the Confederacy, John Wilkes Booth, the KKK)

2) Leftists (Guiteau, Czolgosz, Oswald, Zangara, Collazo, Torresola, Fromme, Moore, Ortega-Hernandez, Black Panthers, Weathermen, SDS, etc. etc).

JFK was a man of the right who was murdered by a man of the left.

Conservative Republicans have played no role in political violence in America. None. Frank Rich is nuts. And Barack Obama, like his fanboy Rich, shares more politics with Lee Harvey Oswald than he does with JFK.