Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

Lol the movie???

It's about the sheriff. He's gotten old. He's seeing the world change. He understands that he's not ready to deal with what is out there anymore....and there's wisdom in understanding when to call it quits.

Even the captive bolt gun (cattle killer) indicates how Chigurh views people....no different from domesticated animals ready for slaughter.

I havn't seen the movie

 

[Chesterton]

The coin represents his momentary uncertainty....

Haven't seen the movie, but if he believes he's the same type of thing as inanimate matter, a coin, indicated when he says this:

"I got here the same way the coin did"

how can he have any uncertainty at all? Does the film explain this?

 

[Chesterton]

So what determinists should say is that "society would still need laws to function morally". But of course they can't say that.

Why on earth not?

I try not to confuse what is detrimental with what someone might describe as immoral.

I said that you can't say it, and apparently you can't say it.

It's empathy. You'd have no problem in swatting a mosquito. But beating a puppy to death is another matter. To be able to do so wouild exhibit a lack of empathy. And that's one of the things that's required for a smooth running society. Social relationships suffer. So people think that beating puppies is wrong because you are exhibiting a lack of empathy and their empathy allows them to understand the pain that the puppy is feeling. And empathy leads to sympathy.

One, I disagree that it necessarily exhibits a lack of empathy. It could very well be that empathy is what makes torturing puppies a thrill.

Two, if it does exhibit a lack of empathy, it's only a lack of empathy for the puppies, not for humans or human society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

how can he have any uncertainty at all? Does the film explain this?

Determinists don't claim to see the future. They just see that it's set.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Glad we can agree somewhere.

Hooray. Now you need not bring up laws.

I meant that it doesn't matter because they are still going to be made anyway

Ok.

They are judgements of both actions and behavior

Well behavior certainly. Actions sounds a bit inhuman but if you prefer that it's fine.

It's mainly because none knows the future, etc.

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with judging behavior?

We would hope that they would abide by and obey all the rules and laws that were set or made by the majority

I'm sorry...do you see no difference between laws and morals?

Sure some or a lot of them are, etc.

Perhaps.

Most people all have in common feeling a certain way when certain acts or behaviors are done, or are committed, etc.

It sure doesn't look that way.

Most morals stem from feelings.

You think?

Oh yes it is, otherwise there would be total anarchy, and a lot of people wouldn't survive.

Again, you see no difference between morals and laws?

Can you perhaps be more specific? And maybe in not such a long, greatly, greatly parsed post maybe?

Well...

I agree laws must exist for society to function but see no correlation between morals and laws. There's no immorality done if I forget to renew my car registration....for example.

I don't see how you can go around judging people's behavior as moral or immoral or what you base these judgements on since there's no agency or free will in any choices.

 

[Bradskii]

Why can't what we feel represent what is real lol.

I have gone through this before with you. Feelings alone cannot explain everything and its an assumption to think so. Like I said its more than feelings and also involves our embodied experiences. We test our free will everyday and our experience of this is more than feelings.

I'll be ignoring these types of posts.

 

[Bradskii]

I said that you can't say it, and apparently you can't say it.

Because people confuse the two. People often describe something as being immoral when there is zero detriment to society. It cannot be immoral if there is no harm.

One, I disagree that it necessarily exhibits a lack of empathy. It could very well be that empathy is what makes torturing puppies a thrill. Two, if it does exhibit a lack of empathy, it's only a lack of empathy for the puppies, not for humans or human society.

You can't turn empathy on and off. You either have it or you don't. If you don't understand how a sentient animal is going to feel about being beaten or you don't understand how other people are going to feel about you doing it, then there's a problem.

 

[Chesterton]

Because people confuse the two. People often describe something as being immoral when there is zero detriment to society. It cannot be immoral if there is no harm.

You've moved the goalpost again. Your issue was detriment to human society, now it's just harm. So do you agree that causing harm (in some cases) is immoral?

You can't turn empathy on and off. You either have it or you don't. If you don't understand how a sentient animal is going to feel about being beaten or you don't understand how other people are going to feel about you doing it, then there's a problem.

What kind of problem? A moral problem? (Yes I'm trying to goad you into using the word "moral" since it seems to be kryptonite to determinists. )

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because people confuse the two. People often describe something as being immoral when there is zero detriment to society. It cannot be immoral if there is no harm.

Why not?

You can't turn empathy on and off.

You sound like someone who never had to.

You either have it or you don't. If you don't understand how a sentient animal is going to feel about being beaten or you don't understand how other people are going to feel about you doing it, then there's a problem.

You're assuming too much.

 

[Neogaia777]

It doesn't have to be considered immoral only if it is a detriment to society, or or only if it causes harm, but all is has to be is just considered wrong by the majority of that society, or it's governing bodies, etc.

And while this might be somewhat different/relative/subjective for each individual culture/society, and some things will be subject to change, etc, they will still all share some things in common as all being a part of the human race, or "all being human beings", etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

It doesn't have to be considered immoral only if it is a detriment to society, or or only if it causes harm, but all is has to be is just considered wrong by the majority of that society, or it's governing bodies, etc.

And while this might be somewhat different/relative/subjective for each individual culture/society, and some things will be subject to change, etc, they will still all share some things in common as all being a part of the human race, or "all being human beings", etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

The justice systems in those societies will all have their work cut out for them though, because in order to be truly just, the law has to sometimes make exceptions, and it also needs to be a matter of degrees, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Apparently not.

'there are no moral truths... I've explained my position on morality and that isn't it.

You know what I meant. There is no objective morality beyond human determinations. Otherwise why is there such debates between subjective and objective morality.

'...and there no consciousness': Complete nonsense.

You also know what I meant. Clarified that by saying 'consciousness beyond physical brain that has causal influence over reality.

'...no sense of self in the world able to navigate and influence reality.': You appear to be reading posts not just from a different thread but from a different forum.

Its called agency. A sense that we are an autonomous agent in the world and able to influence and change things with our choices. That exactly relates to this thread.

As far as I understand the atheistic and material view denies this level of agency. If it doesn't then they would have to acknowledge free will.

 

[stevevw]

Using empathy like using feelings to determine what is moral is a false analogy, a fallacy. Empathy can also cause people to be cruel and hateful towards others. We empathise and feel strongest to those closest to us but can be indifferent and even hateful to those at a distant.

In other words we are happy to see our own tribe benefit but will turn a blind eye to the suffering of others not in our tribe.

So empathy doesn't stand up and is inconsistent as being a moral basis for good. Its a poor basis for morality and like feelings doesn't work.

 

[Neogaia777]

Using empathy like using feelings to determine what is moral is a false analogy, a fallacy. Empathy can also cause people to be cruel and hateful towards others. We empathise and feel strongest to those closest to us but can be indifferent and even hateful to those at a distant.

In other words we are happy to see our own tribe benefit but will turn a blind eye to the suffering of others not in our tribe.

So empathy doesn't stand up and is inconsistent as being a moral basis for good. Its a poor basis for morality and like feelings doesn't work.

If enough people feel empathy the same, then it will probably lead to some rules of laws within that people group or society though, and they don't necessarily have to have any kind of practical use and/or utility either, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Its called agency. A sense that we are an autonomous agent in the world and able to influence and change things with our choices. That exactly relates to this thread.

From our perspective, the future is unwritten/unknown, and can be changed from or by our perspective, or input/influence, etc, but in reality, and from what is mostly a perspective of physics, it was already caused/known/predetermined/known/written already, and could only ever go, or only ever happen one way, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

If enough people feel empathy the same, then it will probably lead to some rules of laws within that people group or society though, and they don't necessarily have to have any kind of practical use and/or utility either, etc.

God Bless.

I guess so. But is a common feeling about something enough to justify a good or bad for that matter. It may work for that society but not for another. In fact it may work for one within that society but not another.

It seems hypocritical that a societies morality is based on an empathy and feeling that applies to itself but not universially which we would expect of morality if it is to have any credibility and status.

Nevertheless morality like free will cannot be reduced to feelings or physical and deterministic processes. You can't get an is from an ought.

So therefore some things are more about our lived experiences, the direct knowledge and feelings we get from embodying morality and free will. We live out these aspects of life and in a way we are testing them to see the proof of their reality in everyday life.

This is another form of evidence apart from the deterministic physical evidence. But of course if you take the deterministic and material position then this is all imagination as only the physical is causal in explaining reality. They are acknowledged but deminished in value as causal and influencial in altering reality at the fundemental level.

 

[Neogaia777]

I guess so. But is a common feeling about something enough to justify a good or bad for that matter. It may work for that society but not for another. In fact it may work for one within that society but not another.

Well, you said it yourself that "there is no objective morality beyond human determinations", etc. And there might not be, etc. And there might not be "at all" beyond just only our own human determinations, etc.

It seems hypocritical that a societies morality is based on an empathy and feeling that applies to itself but not universially which we would expect of morality if it is to have any credibility and status.

I'm only suggesting some of it could maybe be based on that sometimes maybe, etc, but I'm also not here to judge the right or wrong of that for each individual society, etc, because it will be a little bit different for each individual society, etc, and my own are only right now in part only based on or to the society to which I right now belong, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

From our perspective, the future is unwritten/unknown, and can be changed from or by our perspective, or input/influence, etc, but in reality, and from what is mostly a perspective of physics, it was already caused/known/predetermined/known/written already, and could only ever go, or only ever happen one way, etc.

God Bless.

See this is where I disagree and many philosophers as well, when you say "but in reality, and from what is mostly a perspective of physics" it was determined. This is a bait and switch tactic, a strawman.

People assume, beg the question that physical determinism is the ultimate abitor of reality. As I mentioned earlier determinism is an assumption and not a scientific fact. In fact QM undermines the deterministic view if you want to use physics.

The very idea of free will is related to our conscious experiences. Being an autonomous agent is a conscious experience because we are aware and injecting ourselves into the equation beyond physics. Thats the point that the sense of self, that experience of injecting yourself into whats happening and being able to change things, make a difference to outcomes is another force that influences reality.

Physical determinism only assumes that these experiences of self as something real as being unreal. They have no explaination other than correlations. They don;t know the true nature of what reality is let alone make truth claims that there is no experience of free will that can influence things.

 

[Bradskii]

You've moved the goalpost again. Your issue was detriment to human society, now it's just harm.

I guess that it must mean that I think harm is detrimental to society.

So do you agree that causing harm (in some cases) is immoral?

Again, an act cannot be immoral if it causes no harm. It could be described as immoral if it does. But as @Neogaia777 said, some use the term when it's just something they don't like.

What kind of problem? A moral problem? (Yes I'm trying to goad you into using the word "moral" since it seems to be kryptonite to determinists. )

Lacking empathy isn't a conscious decision. So if you do something that people consider to be wrong because you lack it, then I wouldn't class that as an immoral act. If you knew that it was wrong then that could be classed as immoral by some.

However, the term tends to lose meaning when you realise that there's no free will. So I might use the term in normal, everyday conversation because it fits the bill and everyone understands the concept (although it's not a term I use often) but this is a thread about free will and determinism and people would normally consider an immoral act to be be one that involves free will. So you're right. I'm avoiding it. But not because it counters my position. It's because it muddies the water.

'Harm' is a term that we all understand and there's no confusion about it. Which is why I've been using it. For the sake of clarity.

 

[Neogaia777]

See this is where I disagree and many philosophers as well, when you say "but in reality, and from what is mostly a perspective of physics" it was determined. This is a bait and switch tactic, a strawman.

People assume, beg the question that physical determinism is the ultimate abitor of reality. As I mentioned earlier determinism is an assumption and not a scientific fact. In fact QM undermines the deterministic view if you want to use physics.

The very idea of free will is related to our conscious experiences. Being an autonomous agent is a conscious experience because we are aware and injecting ourselves into the equation beyond physics. Thats the point that the sense of self, that experience of injecting yourself into whats happening and being able to change things, make a difference to outcomes is another force that influences reality.

Physical determinism only assumes that these experiences of self as something real as being unreal. They have no explaination other than correlations. They don;t know the true nature of what reality is let alone make truth claims that there is no experience of free will that can influence things.

I don't think anything is ever going to be able to be discoved in quantum physics/mechanics that would ever at all change how everything from the atom up, all always goes according to the rules and laws of determinism, or all always behaves/acts all deterministically always, etc, and it seems like it would be impossible for it to be able to do so in or by the end of it in my opinion, etc.

@FrumiousBandersnatch mentioned some of this earlier briefly, etc.

God Bless.