Free will and determinism

[Neogaia777]

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.

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

What the majority of the people in that society has in common when it comes to the basic feelings/rules of right and wrong, dictates the morality for that people, or that region, or that land, etc. And there might be any kind of morality that truly exists beyond that, etc. Except that people can also have it each individually, etc. But, without people, it might not actually exist, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

You know what I meant. There is no objective morality beyond human determinations.

Then say 'objective morality'. Saying 'morality doesn't exist' is plain and simply wrong.

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

I don't care how consciousness interacts with the material world. It exists. Saying simply 'it doesn't' is nonsensical.

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.

We do make choices. I have to keep reminding people of this. Making choices does not prove that there is free will. You really are not reading what has been written.

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.

Well, you don't understand it at all. How much of this thread have you actually read?

 

[Bradskii]

Using empathy like using feelings to determine what is moral is a false analogy, a fallacy.

Nobody has said that it is!

This is so frustrating...

 

[Bradskii]

As I mentioned earlier determinism is an assumption and not a scientific fact.

Yet you refuse to give an example of when an act or a decision was not determined. Posting comments like the one above are totally worthless unless you do.

 

[childeye 2]

But as there is also hate its a choice.

The existence of a multitude of emotions/spirits common to mankind does not mean we choose/decide to experience them. We reason upon pro/con when charting a course of action, and we reason upon what we believe to be true. Generally speaking, with some exceptions, we experience emotions according to what we believe to be true.

Objectively, Love is a positive and hatred is a negative, but they are not mutually exclusive. Typically, hatred manifests from some form of perceived betrayal, it's not a choice/decision, but rather a reaction.

 

[childeye 2]

Nobody has said that it is!

This is so frustrating...

There's probably a misunderstanding here. Objectively speaking, I have said that morality is an emotion. Morality means to care about how one's actions affect others, so that immorality means not caring how ones actions affect others. "Caring" about others is an emotion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Apparently not.

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

Your position is incorrect then.
.

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

Well we are just flesh sacks with electrical sparks passing through various nerve channels.

However, if you want to call certain moments wherein we believe ourselves to exist beyond mere flesh/blood/bone/electrical spark....as "consciousness"....then sure,such a state exists.

'...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.

He nails determinism on the head pretty well there.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Actually I think its the other way around. I don't think any dicovery in QP is ever going to prove deterministic. Einstein thought there must be hidden variables to explain the probablistic nature of the quantum world. But none have been found.

QP undermines the deterministic view of physics. There are several interpretations that support the observers choice as part of the equation for influencing reality.

So at the very least there is no definitive interpretation at this point and any claims that determinism fact as far as fundemental reality is unverified and if anything we should be open to ideas like free will, conscious choice and the observer effect on reality as a possibility.

 

[Bradskii]

So at the very least there is no definitive interpretation at this point and any claims that determinism fact as far as fundemental reality is unverified and if anything we should be open to ideas like free will, conscious choice and the observer effect on reality as a possibility.

Then give an example where an event or a decision was not determined.

I've now got that question in my notes folder so that I can cut n paste it each time. So you can waste your time making that same point over and over again but I don't have to waste time responding to it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Actually I think its the other way around. I don't think any dicovery in QP is ever going to prove deterministic. Einstein thought there must be hidden variables to explain the probablistic nature of the quantum world. But none have been found.

QP undermines the deterministic view of physics. There are several interpretations that support the observers choice as part of the equation for influencing reality.

So at the very least there is no definitive interpretation at this point and any claims that determinism fact as far as fundemental reality is unverified and if anything we should be open to ideas like free will, conscious choice and the observer effect on reality as a possibility.

I have a very hard time believing that our input, or our thoughts, can change or alter the way atoms, and everything above them, is, or behaves right now currently. And I don't think that any further knowledge or discoveries in QM/QP will ever be able to contradict that, or will ever truly discover that, or will ever find a way to fundamentally change or alter that, etc.

The quantum level is also the sub-level to atoms, and it's what makes up or determines atoms, etc, and if one level is deterministic (and in fact right now, they all are, etc) then in general they all are, or have to be, etc. But I guess I could be wrong about that maybe? Time will tell I guess maybe?

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

The quantum level is also the sub-level to atoms, and it's what makes up or determines atoms, etc, and if one level is deterministic (and in fact right now, they all are, etc) then in general they all are, or have to be, etc.

There's a pen on the desk in front of me. Maybe there's an infinite number of quantum effects happening within the structure of that pen. Maybe they are random. Who knows? But...the pen is still there sitting on the desk. That's not going to change. It will only move unless something determines it to move. An earthquake, a tsunami, a gradual degredation of the structure of the pen...or me deciding to move it. All determined.

 

[Neogaia777]

There's a pen on the desk in front of me. Maybe there's an infinite number of quantum effects happening within the structure of that pen. Maybe they are random. Who knows? But...the pen is still there sitting on the desk. That's not going to change. It will only move unless something determines it to move. An earthquake, a tsunami, a gradual degredation of the structure of the pen...or me deciding to move it. All determined.

Yeah, right now all the solid evidence points to determinism, and I'm not going to rest my certainty of free will existing on a not yet fully explored, or not yet fully known, "unknown", etc. Especially not when all the rest of the evidence is 100% solidly against it, or flat out contradicts it right now, etc.

I could maybe be proven wrong in time maybe, but I highly doubt it, etc.

Right now, this is where all of the evidence points, and is the theory that fits, etc.

The rest is "woo" right now, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

The rest is "woo" right now...

It's kinda weird that our view is considered woo..

 

[Neogaia777]

Let me put it this way...

If what is it always behaves deterministically, then it would be almost impossible to not eventually find out that that which also makes up it is not or does not also, always behave/act/react deterministically also, etc.

Or at least that's my theory/reasoning behind it anyway.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's kinda weird that our view is considered woo..

I know right?

Especially right now with every single bit of the only solid and only proven evidence on our side, etc.

I just think people just don't like the idea or thought generally, etc.

It seems to really, really mess with some people, or mess a lot of people up, etc.

And I'll be the first to admit that reconciling with everything else is difficult, but I'm also living proof that it is possible, etc. Because I have fully reconciled it, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's probably a misunderstanding here. Objectively speaking, I have said that morality is an emotion.

If it is....the emotion would be fear of judgement.

I don't think it is though.

Morality means to care about how one's actions affect others,

Nah. You can easily engage in behavior that affects no one but yourself but if that behavior violates the moral norms of your social group...you'll probably keep it to yourself.

Fear of negative moral judgements would be the emotional basis.

so that immorality means not caring how ones actions affect others. "Caring" about others is an emotion.

Considering the moral norms of our peers seems related to our emotions but unlikely to be the sole factor.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me put it this way...

If what is it always behaves deterministically, then it would be almost impossible to not eventually find out that that which also makes up it is not or does not also, always behave/act/react deterministically also, etc.

Or at least that's my theory/reasoning behind it anyway.

God Bless.

We could just have easily said a mechanism for free will existing in the brain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Why would that make something immoral?

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.

What makes you believe that?

 

[Neogaia777]

Why would that make something immoral?

Well, chose your definitions of terms I guess? Because at this point we're just arguing about semantics, etc.

What makes you believe that?

No one can be wholly amorral/immoral without it affecting their conscience, or if they can, then they are among a great, great minority, or are possibly insane, etc.

So that makes me think that there are some things that humans have in common when it comes to this issue, even if it somehow gets confused (for all of us most of the time) later on in life, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

We could just have easily said a mechanism for free will existing in the brain.

You'd probably have to be referring to or believing in something "spiritual" at that point, etc.

Something maybe like what @stevevw was referring to, or was trying to be referring to earlier, etc. Something beyond just the physical matter or material or electrical substance, etc. And I don't think you believe that, etc. Or maybe do you maybe, etc?

Take Care/God Bless.