Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

No you did not. You specifically mistated my position, not contest it. And then when I corrected you and asked for you change it and gave you evidence for what I said, you specifically said that you didn't know. Please stop playing these childish games.

Ok I think you have misunderstood what I just said then. I was acknowledging that I knew your position when I went back and checked. Thats why I said in recognition of that "Ok I knew what your position was from your own words". Point 1.

Your objection that I said I don't know your position but I did know your position from the previous post. point 2. I also accept that this is the case.

I am saying despite you making your position clear after you told me and I thought about it I then became unclear of what exactly was your position because it did not make sense logically. It was based on a logical fallacy. So I was contesting it.

So yes you told me your position is clear and yes I said your position is not so clear. But thats because I disagree its as clear as you say it is. Hense I was contesting it.

I mean what do you want me to say. Yes your position is clear and its correct when you use it to dispute my claims. I don't think thats how it works. We have to nut out exactly whether your position is so clear. Is correct and matches reality rather than assumed. Afterall if you are wrong which is a possibility then your position is not so clear afterall.

The difference between objective and subjective morality is a topic for another thread. It's irrelevant for this topic because whether free will exists or not we can still offer our beliefs on what we think is right or wrong as it relates to punishing wrong doers. Again, whether that is an objective position or a relative one is irrelevant.

But don't you think that whether we are accountable is linked to whether there is a real ledger we are accountable for with a free will. Free will and morality seem to perfectly blend as one. You can't think of one without the other. You would be continously having to remind yourself thats irrelevant.

So what about socially like social norms. Even under this view people seem to form strong interactions based on having free will. Even down to the micro level such as the right to self determination and realisation. This is almost held up as a religious commandment today.

It seems we can't shake our belief in free will whether its morally, socially or psychologically.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, I thought that was common knowledge. For example some sort of survival advantage.

Altruism is giving with no expectation of a return benefit. It doesn't really confer a survival advantage, does it. I want a specific reason why you are acting altruistically.

So morality was evolved because it had some benefit for the group like cooperation. Altruism would be the same. It provides some survival benefit to pass on genes which is ultimately the cause. So any example along those lines. It doesn't matter which as theres a reductionist rationale for all behaviour. But this reductionist explanation doesn't fit the reality.

You're right. There is no survival benefit. So it doesn't fit the reality. So why use an example that you know doesn't work..?

Maybe just one more. I think 'Belief' is another reason. If theres one thing that motivates people to give their life for another its belief. In fact I would say it is the greatest motivator.

Yes. So can you choose to believe something? Well, allow me to answer that. No, you can't. What you can do is decide to accept or reject evidence. The result of that will be that you either believe or you won't. It's the evidence that will determine your belief. You can't say 'I believe X' if you accept evidence to the contrary.

So you can't even decide to believe,let alone make a free will will decision about it.

That way we have 'natural instinct', 'love' as an emotion and more psychological and 'belief' which is spiritual.

However you want to describe love, you have no decision on whether to love. And belief is not spiritual. It's an acceptance of evidence (whether true or not is irrelevant) - see above.

I have given examples from natural instincts that all behaviour is ultimately an extended phenotype based on genes and natural selection. For example morality and altruism have a survival advantage such that helps communities cooperate and remain ordered and safe. Which ultimately traces back to the passing on of genes.

Well morality is. Altruism isn't. But let's say they both are for the sake of this post. If they're down to genes and natural selection then that's the very opposite of you making free will decisions. You can't choose who your father selected as a mate (or mother, if she made the selection), so you can't choose your genes. So...no free will there either.

So basically any example like stealing. Society frowns down on stealing because not stealing keeps society ordered. Being ordered makes a more stable society with a better chance of not destroying themselves and possibly going extinct lol. Theres a bit more to it. But all reasoning will be about NS and genes ultimately.

Are you sure you're putting your arguments forward here? Because they all sound like mine at the moment.

But as I said I disagree with this view and believe its an unfounded assumption based on the evidence.

So..let me get this straight. I asked for evidence for your position. I asked for examples. You gave 3. I've rejected all three for reasons already given. So you have responded by putting forth evidence which agrees with my position. And then you say that you disagree with it. Based on evidence. Which I asked for and you haven't supplied.

This is one of your most inept posts I'm afraid to say.

Now please don't head off into the undergrowth and start different arguments about different matters. You'll have to readdress the examples you have given in support of your position, in the weirdest way possible, and argue for them. Else we are done.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems we can't shake our belief in free will whether its morally, socially or psychologically.

Whether we can or can't reject a belief in free will has absolutely nothing to do with whether it exists or not.

 

[Chesterton]

I responded to your hypothetical. Do you want to comment on that?

You responded with the bald assertion that there's no free will. A response like that deserves a response like "yes there is".

But what I'm wondering about is this: in my scenario, I clearly stated the woman loves the man completely. Then you stated that the man's love was unreciprocated. Why did you say the opposite of what I said?

 

[stevevw]

And I'm reminded of a quite brilliant film with Ryan Gosling called 'Lars And The Girl'. He plays a young guy in a small town who is socially inept and crushingly lonely who sends away for a realistic female 'friend'. And introduces her as his new love. Everyone is embarressed but they realise that he needs help so they all gradually go along with it. And it turns out that he does love his new girl and people come to respect what he feels.

No spoilers, but the point is that he did fall in love with his new girl. And he couldn't help it. We can see that it's real even if at some level he might know she's not.

There were no free will decisions. He couldn't help his feelings and neither could his friends and neighbours.

I don't like these examples as they are antidoctal and don't reflect lived reality. Its not that simple that we are robots for love. It reminds me of the intellectual who rationalises love as its actually happening to him. Ah theres a tingly feeling around the heart section. Could be nerve stimulation. Heart is beinging to beat faster everytime she walks into the room. Must be instincts kicking in.

I think love is an experience and its mixed with emotion and influenced by our past experiences. But its more than that and we know it. Theres a certain qualified quality when its true love. As opposed to feelings alone which can mimick love and as we know fools people and they get hurt. They then learn to see love differently and are not so swayed by their surface feelings.

 

[stevevw]

Whether we can or can't reject a belief in free will has absolutely nothing to do with whether it exists or not.

I am not sure about that. Its like belief and morality. If these exist as some innate aspect of humans but not completely reduced to evolution but rather support agency then these qualities become part of being human full stop. It doesn't matter how they arrive or were caused the fact is they are real. Thats all that matters in the end.

Its like one of those self fullfilling prophecies where you live it long enough it becomes a part of who you are and the reality you live in.

I mean what is reality. Is it some mechanistic conception outside our direct lived reality or our direct lived reality. Whats the closest we could get to that. It would be how we actually experience free will.

There can be no better evidence. We were witnesses of our own free will working in the world and it worked. It passed the reality test. Not just for us but we see it working for others. So much so that this is why we believe in it so much.

 

[Bradskii]

You responded with the bald assertion that there's no free will. A response like that deserves a response like "yes there is".

No, I addressed the point that you made directly. See below.

But what I'm wondering about is this: in my scenario, I clearly stated the woman loves the man completely. Then you stated that the man's love was unreciprocated. Why did you say the opposite of what I said?

In the first instance, it's a robot programmed to replicate love for the guy. 'She' cannot 'love the man completely'. That's why I brought up Lars And The Girl. His love is real. But 'hers' is not. So his love is not reciprocated. No more than it could be in loving an inanimate object. And as I said:

But that doesn't address the point being made. You had no free will in deciding to love the woman. And you had no free will in feeling betrayed when you found that the love wasn't reciprocated. None at all. None whatsoever.

The guy in your scenario and the guy in the film had no choice to fall in love. We don't even get to the point where it could be describesd as a free will choice. And your guy had no choice in feeling destroyed when he found out that his love wasn't reciprocated. As it couldn't have been - by a robot. So again, we can't describe something as being a free will decision if we don't even have a decision being made in the first instance.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not sure about that.

Believing that something is is true doesn't make it true. I can't believe that I have to point that out to you.

 

[stevevw]

Altruism is giving with no expectation of a return benefit. It doesn't really confer a survival advantage, does it. I want a specific reason why you are acting altruistically.

Are you dismissing possible deterministic causes of altruism. I thought the determinist view was evolution created morality. Theres some sort of survival advantage as with all behaviour ultimately.

A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism

We present a simple framework that highlights the most fundamental requirement for the evolution of altruism: assortment between individuals carrying the cooperative genotype and the helping behaviours of others with which these individuals interact. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

One possible reason is we seem to be born with a sense of empathy and basic morality like justic, kindness and fairness. This doesn't seem to be genetic or taught as its there very early after birth before babies can pickup on these things. So maybe just as we have a phyical side with instincts we also have another side to us that transcends the physical which is attuned to sensing what its like for other humans to be human.

Another reason may be an older person who feels their life is just about over would sacrifice their life to save a younger person. Or a soldier that gives their life in war to fight for a cause, say freedom.

You're right. There is no survival benefit. So it doesn't fit the reality. So why use an example that you know doesn't work..?

This is what I don't get. As linked above it is well known that culture, morality and altruism and behaviour are basically extended phenotypes and Kin selection. That its about natural selection and survival benefits. Those who act badly are kicked out of the group and don't survive. Altruism is a knock effect of being good to each other.

The Evolution of Altruism through Kin Selection

Abstract. This chapter discusses the evolution of altruism through kin-selection. There is a great deal of evidence that humans and other animals are dispo

academic.oup.com

So I would not be so quick to be saying theres no survival benefit. Its been common knowledge for decades.

Yes. So can you choose to believe something? Well, allow me to answer that. No, you can't. What you can do is decide to accept or reject evidence. The result of that will be that you either believe or you won't. It's the evidence that will determine your belief. You can't say 'I believe X' if you accept evidence to the contrary.
So you can't even decide to believe,let alone make a free will will decision about it.

Once again I don't think its so simple. Christain faith is the evidence of things unseen. Soits a belief contrary to the evidence you know exists. Flat earthers know the earth is not flat. They indulge in a flight of fancy.

But as with Christian belief and perhaps experiences like love and colors ect there is no going with the physical evidence as there is none. But people still believe. Charlmers speaks about phenomenal belief. How experiences can act as evidence for believing that something is real even though it cannot be evidenced in scientific terms.

The Content and Epistemology of Phenomenal Belief

However you want to describe love, you have no decision on whether to love. And belief is not spiritual. It's an acceptance of evidence (whether true or not is irrelevant) - see above.

What about sacrifical love. Surely there must be some deliberation. Afterall your giving up something, your life even. I am sure there will be more reasons not to do it than do it. It would take some soul searching.

What I find ironic is that one of the most greatest acts of giving ones live for no reward in this life is that Hard Determinism reduces this great act to the same level of someone not willing to give their life. Theres no difference. Just as those who are not willing had no choice neither did those who did. That doesn't seem to match the evidence and lived reality.

Well morality is. Altruism isn't.

Thats not right. You say it as though 100% certain when I just gave you two papers using evolution to explain altruism. Do you support evolution. As this is a classical deterministic explanation of human behaviour. Such as Kin selection. Whats different about alturism that its not the same as say being kind morally. Its just a super way of being kind. Now I'm making arguements for determinism lol.

But let's say they both are for the sake of this post. If they're down to genes and natural selection then that's the very opposite of you making free will decisions. You can't choose who your father selected as a mate (or mother, if she made the selection),

This is sex selection which is different. There is some grounding for mate selection such as males are attracted to womens child bearing hips. So body shape is important. Or how redness in wildlife and womens makeup is a signal of sexual mating.

But as for morals, free will and agency these are different. There is no genetic basis. Or its more than the genetics and natural selection. Recent discoveries are finding that creatures and especially humans are the selectors of the direction of evolution rather than NS and genes. That its the creature itself, the subject that is doing the choosing in beneficial or non beneficial ways.

so you can't choose your genes. So...no free will there either.

Ever heard of inheritence beyond genes where the creature is the one who sets the environment for the type of conditions that dictate which behaviour and genes are passed on. This mostly comes from culture, socialisation, but also from niche construction where rather than creatures being adapted to environments they create the environment which benefits them and is passed on.

Are you sure you're putting your arguments forward here? Because they all sound like mine at the moment.

Lol. I am putting forward the stock standard Determinist and reductionist arguements. Which shows I do understand them and yet dispute them. Not entirely as they work in certain situations. But are not the whole picture.

So..let me get this straight. I asked for evidence for your position. I asked for examples. You gave 3. I've rejected all three for reasons already given. So you have responded by putting forth evidence which agrees with my position. And then you say that you disagree with it. Based on evidence. Which I asked for and you haven't supplied.

Your creating a fallacy by misrepresenting things. First I am putting forth evidence for your position to explain your position and show you misunderstand your own position. I first have to explain what it is and then show how its not as correct as you think.

For example before we even got off to any discussion you claim that there is no evolutionary explanation for alturism and yet its well known that alturism is based on Kin selection. A basic idea within mainstream evolution. So thats not a good start. Already we have a conflict with your assumptions being unfounded. What else about your position is unfounded and not as correct as you believe.

This is one of your most inept posts I'm afraid to say.

Now please don't head off into the undergrowth and start different arguments about different matters. You'll have to readdress the examples you have given in support of your position, in the weirdest way possible, and argue for them. Else we are done.

Lol we will see. No I am just trying to sort out what you have claimed as being correct or not before we start anything. No sense arguing against a strawman or misreprestation of the facts.

 

[stevevw]

Believing that something is is true doesn't make it true. I can't believe that I have to point that out to you.

Of course not. But what your doing is using that to dismiss beliefs that are true. To dismiss beliefs perse as though they can never be trusted and reflect whats really going on. You agree belief can also be true right. Can reflect or match what is really going on or what is real.

 

[Chesterton]

In the first instance, it's a robot programmed to replicate love for the guy. 'She' cannot 'love the man completely'.

Why can't she?

That's why I brought up Lars And The Girl. His love is real. But 'hers' is not. So his love is not reciprocated. No more than it could be in loving an inanimate object. And as I said:

I'm ignoring anything about Lars. I'd never heard of this movie. I had to go to Wiki to learn that it's a comedy about a man with mental disorders. Can we stick with how normal people's minds operate in real life?

The guy in your scenario and the guy in the film had no choice to fall in love. We don't even get to the point where it could be describesd as a free will choice. And your guy had no choice in feeling destroyed when he found out that his love wasn't reciprocated. As it couldn't have been - by a robot. So again, we can't describe something as being a free will decision if we don't even have a decision being made in the first instance.

You did it again. Why do you have to change my scenario to say his love wasn't reciprocated when I said it was?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You and @FrumiousBandersnatch are doing great work. But to no avail. I started this thread to test my own arguments, hope for some decent rebuttals that maybe I hadn't come across before and perhaps, just perhaps, try to to persuade someone to realise in some way that I was right. In that last endeavour it's been a complete failure.

That doesn't make me think I'm wrong. Far from it. Some of the arguments against what we have presented have exhibited the paucity of the opposing position (sorry to all those who have put those arguments forward, but I'm being honest) and have served to convince me I'm right. I just need to readdress what arguments we are using and try to work out why they aren't working.

That, at least, has been a big plus.

I don't think you can realistically expect to change someone's mind about such a fundamental belief with a few posts on a forum, but it's possible that you could prompt some deeper thought about the subject - but only if they're interested or willing to question their assumptions for the sake of argument.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't think you can realistically expect to change someone's mind...

Since my belief in free will is determined by physics, you'll have to resort to something physical to change my mind, i.e., mind surgery.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you dismissing possible deterministic causes of altruism. I thought the determinist view was evolution created morality. Theres some sort of survival advantage as with all behaviour ultimately.

You are confusing what might be evolutionary beneficial with determinism. Everything is determined. A lot is beneficial.

This is what I don't get. As linked above it is well known that culture, morality and altruism and behaviour are basically extended phenotypes and Kin selection. That its about natural selection and survival benefits. Those who act badly are kicked out of the group and don't survive. Altruism is a knock effect of being good to each other. So I would not be so quick to be saying theres no survival benefit. Its been common knowledge for decades.

That's reciprocal altruism. Not true altruism. There's no needto get derailed in me explaining the difference.

Once again I don't think its so simple. Christain faith is the evidence of things unseen. Soits a belief contrary to the evidence you know exists. Flat earthers know the earth is not flat. They indulge in a flight of fancy.

But as with Christian belief and perhaps experiences like love and colors ect there is no going with the physical evidence as there is none. But people still believe. Charlmers speaks about phenomenal belief. How experiences can act as evidence for believing that something is real even though it cannot be evidenced in scientific terms.

It's not that people believe that something is true without evidence. You are missing the point completely. It's that believing something doesn't make it true. That is SO obvious that I'm not to goingto address it further.

What about sacrifical love. Surely there must be some deliberation. Afterall your giving up something, your life even. I am sure there will be more reasons not to do it than do it. It would take some soul searching.

Of course. But that has no relevance. Determining which is the option you really prefer is a given.

What I find ironic is that one of the most greatest acts of giving ones live for no reward in this life is that Hard Determinism reduces this great act to the same level of someone not willing to give their life. Theres no difference. Just as those who are not willing had no choice neither did those who did. That doesn't seem to match the evidence and lived reality.

Not giving your life and giving your life has the same outcome? You literally said 'there's no difference'.

Thats not right. You say it as though 100% certain when I just gave you two papers using evolution to explain altruism. Do you support evolution. As this is a classical deterministic explanation of human behaviour. Such as Kin selection. Whats different about alturism that its not the same as say being kind morally. Its just a super way of being kind. Now I'm making arguements for determinism lol.

Reciprocal altruism. It's an evolutionary term. There is a huge difference between that and true altruism.

This is sex selection which is different. There is some grounding for mate selection such as males are attracted to womens child bearing hips. So body shape is important. Or how redness in wildlife and womens makeup is a signal of sexual mating.

So no free will.

But as for morals, free will and agency these are different. There is no genetic basis. Or its more than the genetics and natural selection. Recent discoveries are finding that creatures and especially humans are the selectors of the direction of evolution rather than NS and genes. That its the creature itself, the subject that is doing the choosing in beneficial or non beneficial ways.

Making choices does Not mean that free will exists. Please stop making this error.

Lol. I am putting forward the stock standard Determinist and reductionist arguements.

I have no idea why. I already know them. It's your job to refute them, not repeat them.

Your creating a fallacy by misrepresenting things. First I am putting forth evidence for your position to explain your position and show you misunderstand your own position. I first have to explain what it is and then show how its not as correct as you think.

I know my position and what it entails. You haven't even started to refute it. You might spend some time thinking about howw you're going to do that.

For example before we even got off to any discussion you claim that there is no evolutionary explanation for alturism and yet its well known that alturism is based on Kin selection. A basic idea within mainstream evolution. So thats not a good start. Already we have a conflict with your assumptions being unfounded.

Reciprocal altruism. It doesn't mean the same thing as altruism. Which doesn't really matter as far as you're concerned as there's no free will involved in either.

Lol we will see. No I am just trying to sort out what you have claimed as being correct or not before we start anything. No sense arguing against a strawman or misreprestation of the facts.

Two thousand posts and you're not sure? You'd be better off concentrating on how to present your own argument rather than how I'm presenting mine. You're not doing a great job at either at the moment.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course not. But what your doing is using that to dismiss beliefs that are true. To dismiss beliefs perse as though they can never be trusted and reflect whats really going on. You agree belief can also be true right. Can reflect or match what is really going on or what is real.

No, I'm rejecting some beliefs on evidence. I'm also rejecting claims that some things are true simply because people believe them.

 

[Bradskii]

Why can't she?

I'm ignoring anything about Lars. I'd never heard of this movie. I had to go to Wiki to learn that it's a comedy about a man with mental disorders. Can we stick with how normal people's minds operate in real life?

But one of your normal people is an animated doll. A robot. You can't be saying that a manufactured item can actually love someone? It's why I bought up Lars. He can love an inanimate object but it can't love him.

You did it again. Why do you have to change my scenario to say his love wasn't reciprocated when I said it was?

So can you confirm that you actually mean that a robot can love someone?

 

[Chesterton]

But one of your normal people is an animated doll. A robot. You can't be saying that a manufactured item can actually love someone? It's why I bought up Lars. He can love an inanimate object but it can't love him.

So can you confirm that you actually mean that a robot can love someone?

Why didn't you answer my questions?

 

[Bradskii]

Why didn't you answer my questions?

That his love wasn't reciprocated? That why a robot couldn't love?

You are presumably trying to claim that free will decisions exist. But a robot can't decide to love someone. I'm not even sure why you're using something that obviously has no free will to try to claim it. And who we love and whether we love isn't a decision we make in any case. You can't pick someone at random and decide 'This is the person I will love. So you haven't even got a decision in the first place to then claim it's a free will decision.

You haven't got to first base with this argument.

 

[stevevw]

You are confusing what might be evolutionary beneficial with determinism. Everything is determined. A lot is beneficial.

Actually that is only part of evolution theory. Basically its population genetics. So everything including behaviour is reduced to genetics. In fact if you trace everything back it arrives at the cellular level which is the reducible mechanism. Its not about benefits but elimination of genes that don't have a survival advantage according to natural selection.

That's reciprocal altruism. Not true altruism. There's no need to get derailed in me explaining the difference.

Actually evolution theory came up with reciprocal altruism to explain altruism. Thats because no determinist explanation could account for it. True altruism is putting someone above yourself and the ultimate act is laying down your life for another. No deterministic explanation can account for this.

It's not that people believe that something is true without evidence. You are missing the point completely. It's that believing something doesn't make it true. That is SO obvious that I'm not to goingto address it further.

It sort of does. I think theres different qualities of belief and we qualify those beliefs all the time and not just though science. Like intuition when we have a strong belief about something like its a geiger counter for lies or mischief. We can't put our finger on why but it often turns out correct.

So sometimes beliefs are a sign of something is true. But not measured just by logic or rationalism but rather some sense that cannot be reduced to deterministic measuresd.

Of course. But that has no relevance. Determining which is the option you really prefer is a given.

If thats the case then why the soul searching. Why the pros and cons and anguishing over making the decision. I don't think its as much a given as you say. I knew it I wanted to end my life, make my kids lose their father, leave my family unsupported, give up my ambitions and my dreams and end it all. I don't think many people feel that way unless they are suicidal.

Not giving your life and giving your life has the same outcome? You literally said 'there's no difference'.

You missed the point. I am talking about value as far as the worth of the act of self sacrifice. In reality we honor those who sacrifice their lives and we say those who don't are cowards.

But according to Hard Determinism theres no difference in value between sacrificing your live for another and not doing it. They both could not be helped as their were already determined. As you said they were always going to choose the one they preferred.

Reciprocal altruism. It's an evolutionary term. There is a huge difference between that and true altruism.

No matter what you use to explain altruism if your a Hard Determinist you are going to use these reductive mechanisms. The problem is these don't work. They fall short and don't capture what is actually happening.

So I would like to hear your determinist explanation for true altruism.

So no free will.

I am talking about the basic instincts that most species share and especially mammals. To mate, form groups, safety, get food, shelter and nesting. But humans are higher order thinkers and conscious.

Determinist tend to think at the basic level. The physical needs. Whereas with Maslows hierarchy of needs humans had more dimensions going up through the psychological and emotional to the sefl realisation and spiritual with transcedence at the top as the ultimate dimension of human attainment.

So yes No free will at the basic deterministic level but Yes free will at the self realisation and spiritual level which transcends mechanical determinism.

Making choices does Not mean that free will exists. Please stop making this error.

But we should expect that free will involves making free choices. But yes its the type of choice. You could say the quality of that choice thats important as this involves our conscious deliberations. In other words we get entangled into the situation and this can over ride deterministic influences. As Kane says its the Self Forming Actions and Choices at those soul searching times.

I have no idea why. I already know them. It's your job to refute them, not repeat them.

I just told you I am repeating them to refute them at the same time. But I don't need to refute them as I mentioned its well acknowledged that Determinist explanations are inadequate to explain morality, consciousness, free will and agency. Like with how evolutionary explanations have been undermined.

Unless you have some special example that is outside this framework for Determinism I have not seen any that past the test.

I know my position and what it entails. You haven't even started to refute it. You might spend some time thinking about howw you're going to do that.

I don't need to. As I said thats already been done for me. Its common knowledge. Why do you think the jury is still out on whether Free Will exists or not. The same with consciousness and morality and the debate will go on.

Every arguement you have has been tried before and failed. Thats unless you have some secret arguement that no one has come up with. Please tell as this could be revolutionary.

Reciprocal altruism. It doesn't mean the same thing as altruism. Which doesn't really matter as far as you're concerned as there's no free will involved in either.

Thats what I more or less said. I would be interested in seeing how you differentiate true altruism deteterministically from Reciprocal altruism deterministically. I don't think it can be done. It ends up converging to the same basic reductive mechanisms.

And thats the point. No matter what explanation you give its always going to fall short for capturing the lived reality of free will. Just like whatever reductive determinist explanation you give for consciousness doesn't explan its nature. Only direct lived experience can explain its nature.

Two thousand posts and you're not sure? You'd be better off concentrating on how to present your own argument rather than how I'm presenting mine. You're not doing a great job at either at the moment.

Lol but thats the point. No one can explain the determinist view as its incoherent. We will keep forever be arguing from two different category destinction and will never meet in the middle.

I have been explaining presenting my arguement. A large part of that is showing how incoherent the determinist position is. How inadequate it is.

The second part is attempting to explain the category destinction in what we are talking about. We areboth coming from different metaphysical assumptions about reality. Yours the deterministic, mechanical and reducible. Mine the subjective experience which is indeterminant and irreducible to the mechanical and determined.

You assume a material reality and I one that transcends this. So already your trying to hold me to your assumed metaphysical outlook and I am disagreeing and resisting. Its not as case of giving specific examples of behaviour. Its about whether your assumed metaphysical belief is correct that we should only know the world and reality this way. Or be open to other possibilities.

At the very least you cannot hold anyone to your metaphysical assumptions because ultimately its a belief and as you said "just because you believe something doesn't make it true" remember.

 

[Chesterton]

That his love wasn't reciprocated? That why a robot couldn't love?

You are presumably trying to claim that free will decisions exist. But a robot can't decide to love someone. I'm not even sure why you're using something that obviously has no free will to try to claim it. And who we love and whether we love isn't a decision we make in any case. You can't pick someone at random and decide 'This is the person I will love. So you haven't even got a decision in the first place to then claim it's a free will decision.

You're almost as evasive as Kamala Harris. Yes, answer the question of why a robot can't love.

You haven't got to first base with this argument.

I can't even begin an argument until I know what to argue for or against. Depending on your answer, we might not even need to argue. We might be in agreement.