Atheism and nihilism

[zippy2006]

This presupposes that what they choose to do they do freely. We could say the same thing about the difference between the old Tiger Handheld video games from the 80s and the iWatch of today. It does a lot more things of a lot greater complexity, but that doesn't mean it's making free choices.

In this scenario, the politician is the actor, and the listeners are the believers. His listeners are convinced to agree if his reasoning is persuasive, so they are a slave to his reasoning. But why does the politician do what he does? Because he was convinced by other reasoning and life experiences to hold to certain beliefs.

I was trying to give you a different angle on an old problem by showing variations in levels of freedom, mastery over reason, etc. You can certainly continue to maintain that all human acts are fundamentally unfree. As I said earlier, that doesn't leave us anywhere to go. It's an unfalsifiable assertion.

That's weird. A long time ago we had a discussion about free will when I made a challenge thread about the problem of evil. You told me back then that folks in Heaven don't have free will anymore because God is so good, that it's overwhelming to be in His presence and we can't choose to do evil.

What I probably said was that direct knowledge of God furnishes us with direct knowledge of the irrationality of evil, and thus we will not choose evil in light of this knowledge. That doesn't preclude free will due to the fact that there are all sorts of good options to choose from.

And also, that God doesn't have free will. It's fine that your position seems to have changed, I just think it's interesting how much.

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

No, in one case an irrevocable event has already occurred, and in the other case an event hasn't occurred yet.

Rather, in one case an event is irrevocable because it is past and in the other case it is irrevocable because it has been decided by the agent. The choice to buy the car has already occurred even if the purchase has not.

If I didn't use any reasoning, I'd follow my gut instinct to what makes me happy. I use reasoning because it makes me happy. We haven't escaped being a slave to our desires by looking at it one step back.

On your view how would one be free? What would they choose according to, other than their desires?

The problem is that the pursuit of happiness is the only reason.

I don't think that's the problem at all. I think the problem is your a priori determinism. If there were two choices, happiness and something else, you would continue to maintain that our choice between the two was determined by prior causes.

Happiness simply isn't a deterministic end. Sure, we all want to end up at happiness, and there are a hundred billion different ways to get there. Claiming that there is no freedom of choice because happiness is the end strikes me as invalid. It's as invalid as saying that once you decide you want to get to California you have no free will. What about deciding when to travel? What about deciding whether to travel by train, bus, car, or plane? What about deciding which route or flight to take?

If you can look at two choices (A and B), and fully believe that choosing A will make you the happiest, and then choose B, you could demonstrate that you have a choice in the matter.

That would demonstrate that happiness is not the only end or not the highest end, but I don't think it would have anything to do with your determinism. If you saw someone do that I think you would be as convinced of determinism as you are now. Why would that disprove determinism?

I don't know why agents who do things for reasons would necessarily be unfree. The corollary is that free agents are those who do irrational things, or things for no reason at all. I think it's a bad argument.

I can't think of anything that people choose (now). I like some personal qualities more than others, so I like folks with those qualities more than I like other folks who lack them, and I'll commend people for having them because it encourages those qualities.

You'll commend people for having qualities in order to encourage those qualities? So you can make free choices? You decide to commend people in order to achieve one end rather than another? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you do commend some qualities because you falsely believe that this will change reality, counterfactually, in order for it to align more closely with your own desires?

Encouraging humans to do one thing rather than another so that you might profit involves freedom on their part and yours. Even your rational justification itself is curious on determinism, "...because it encourages those qualities." Why rationally justify any action if we will simply act the way we will act and we have no control over it? Clearly you think rationality is just a tic or mirage. Why use it at all?

Agree to disagree.

Sure, happiness is a state, pleasure is a sensation. I was equivocating "pleasure" with your nondescript "good feeling", not with happiness.

Sort of... The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] finds pleasure in pain because pain causes pleasure. So pain and pleasure aren't the same thing, no, but for them pain is pleasurable.

I don't think I am. The safe driver may not think about the satisfaction they get from driving safely all the time, but they drive safely all the time out of habit. The developed that habit because they associated that behavior with the good feeling of satisfaction.

Agree to disagree.

I was talking to some Thomistic academics about the question of hypothetical imperatives, and it seems to be a difficult question in most all circles. I was pointed towards a famous essay by Philippa Foot called, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives." I haven't read it yet, but it might interest you.

 

[Leaf473]

Sounds good to me.

okay, now I'm confused again as to what you are saying.

it sounds good to you in the sense that it sounds reasonable, and so you accept it?

No objective evidence, for me it’s a logical conclusion deriving from the best information I have at the moment.


Yes. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

if you believe the material world is all that exists, then I'm very interested in what the source of your information is,
the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was trying to give you a different angle on an old problem by showing variations in levels of freedom

I don't disagree that there are variations in levels of choice. If our choices are free, then more choices makes for more freedom. More choices doesn't mean anything is free.

You can certainly continue to maintain that all human acts are fundamentally unfree. As I said earlier, that doesn't leave us anywhere to go. It's an unfalsifiable assertion.

I gave you an example of how to prove that you can choose what you believe. My position isn't unfalsifiable, it's just correct.

What I probably said was that direct knowledge of God furnishes us with direct knowledge of the irrationality of evil, and thus we will not choose evil in light of this knowledge. That doesn't preclude free will due to the fact that there are all sorts of good options to choose from.

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

True, I should have said a lack of free will to choose evil. You talked about choosing between hot dogs and hamburgers.

Rather, in one case an event is irrevocable because it is past and in the other case it is irrevocable because it has been decided by the agent.

Then you're not making an analogy, you're just comparing looking at the past with looking at the past.

On your view how would one be free? What would they choose according to, other than their desires?

Choosing based on some other desire than the good feelings that produce happiness, that would show freedom. By definition you choose what you desire. You're going too vague to be in context.

I don't think that's the problem at all. I think the problem is your a priori determinism. If there were two choices, happiness and something else, you would continue to maintain that our choice between the two was determined by prior causes.

Happiness simply isn't a deterministic end. Sure, we all want to end up at happiness, and there are a hundred billion different ways to get there. Claiming that there is no freedom of choice because happiness is the end strikes me as invalid. It's as invalid as saying that once you decide you want to get to California you have no free will. What about deciding when to travel? What about deciding whether to travel by train, bus, car, or plane? What about deciding which route or flight to take?

Yes, we agree that there are endless possibilities. More possibilities doesn't show evidence for free choices.

That would demonstrate that happiness is not the only end or not the highest end, but I don't think it would have anything to do with your determinism. If you saw someone do that I think you would be as convinced of determinism as you are now. Why would that disprove determinism?

I don't know why agents who do things for reasons would necessarily be unfree. The corollary is that free agents are those who do irrational things, or things for no reason at all. I think it's a bad argument.

Again, you're going too vague to be in context. Do things for reasons, fine. Can you do something for any other reason than the pursuit of your own happiness? If you don't like the free will angle because it's unfalsifiable, how about the problems with altruism and accountability?

You won't donate money to charity unless you get a good feeling from doing so. You aren't exhibiting an act of selflessness, you're selfishly pursuing your own happiness. That others benefit from it is a byproduct of your desire for pleasure. Altruism crushed!

You won't donate to charity unless you have been convinced that doing so will make you happy. If you never look into it or if you simply haven't found a convincing argument, then neglecting to donate to charity isn't being selfish, it's merely ignorant. If being happy is good, and everyone is merely acting in a manner that makes them happy to the best of their knowledge, then they can't do evil, they can only be ignorant. Accountability crushed!

You'll commend people for having qualities in order to encourage those qualities?

Yep.

So you can make free choices?

When did I say that?

You decide to commend people in order to achieve one end rather than another?

Yep.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you do commend some qualities...

I did say that... Why the italics on that "do"?

...because you falsely believe that this will change reality, counterfactually, in order for it to align more closely with your own desires?

Huh? Why doesn't reality change in the way that I described? You're saying that people don't exhibit those qualities that they are commended for more than those qualities that they are not commended for???

Encouraging humans to do one thing rather than another so that you might profit involves freedom on their part and yours.

No it doesn't. Only with your a priori assumption that choices are free.

Even your rational justification itself is curious on determinism, "...because it encourages those qualities."

Quite the opposite. I am the cause of other people's actions.

Why rationally justify any action if we will simply act the way we will act and we have no control over it? Clearly you think rationality is just a tic or mirage. Why use it at all?

Because I don't have a choice!

Agree to disagree.

Really? You disagree with all of that? You disagree that I was equivocating "pleasure" with "a good feeling"? And you disagree that pain causes masochists to feel pleasure?

 

[Ken-1122]

okay, now I'm confused again as to what you are saying.

it sounds good to you in the sense that it sounds reasonable, and so you accept it?

Yes.

if you believe the material world is all that exists, then I'm very interested in what the source of your information is,
the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose.

To me exists means a material/physical existence. Some say our thoughts exist, or some things exist only in our imagination. However I don’t think that was the type of existence you were referring to. To me to exist means that which is a part of the material/physical world. However if you are thinking of another type of existence; please explain.

 

[Speedwell]

if you believe the material world is all that exists, then I'm very interested in what the source of your information is,
the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose.

Material existence is the only kind fof existence we have any experience of. Applying that term to an essentially unknowable realm is bootless.

 

[Leaf473]

The term "exists" as we conceive of it, may only apply to the material world in any case.

hi Speedwell,

I see what you're saying.

so... if you met the Buddha on the road, would you kill him?

 

[Speedwell]

hi Speedwell,

I see what you're saying.

so... if you met the Buddha on the road, would you kill him?

Maybe not, but Plato certainly has it coming.

 

[Leaf473]

Yes.

you believe, then, that a body that no longer works can still produce consciousness?

if the brain produces consciousness, please explain how a non-working brain produces consciousness.

To me to exist means that which is a part of the material/physical world.

given that there is only the material/physical world, then please describe the source of your information,
the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose.

 

[TLK Valentine]

if the brain produces consciousness, please explain how a non-working brain produces consciousness.

United States Senate - Wikipedia

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

 

[Leaf473]

Material existence is the only kind fof existence we have any experience of. Applying that term to an essentially unknowable realm is bootless.

which is the unknowable realm you refer to?
information, conclusion, or the ability to choose? Something else?

 

[Leaf473]

United States Senate - Wikipedia

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

Maybe there are enough educated, liberal members that the entity as a whole occasionally appears to be conscious?

 

[Speedwell]

which is the unknowable realm you refer to?
information, conclusion, or the ability to choose? Something else?

I believe it is generally referred to as "the supernatural."

 

[Ken-1122]

you believe, then, that a body that no longer works can still produce consciousness?

if the brain produces consciousness, please explain how a non-working brain produces consciousness.

Because your brain is a part of your body, a non-working body would have to include the brain not working as well; otherwise you have a partially non-working body. In post #678 when you spoke of "the body" I thought you meant everything except for the brain (heart, lungs, limbs, etc)

given that there is only the material/physical world, then please describe the source of your information,
the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose.

For me it’s a logical deduction. I control my thoughts, and my thoughts allow my ability to choose.

 

[Leaf473]

I believe it is generally referred to as "the supernatural."

are you saying that the supernatural would be unknowable, but the things that are material are knowable?

if so, how does that change a person's answer to the question I posed to Ken?

if you believe the material world is all that exists, then I'm very interested in what the source of your information is,
the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose.

in other words, for someone who has already asserted that we have the ability to choose and that it is produced by the brain, how would the supernatural being unknowable change the answer given to these two questions:

1: what the source of the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose?

2: since anything supernatural would be unknowable, what the source of the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose?

 

[Speedwell]

1: what the source of the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose?

Observations of my own and other humans' behavior and as deliberated by scientists, philosophers, etc.

2: since anything supernatural would be unknowable, what the source of the information that leads you to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose?

I have no reason to suppose that our ability to choose necessarily derives from the supernatural. I do not even conclude that we have the ability to choose. We appear to have the ability to choose and it's a useful working assumption, but by no means an absolute certainty.

 

[Leaf473]

Because your brain is a part of your body, a non-working body would have to include the brain not working as well; otherwise you have a partially non-working body. In post #678 when you spoke of "the body" I thought you meant everything except for the brain (heart, lungs, limbs, etc)

cool!
without beating the subject into the ground, I think it's fair to say that you believe that no part of our consciousness continues after the brain stops working (a complete long-term cessation of brain activity), yes?

For me it’s a logical deduction. I control my thoughts, and my thoughts allow my ability to choose.

what is the source of your information that you control your thoughts?

 

[Leaf473]

Observations of my own and other humans' behavior and as deliberated by scientists, philosophers, etc.

I have no reason to suppose that our ability to choose necessarily derives from the supernatural. I do not even conclude that we have the ability to choose. We appear to have the ability to choose and it's a useful working assumption, but by no means an absolute certainty.

thank you for your answer.

however, I believe my specific question to you was:
"how would the supernatural being unknowable change the answer given to these two questions:"

I believe your answer is that, basically, it doesn't change the answer.

but regarding your particular responses:
"Observations of my own and other humans' behavior and as deliberated by scientists, philosophers, etc."

a note here is perhaps in order.
Ken and I have been discussing the idea of "the ability to choose".
we agreed that this ability is neither deterministic nor random, nor is it a combination of those things.

in light of that, I'm not aware of an experiment in which a person can be observed exercising the ability to choose.

if you are aware of such an experiment, I'm very interested in the details!

I believe you also wrote:
"I do not even conclude that we have the ability to choose."
that's fine.
my question to Ken took it as a given that we have that ability, since he and I had already agreed on it.

for me, if I believed I didn't have the ability to choose, it would be hard for me to care about anything, since I would suspect that any sensation of caring I had was just some electrons rattling around in my brain.

do you feel differently?

 

[Speedwell]

in light of that, I'm not aware of an experiment in which a person can be observed exercising the ability to choose.

if you are aware of such an experiment, I'm very interested in the details!

I'm not talking about an "experiment," but do we not observe people apparently making choices? Do we not have the subjective experience of making choices?

 

[Ken-1122]

cool!
without beating the subject into the ground, I think it's fair to say that you believe that no part of our consciousness continues after the brain stops working (a complete long-term cessation of brain activity), yes?

Agree.

what is the source of your information that you control your thoughts?

I am 100% convinced that I know and control what goes on inside of my head because I cannot see any reason to assume otherwise.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't disagree that there are variations in levels of choice. If our choices are free, then more choices makes for more freedom. More choices doesn't mean anything is free.

No, not "levels of choice," "levels of freedom." Both pianists have the same level of choice, the same set of keys.

I gave you an example of how to prove that you can choose what you believe. My position isn't unfalsifiable, it's just correct.

Where did you do that?

True, I should have said a lack of free will to choose evil. You talked about choosing between hot dogs and hamburgers.

And that is quite consistent with what I said earlier about desiring to be unfree to choose that which is irrational. That's basically what a desire for intelligence or wisdom is.

Then you're not making an analogy, you're just comparing looking at the past with looking at the past.

Granting your point for the sake of argument: who cares? My point still holds.

Choosing based on some other desire than the good feelings that produce happiness, that would show freedom.

Why? Why would that demonstrate freedom?

Yes, we agree that there are endless possibilities. More possibilities doesn't show evidence for free choices.

And yet your whole argument is that a lack of possibilities entails determinism (i.e. having only one end, desiring only happiness). If a lack of possibilities entails determinism, then the presence of possibilities represents a prima facie context for freedom. Honestly, I think you're mistaken when you say you agree that there are endless possibilities. You don't think that. You think everything happens as it will without any possibility of divergence. You think there are no possibilities!

Again, you're going too vague to be in context.

How so? And do you have any response to the question about why an alternative to happiness would disprove determinism?

Do things for reasons, fine. Can you do something for any other reason than the pursuit of your own happiness?

Your argument is actually invalid. We are determined to pursue happiness, but we are not determined in the way we pursue it. Having an ultimate end doesn't entail determinism in the means. Just because we cannot do something for a different reason than the pursuit of happiness or the good does not mean that we are determined. If you think it does then present your argument.

You won't donate money to charity unless you get a good feeling from doing so. You aren't exhibiting an act of selflessness, you're selfishly pursuing your own happiness. That others benefit from it is a byproduct of your desire for pleasure. Altruism crushed!

Why would I need to defend altruism to defend freedom?

(Your error has to do with the modern denial of common goods--communal happiness, but we're not going off on another tangent. )

You won't donate to charity unless you have been convinced that doing so will make you happy. If you never look into it or if you simply haven't found a convincing argument, then neglecting to donate to charity isn't being selfish, it's merely ignorant. If being happy is good, and everyone is merely acting in a manner that makes them happy to the best of their knowledge, then they can't do evil, they can only be ignorant. Accountability crushed!

This is a more interesting argument that I have been speaking to some others about, but again, I don't want to stray. (You're arguing against a categorical imperative, not accountability per se. Most would say that accountability can exist on hypothetical imperatives as well. See Foot's article.)

Yep.

When did I say that?

Yep.

I did say that... Why the italics on that "do"?

Huh? Why doesn't reality change in the way that I described? You're saying that people don't exhibit those qualities that they are commended for more than those qualities that they are not commended for???

No it doesn't. Only with your a priori assumption that choices are free.

Quite the opposite. I am the cause of other people's actions.

If you are the cause of other people's actions then you accord freedom to yourself, unless you just mean that you are the cause in the same way that the cue ball is the cause of the motion in the ball it strikes--one deterministic cause in a long line.

Because I don't have a choice!

Nah. When you justify your choices or actions with reasoning you are implicating yourself in all sorts of freedom. You are admitting that you did something and that you could have done something else, and you are trying to convince another person that you were right to do the thing you did rather than the thing(s) you did not do. You are simultaneously admitting that the person to whom you present the argument is free and capable of agreeing with your argument or disagreeing with your argument, and their response will present yet another opportunity for you to exercise your freedom by trying to justify your argument and your action, abandon your argument and justify your action in a different way, abandon justification altogether, repent of your action, or any number of different possibilities. Someone who doesn't believe in freedom doesn't try to justify their actions or decisions with reasoning.

Really? You disagree with all of that? You disagree that I was equivocating "pleasure" with "a good feeling"? And you disagree that pain causes masochists to feel pleasure?

Sure, I agree with the minor points, but I disagree that happiness and pleasure are just the same thing. ..or that happiness and "a good feeling" are just the same thing, etc.


If you've finished replying without presenting your argument for why the pursuit of happiness or the process of reasoning lead to determinism, then go ahead and do that.