Do we have free will?

[MacFall]

Exactly! But that love is art for the sake of art. It is trouble and trouble without reward, it is blood and guts on the sand.

False. If you find no reward in expanding your values to include other people, then you have a problem. I believe it is called "sociopathy". Most people have no such trouble.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're missing the point of his post. Agape is by definition the choice to lay aside what you want for yourself in favor of your relationships with other people. It has almost nothing in common with eros, which is romantic love, and is only partially related to philos, or friendship. You seem to define "love" as romantic. But do you not love your platonic friends and your family? Do you not choose to do so at many times when your personal desires would lead you to do otherwise?

No. Philia and storge are automatic, unconcious, unchosen forms of love: I never sat down and made the concious choice to philia love my friends, nor storge love my parents. Neither do I make the choice to be aroused by whom I am aroused, eros love those whom I am intimate with, nor agape love he whom I am deeply in love with. No form of love was chosen by me. At best, I chose to continue what I was doing in the knowledge that I would fall in love with this or that person.

Robert Heinlein wrote that "love is that condition in which the happiness of another is prerequisite to your own". I think that's the best description of love a mainstream author has ever made. I choose every day to include others' happiness and well being in my system of values, though I could choose to do otherwise. Therefore, I choose to love others.

Love, to me, is an emotion. A powerful one to be sure, but an emotion nonetheless. I may choose to put the well-being of a loved one before my own, but that I love them isn't my choice.

 

[Gracchus]

False. If you find no reward in expanding your values to include other people, then you have a problem. I believe it is called "sociopathy". Most people have no such trouble.

Ah well! Most people are insane, believing in all sorts of contradictory nonsense. If you can believe it, some are actually "Christians", and some of those are "Republicans"!

If I were still a drinking man I would hoist a glass to the "sociopath", who at least sees clearly, and may nevertheless act kindly.

 

[MacFall]

Love, to me, is an emotion. A powerful one to be sure, but an emotion nonetheless. I may choose to put the well-being of a loved one before my own, but that I love them isn't my choice.

Then you are deciding, unilaterally, to redefine the word "love", which has always meant more than emotional feelings. English is a horribly ambiguous language, but that doesn't mean anyone can disregard the meanings of words when they aren't convenient. That would defeat the purpose of verbal communication.

 

[MacFall]

Ah well! Most people are insane, believing in all sorts of contradictory nonsense.

Being made happy by others' happiness is insane? That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. But please, don't just leave us with an assertion. Try to prove that it is insane to care for other people.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then you are deciding, unilaterally, to redefine the word "love", which has always meant more than emotional feelings. English is a horribly ambiguous language, but that doesn't mean anyone can disregard the meanings of words when they aren't convenient. That would defeat the purpose of verbal communication.

Not really. While that would drag the debate into the dirty arena of semantics, it's a perfectly valid thing to do, especially if that's actually my definition of 'love'. Indeed, as it stands, that is my definition of love, as I have experienced it, and as I have watched others experience it. To be honest, I find it a tad presumptuous.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Being made happy by others' happiness is insane? That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. But please, don't just leave us with an assertion. Try to prove that it is insane to care for other people.

Please, don't leave us with an assertion. Try to prove that his person, subjective opinion is the stupidest thing you've ever heard.

 

[MacFall]

If I my goal is to be happy, and acts of charity increase my happiness, then it is perfectly sane for me to be charitable. It would be insane for me to refrain from charity in such a case, because it would be acting in a manner that I know will have results opposite to my goals. It is indeed rather stupid for someone to call me insane for failing to act in an insane fashion.

 

[Chesterton]

Someone said "dirty atheist" earlier: It's a vile thought that we and the cosmos are just machines. Atheists must agree that it's vile, because they almost inevitably include a little qualifying chapter in their books about how we can still appreciate humans and nature, and we can all still be lovey-dovey, and blah, blah, even though it's all a mechanical accident.

When Douglas Adams asked "can't you just appreciate the beauty of the garden without the fairies", the only realistic, non-delusional answer is "No, I can't". Without the supernatural, there's none there. The truly delusional are those who tell themselves that love and beauty are not real, and still want to pretend, and continue to act as if they were. That's why Nietzsche was the best atheist, he wasn't deluded about this stuff. He was honest and vile.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Someone said "dirty atheist" earlier:

Oo that was me!

It's a vile thought that we and the cosmos are just machines. Atheists must agree that it's vile, because they almost inevitably include a little qualifying chapter in their books about how we can still appreciate humans and nature, and we can all still be lovey-dovey, and blah, blah, even though it's all a mechanical accident.

For what it's worth, I don't. There's a reason why we feel all smushy towards other humans, but there's no real reason to act in any particular way.

When Douglas Adams asked "can't you just appreciate the beauty of the garden without the fairies", the only realistic, non-delusional answer is "No, I can't". Without the supernatural, there's none there. The truly delusional are those who tell themselves that love and beauty are not real, and still want to pretend, and continue to act as if they were. That's why Nietzsche was the best atheist, he wasn't deluded about this stuff. He was honest and vile.

Nietzsche's philosophy aside, there's a difference between believing love and beauty are not real, and believing that we don't feel love and beauty. An atheist may rationalise away his emotions, but he still experiences them. I may attribute my sense of artistic taste to an over-active brain, but I still have a sense of the artistic. You invoke the supernatural as an explanation for our senses, while we invoke the natural. No one disagrees that we experience love and beauty, but we disagree on their nature. Indeed, we've disagreed in the past on what it means to say "love is real".

Point is, we can appreciate the beauty of the garden because we still have that emotion. What we don't do is conjure up some imaginary supernatural as an explanation for that garden, or for that sense of beauty. We may invoke a natural explanation, but that doesn't change the fact that we experience that emotion, and that we, in our squishy, irrational way, enjoy it.

 

[quatona]

Someone said "dirty atheist" earlier: It's a vile thought that we and the cosmos are just machines.

Yes, possibly, but since determination doesn´t equal being a machine this point is more or less irrelevant for the discussion.

Atheists must agree that it's vile, because they almost inevitably include a little qualifying chapter in their books about how we can still appreciate humans and nature, and we can all still be lovey-dovey, and blah, blah, even though it's all a mechanical accident.

I really fail to see why I can´t appreciate humans, nature, love and blah blah because I am determined to appreciate humans and nature , love and blah blah. Actually, when I am determined to do so I cannot not appreciate it.

The truly delusional are those who tell themselves that love and beauty are not real, and still want to pretend, and continue to act as if they were.

Since they are aware that love and beauty are not real I don´t understand why you´d call them delusional.
When I go to the movies I know it´s not real, but I appreciate it and want to pretend it´s real.
There´s nothing delusional about appreciating something just because it´s a product of my mind. In fact, I think it´s a great reason to appreciate it.

 

[underpressure]

I think the best thought exercise in regards to free will is 'if you could go back in time (strictly as an observer), would history pan out the same?'. Personally, I don't see why things would pan out any differently (all things the same), so I'd struggle to see where the free will is.

Unless you define free will as just the ability to weigh up options, make decisions, carry out actions etc, then yes, of course free will exists.

 

[Chesterton]

For what it's worth, I don't. There's a reason why we feel all smushy towards other humans, but there's no real reason to act in any particular way.

Then why do you act a particular way? Why are you civil? Do you choose to be civil, or are you programmed by the motions of particles to be civil? If we're all programmed to act as we do in any given situation, then how could we as a species possibly come to approve and praise some types of actions, and disapprove of others? It doesn't do to give an answer about evolution and utility/survival. We could have safety and order without having developed the moral feeling within us. If we lived in a deterministic world, we'd still have to separate thieves and murderers from the rest of society for safety, but there's no reason we'd feel a need or desire to punish them. (And we all have those feelings.) How could we possibly have come to morally judge the natural motions of particles in men's brains? Might as well morally assess the orbit of a planet.

To feel without reason is the madness and tragedy of existence. To have to do anything for no reason is maddening, in fact, the absence of reason is a definition of madness. That was Sisyphus' punishment, to be made to act for no reason, leading to nothing. I once read a story in a science magazine about incidences of insanity in Holocaust survivors. In some Nazi camps, in order to keep the prisoners occupied and tired, prisoners were given the make-work of moving a great pile of rocks or something from one end of the camp to the other. When they'd finished, they had to move the pile back to the other side. Then back again, and on and on, for no reason. An inordinate number of men who had to do this became insane. Others chose to die rather than keep obeying.

The above is analogous to the situation of an atheist; existing and being made to act with no purpose, while feeling and desiring purpose. In contrast Christianity harmonizes feeling and reason holistically and logically. Atheists generally like to call themselves rational, but what could possibly be more unreasonable than to use your reason to deny the reasonableness of your reason?

</ramble>

Nietzsche's philosophy aside, there's a difference between believing love and beauty are not real, and believing that we don't feel love and beauty. An atheist may rationalise away his emotions, but he still experiences them. I may attribute my sense of artistic taste to an over-active brain, but I still have a sense of the artistic. You invoke the supernatural as an explanation for our senses, while we invoke the natural. No one disagrees that we experience love and beauty, but we disagree on their nature. Indeed, we've disagreed in the past on what it means to say "love is real".

Point is, we can appreciate the beauty of the garden because we still have that emotion. What we don't do is conjure up some imaginary supernatural as an explanation for that garden, or for that sense of beauty. We may invoke a natural explanation, but that doesn't change the fact that we experience that emotion, and that we, in our squishy, irrational way, enjoy it.

All I can think of is "resignation". Just giving up, admitting you live under delusion, and just saying you enjoy the delusion because that's all there is. I wonder if any sane human could ever truly, fully believe hold that view. To think that everything you feel and think you are is not real - it's madness.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, possibly, but since determination doesn´t equal being a machine this point is more or less irrelevant for the discussion.

How can determination not equal being a machine?

I really fail to see why I can´t appreciate humans, nature, love and blah blah because I am determined to appreciate humans and nature , love and blah blah. Actually, when I am determined to do so I cannot not appreciate it.

Since they are aware that love and beauty are not real I don´t understand why you´d call them delusional.
When I go to the movies I know it´s not real, but I appreciate it and want to pretend it´s real.
There´s nothing delusional about appreciating something just because it´s a product of my mind. In fact, I think it´s a great reason to appreciate it.

I think it is delusional to appreciate something when it's just a product of your mind. Because, what's the difference between a person who thinks a flower is pretty, and a person who thinks he's Napoleon? Determinism makes everyone insane.

 

[quatona]

How can determination not equal being a machine?

In that "machine" and "determined" are two different words with two different meanings.

I think it is delusional to appreciate something when it's just a product of your mind.

As long as you know it´s a product of your mind there´s nothing delusional about it. I appreciate my thoughts, my feelings, my dreams, ny visualisations, my inner voice, my imaginations, my fantasies. All products of my mind. Don´t you appreciate yours?

Because, what's the difference between a person who thinks a flower is pretty, and a person who thinks he's Napoleon?

"Because" followed by a question doesn´t look like a proper argument to me.
Besides, I don´t understand the relevance of this question.
If this was meant to be an important part of your line of reasoning, would you be so kind to reword it for me?

Determinism makes everyone insane.

Yes, in a way it declares everyone delusional who´s not aware that they are determined. They are determined to be delusional about being determined. Then again, in my use of words "delusional (as in philosophically in error)" doesn´t mean you´re "insane" - it just means that you are mistaken.

 

[Washington]

How can determination not equal being a machine?

Taking machine as a metaphor, it can't.

I think it is delusional to appreciate something when it's just a product of your mind. Because, what's the difference between a person who thinks a flower is pretty, and a person who thinks he's Napoleon?

And in essence this is what our consciousness has wrought, the illusion--delusion if you will--that we have free will.

Determinism makes everyone insane.

And this isn't so far from the underlying reason many people can't abide the idea and therefore cling to the notion of free will. It's simply too unnerving to acknowledge we have no true control over what we do, and that we are no better than automatons. Of course this reticence is itself determined. People can't help but feel this way.

 

[quatona]

Then why do you act a particular way?

Because you are determined to. That´s what determination means.

Why are you civil?

Because you are determined to when you are civil and you are determined to when you are not. That´s what determination means.

Do you choose to be civil, or are you programmed by the motions of particles to be civil?

Neither. You don´t choose to, but determination does not identify the "motions of particles" to be the determining force. Actually I think apart from monotheistic determinism there´s not determinism that claims there to be a singular programming force.

If we're all programmed to act as we do in any given situation, then how could we as a species possibly come to approve and praise some types of actions, and disapprove of others?

In that we are determined to.

It doesn't do to give an answer about evolution and utility/survival.

Correct. It doesn´t even require to name a singular determining factor.

We could have safety and order without having developed the moral feeling within us. If we lived in a deterministic world, we'd still have to separate thieves and murderers from the rest of society for safety, but there's no reason we'd feel a need or desire to punish them.

I think you´d have to distinguish more clearly between a determined world and a deterministic world. In a determined world people who feel this desire are determined to feel it.
Whilst a determinist simply acknowledges this fact (which is something completely different than his feelings).
Anyway, I´ll give you that: For me personally being convinced of determinism indeed renders any statement of guilt and blame obsolete.

(And we all have those feelings.)

I suggest you speak for yourself.

How could we possibly have come to morally judge the natural motions of particles in men's brains?

In that we were determined to but were delusional about being determined.

To feel without reason is the madness and tragedy of existence.

Determinism doesn´t deny there are reasons for our feelings. In fact, it´s all about there being reasons determining everything.

To have to do anything for no reason is maddening, in fact, the absence of reason is a definition of madness.

If that were the case, and if determinism would indeed state what you claim it states (which it doesn´t), this would still be a fallacious argument from consequence.

The above is analogous to the situation of an atheist; existing and being made to act with no purpose, while feeling and desiring purpose.

No, if it were an accurate analogy and no god existed it would be everyone´s situation. Whilst if a god existed it wouldn´t be the situation of atheists.

In contrast Christianity harmonizes feeling and reason holistically and logically.

ahem.

Atheists generally like to call themselves rational, but what could possibly be more unreasonable than to use your reason to deny the reasonableness of your reason?

You are drifting away. We aren´t discussing atheism - we are discussing determinism.

All I can think of is "resignation". Just giving up, admitting you live under delusion, and just saying you enjoy the delusion because that's all there is.

From a deterministic pov "freewill" is the delusion. It´s never a good idea to impose your own worldview onto another when analysing it.

I wonder if any sane human could ever truly, fully believe hold that view. To think that everything you feel and think you are is not real - it's madness.

Only if the things you feel and think you are were real. If they are unreal acknowledging it is actually the opposite of delusion: it´s spot on.
But since determinism doesn´t make a statement about what is real or unreal (except for the one idea "freewill" which it states is unreal) you are pretty much off topic with this part, as well.

If there´s freewill determinists are delusional (I would prefer the less loaded term "mistaken", though).
If we are determined, those who believe in "freewill" are delusional (I would prefer the less loaded term "mistaken", though).

 

[Chesterton]

In that "machine" and "determined" are two different words with two different meanings.

One attribute of a machine is that it performs action solely determined by input. If you say that's what a human does, you're saying a human is literally a machine. (Or a meat puppet, or whatever metaphor you like which removes our agency of will.)

As long as you know it´s a product of your mind there´s nothing delusional about it. I appreciate my thoughts, my feelings, my dreams, ny visualisations, my inner voice, my imaginations, my fantasies. All products of my mind. Don´t you appreciate yours?

Realistically, yes I can't help but appreciate them. But intellectually, rationally, I don't see any reason to appreciate them if they're not somehow real. Appreciating any experience of reality which isn't real is like masturbating and pretending in your mind you're with a real lover.

"Because" followed by a question doesn´t look like a proper argument to me.

What, you don't believe in free will, but you're okay with blaming me for poor grammar as if "I" had something to do with it?

YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU DON'T KNOW MY OPERATIONAL ANTECEDENTS!

Besides, I don´t understand the relevance of this question.
If this was meant to be an important part of your line of reasoning, would you be so kind to reword it for me?

(In case the reference is out of date - a person who thinks he's Napoleon is an old fashioned stereotype of a mentally insane person.)

The atoms in one person's brain move so that he thinks he's Napoleon. The atoms in another person's brain move so that he thinks a rose is pretty. But the man is not really Napoleon, it just appears that way to him. So neither is the rose really pretty, it also just appears that way. Everything's an illusion; everyone is deluded. There is no "right" way for atoms to move.

Yes, in a way it declares everyone delusional who´s not aware that they are determined. They are determined to be delusional about being determined. Then again, in my use of words "delusional (as in philosophically in error)" doesn´t mean you´re "insane" - it just means that you are mistaken.

See above.

 

[Chesterton]

And in essence this is what our consciousness has wrought, the illusion--delusion if you will--that we have free will.

But you can't pick and choose. The reasoning which concludes that free will is illusion has to include that everything is illusion, including the reason, science and logic which leads to the conclusion. You saw off the limb you're sitting on.

And this isn't so far from the underlying reason many people can't abide the idea and therefore cling to the notion of free will. It's simply too unnerving to acknowledge we have no true control over what we do, and that we are no better than automatons. Of course this reticence is itself determined. People can't help but feel this way.

You're right in so far as I don't want to think I'm insane. But I think I have that in common with all humans.

 

[Chesterton]

Because you are determined to. That´s what determination means. (snip)

Long post, but basically in every line, as above, you're merely asserting that determinism is true. That doesn't really present anything to be discussed, except for everything that's been said so far by everyone in the thread.