Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Because it's just solving an equation, that equation always solves right so how could it be wrong.

The equation solves for what is right. But what is right for you. So if the input determines that the output is 'steal the wallet' then that's the right output for the person making the choice. By definition. It's what he prefers to do. But we both would say that it's the wrong thing to do from a moral perspective.

 

[DamianWarS]

The equation solves for what is right. But what is right for you. So if the input determines that the output is 'steal the wallet' then that's the right output for the person making the choice. By definition. It's what he prefers to do. But we both would say that it's the wrong thing to do from a moral perspective.

What's the standard that we judge these things by? The person stealing the wallet seems to have gotten a good result, at least from the perspective from them and those under their care. How are we to determine person x talking the wallet is worse than person y keeping the wallet?

Either way, all is perdetermined so the equations balanced itself so that both parties have the correct result. Without any interpretation of the outcome the act cannot be spoken as morally anything, it just is.

So where is this moral standard coming from if not from determinism itself? Or does determinism also produce this moral standard because how I feel/think/reason is just various caused reactions happening in my brain that allow me to accept something as desired or undesired. Such a system seems set up to against determinist results.

 

[ladodgers6]

I learned to forgive people a while back, after that morality just sort of disappeared. People ain't perfect, and life is just life. If you don't like parts of it... then I'm sorry, I can't help you. But that's fine... you do you, and I'll stick with this little insignificant bit that I call me. Maybe we'll meet in some afterlife somewhere and maybe we won't, but that's life. Learn to love it while you got it. Oh, and learn to forgive.

But why do you guys avoid the big question or dismiss as if it is meaningless? The question is where do these abilities come from in the first? If the faculties are not built in, how does one even express them?

 

[ladodgers6]

I don't personally believe in sin. And evil has religious overtones. Why don't we just say right and wrong, good and bad?

This is somewhat off topic, but...back in the far distant past, if you were a family group struggling to survive and you teamed up with another family, then things got better. More hands to look after children, hunt, gather, build accommodation. Anything that improves your life is good. Anything that doesn't is bad. A gross oversimplification, but I want to keep this short and sweet.

So if someone doesn't help in some way, or steals the groups food, that's bad. If someone brings back a lot of food and shares, then that's good. If someone hurts another person in the group, then that's bad. If someone helps someone who is hurt, that's good. There you have the basis of morality. What works is good. What doesn't is bad.

I have been thinking this over, you said evil has religious overtones. How then would you explain the holocaust, 911, mass shootings, child molestation, terrorist attacks, murders, rapists, serial killers and so forth. People who lost their way? Is Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, Charlie Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, John Gacy, Dennis Rader just misunderstood or are they evil men? Or they just need to be rehabilitated? Evil exists Bradskii if you believe it or not. And down playing it into neighbors not helping out is not evil, if one family tortured and massacred the other family for no parent reason, is that evil in your book?​

 

[Bradskii]

What's the standard that we judge these things by? The person stealing the wallet seems to have gotten a good result, at least from the perspective from them and those under their care. How are we to determine person x talking the wallet is worse than person y keeping the wallet?

There's a innate sense of fairness that we have. God given from your perspective. Naturally evolved from mine. So we think it's unfair to work hard to earn a living if someone simply takes it from you. It really is that simple.

Either way, all is perdetermined so the equations balanced itself so that both parties have the correct result.

You keep pushing the position that a determined result is always correct. If by 'correct result' you mean 'the right result' then I'm not sure why. Stealing the wallet isn't the right result for the guy who has lost his money.

So where is this moral standard coming from if not from determinism itself?

If you're going to say that everything is determined but that's all you're going to say as a reason for anything happening, then it's a pretty limited way of looking at life. I explained (briefly) where I think morality came from earlier.

 

[Bradskii]

But why do you guys avoid the big question or dismiss as if it is meaningless?

This isn't a theological debate. Or rather, there are some of us who won't get involved in the theological aspects. But if you start a thread I'll definitely join in.

 

[Bradskii]

I have been thinking this over, you said evil has religious overtones. How then would you explain the holocaust, 911, mass shootings, child molestation, terrorist attacks, murders, rapists, serial killers and so forth. People who lost their way? Is Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, Charlie Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, John Gacy, Dennis Rader just misunderstood or are they evil men? Or they just need to be rehabilitated? Evil exists Bradskii if you believe it or not. And down playing it into neighbors not helping out is not evil, if one family tortured and massacred the other family for no parent reason, is that evil in your book?​

It's just not a term I'd use. The first definition that comes up is: profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Everything that you mentioned is as bad as it gets. Me not using the term 'evil' doesn't mean I think it's not.

 

[DamianWarS]

There's a innate sense of fairness that we have. God given from your perspective. Naturally evolved from mine. So we think it's unfair to work hard to earn a living if someone simply takes it from you. It really is that simple.

In a matrix there are those who work hard and those who don't work hard and both groups have those with money and those without. By your logic it would be fair to take money away from those who don't work hard and give it to the ones who do work hard so a robinhood version of justice.

You keep pushing the position that a determined result is always correct. If by 'correct result' you mean 'the right result' then I'm not sure why. Stealing the wallet isn't the right result for the guy who has lost his money.

Person X has no money. Person Y has money. Let's assume both work hard and have the same need for money. If the wallet is taken or if the wallet is not in both cases someone goes home empty handed. So either way a poor result. The most pragmatic solution would be to share the money and if we call the most pragmatic the moral best then if the wallet is taken by X or kept by Y then both should be regarded as a moral failure.

If you're going to say that everything is determined but that's all you're going to say as a reason for anything happening, then it's a pretty limited way of looking at life. I explained (briefly) where I think morality came from earlier.

I missed that explaintion, since it was brief can you restate it or link to it? The only exception to determinism would be from outside influence which you seem to think resembles thesism too much so don't want to talk about it. It is what it is, isolated determinism has no other options but that which comes out of the algorithm. This includes our own process of thinking.

If we isolate cognitive causes and physical causes in competitive layers that's an option too but we're describing dualism which you've already rejected.

 

[Bradskii]

In a matrix there are those who work hard and those who don't work hard and both groups have those with money and those without. By your logic it would be fair to take money away from those who don't work hard and give it to the ones who do work hard so a robinhood version of justice.

Or some version of communism. But I don't think that you think it's a serious argument, so...I won't take it seriously.

Person X has no money. Person Y has money. Let's assume both work hard and have the same need for money. If the wallet is taken or if the wallet is not in both cases someone goes home empty handed. So either way a poor result. The most pragmatic solution would be to share the money and if we call the most pragmatic the moral best then if the wallet is taken by X or kept by Y then both should be regarded as a moral failure.

Again, sounds like a version of communism. It's never really worked and it has no direct implication for morals or free will. I'll join in to any thread that wants to discuss it.

I missed that explaintion, since it was brief can you restate it or link to it?

Post 811. It's brief, but I don't think I really need to expand on it too much.

If we isolate cognitive causes and physical causes in competitive layers that's an option too but we're describing dualism which you've already rejected.

Yeah. No alternative has been offered.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hallelujah! Well, if one is going to discuss ethics and morality it's good to know whence it came...

So, what do I do with all of the other, multiple formulations of Ethics? Should I just assume they've all been successfully supplanted by Sapolsky's unification of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and even esthetics, among other avenues in philosophy?

The strangest thing is that with this thread's particular engagement of Sapolsky's thesis, I feel like we're all reenacting one particular scene in Alice in Wonderland where Alice debates Humpty Dumpty. Remember that one?

 

[DamianWarS]

Or some version of communism. But I don't think that you think it's a serious argument, so...I won't take it seriously.

Again, sounds like a version of communism. It's never really worked and it has no direct implication for morals or free will. I'll join in to any thread that wants to discuss it.

Post 811. It's brief, but I don't think I really need to expand on it too much.

This is somewhat off topic, but...back in the far distant past, if you were a family group struggling to survive and you teamed up with another family, then things got better. More hands to look after children, hunt, gather, build accommodation. Anything that improves your life is good. Anything that doesn't is bad. A gross oversimplification, but I want to keep this short and sweet.

So if someone doesn't help in some way, or steals the groups food, that's bad. If someone brings back a lot of food and shares, then that's good. If someone hurts another person in the group, then that's bad. If someone helps someone who is hurt, that's good. There you have the basis of morality. What works is good. What doesn't is bad.

I'm not trying to champion communism but rather isolating your moral view point which also sounds like communism I might add. Your simplified example of morality doesn't address roles in the community, reward and/or punishment or address competing communities. Also who is our community?

Yeah. No alternative has been offered.

Outside interference allows for competing outcomes and explain the tension of choices we see and feel today without rejecting determinism. It also champions issues like morality and purpose through inheritance allowing these values to exist independently but without needing to subscribe to something like dualism. It is a logical solution that allows determinism and choice to co-exisit.

 

[partinobodycular]

The question is where do these abilities come from in the first? If the faculties are not built in, how does one even express them?

I'll assume that you're referring to the concept of morality, and as I said, I've pretty much dismissed it as an illusion, projected onto anything that an individual finds personally offensive.

For example stealing, you probably find it to be morally offensive... I don't. I think that it's a perfectly understandable form of behavior. You may not like it, and it may not make for a cohesive society, but that's someone else's choice, not mine. My choice is to love my neighbor, and so I do my best to do that. If you choose to do the same... then great, and even if we're not on the same page, then hopefully we're still in the same book.

When you were younger you may have seen videos of lions attacking and killing young gazelle on the African plains... and you thought, oh how horrible is that, but as you've gotten older you've come to understand that it's just life. It's things doing what life requires them to do, and it's not always pretty... and yet, it's life... in spite of it's cruelty... it's amazing. It hurts, it uplifts, it inspires, and it demoralizes. You may wish with all your heart that it could be otherwise, but it is what it is.

If you can learn to forgive your fellow man in the same way that you've learned to forgive that lion, then you're on your way to being that Samaritan. If you can't, then you're just human... and although that's not a terrible thing to be... it's just the beginning of what you could be.

 

[partinobodycular]

Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

I would submit that SEU's... Single-event Upsets, demonstrate that determinism in it's strictest form, isn't true.

Single-event Upsets

An SEU is a random quantum event that can have devastating macro-world consequences. Sophisticated electronics are susceptible to them. The question is... is the human brain complex enough to be susceptible to them as well?

 

[Bradskii]

So, what do I do with all of the other, multiple formulations of Ethics? Should I just assume they've all been successfully supplanted by Sapolsky's unification of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and even esthetics, among other avenues in philosophy?

As far as I am aware, Sapolski's only contribution to anything specifically ethical are his thoughts on the justice system. You can entertain any version of morality you'd like. Why not start a thread on it?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not trying to champion communism but rather isolating your moral view point which also sounds like communism I might add. Your simplified example of morality doesn't address roles in the community, reward and/or punishment or address competing communities. Also who is our community?

I kept it simple because this isn't a thread on the origins of morality. There's obviously a lot more than 'Altruism helps'. It's been discussed at length previously.

Outside interference allows for competing outcomes and explain the tension of choices we see and feel today without rejecting determinism. It also champions issues like morality and purpose through inheritance allowing these values to exist independently but without needing to subscribe to something like dualism. It is a logical solution that allows determinism and choice to co-exisit.

I don't believe that there's anything 'out there' that can interfere. So I've got no input on that.

 

[Bradskii]

An SEU is a random quantum event...

'Random' would be the operative word there.

 

[DamianWarS]

I kept it simple because this isn't a thread on the origins of morality. There's obviously a lot more than 'Altruism helps'. It's been discussed at length previously.

I don't believe that there's anything 'out there' that can interfere. So I've got no input on that.

What does belief have to do with it? Regardless of what you believe either it is or it's not. I don't see another solution that allows for such a myrid of choices and a commitment of purpose without saying it's free will. You've certainly demonstrated the limits of determinism that it reasonably points to something more.

 

[Bradskii]

What does belief have to do with it? Regardless of what you believe either it is or it's not.

Well, yeah. There is either a God or there isn't. I don't believe there is so I have no input on whether He is involved in free will decision making. None at all.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well, yeah. There is either a God or there isn't. I don't believe there is so I have no input on whether He is involved in free will decision making. None at all.

Do you then accept the voids that isolated determinism leaves but are unwilling to commit to anything else?

 

[ladodgers6]

I'll assume that you're referring to the concept of morality, and as I said, I've pretty much dismissed it as an illusion, projected onto anything that an individual finds personally offensive.

Look deeper into why or for that matter one finds it personally offensive. For an individual to find something offensive they must possess this faculty to express this emotion, correct?​

For example stealing, you probably find it to be morally offensive... I don't. I think that it's a perfectly understandable form of behavior. You may not like it, and it may not make for a cohesive society, but that's someone else's choice, not mine. My choice is to love my neighbor, and so I do my best to do that. If you choose to do the same... then great, and even if we're not on the same page, then hopefully we're still in the same book.

Well, you have a problem with this premise. Society have Laws, correct, and robbing and stealing is against the Law. But even if one does not adhere to civil Law, their conscience and guilt tell them that it's bad. Which is why they conceal their actions and try to avoid detection. But no matter the bad behavior their crooked moral compass let's them know what they are doing is bad. There's no escaping it.

But again the deeper question is why we feel this in the first place? You say you love your neighbor, why? What compels you to love your neighbor, in other words where does this originate in your faculties?
​

When you were younger you may have seen videos of lions attacking and killing young gazelle on the African plains... and you thought, oh how horrible is that, but as you've gotten older you've come to understand that it's just life. It's things doing what life requires them to do, and it's not always pretty... and yet, it's life... in spite of it's cruelty... it's amazing. It hurts, it uplifts, it inspires, and it demoralizes. You may wish with all your heart that it could be otherwise, but it is what it is.

If you can learn to forgive your fellow man in the same way that you've learned to forgive that lion, then you're on your way to being that Samaritan. If you can't, then you're just human... and although that's not a terrible thing to be... it's just the beginning of what you could be.

But creation has fallen due to sin. This lion eating a gazelle wasn't like this in the Garden. They lived in harmony and death was no where to be found. And this fallen world is going to be restored as it was in the garden through One Man's Act of obedience. He paid the ultimate price with his blood to undo what has been done by another; namely Adam.

But to get back to that crucial question. Where does and evil come from? It comes by One Man's Act of Disobedience, which brought sin and death into this world. To say there's no such thing as evil is dismissing evil acts done in history. For example: is the following evil acts, The Holocaust, Mass Shootings, Raping children, Murdering Children, 911, Wars where many lives are lost, terrorist attacks and so forth. So, for me to accept that's not evil and it's one person's personal delusion is absurd for me.​