Free will and determinism

Neogaia777 said:

If we could understand even one percent of it, then it might give us a whole heck of a lot more insight, as a species, then some of the ways we are blundering blindly forward right now.

Click to expand...

1% isn't enough...1% can lead us stumbling in the wrong direction for fact that the larger percentages were other causal factors.

Neogaia777 said:

Would you expect anything less?

Click to expand...

It didn't need said...so yes lol.

Neogaia777 said:

I 100% completely agree with this statement, although I stand on the other side of it, etc.

In my opinion this should all be very, very obvious, etc.

Click to expand...

It's not obvious because you do not act as if it's obvious. What moral value can be assigned to an inescapable chain of causal events?

To truly believe this....you would have to act as if you genuinely saw no good or bad in the world at all. Those words don't make sense to someone claiming "I believe in determinism".

Determinism is a concept you can hold in your head briefly....and it immediately leaves in real life.

The mere fact of you choosing to argue for this position is in itself a claim that it is in some way superior to free will. Maybe you think we'd all be better for understanding it. If you think so....you don't believe it.

That's the paradox of determinism. To understand all behaviors all actions all choices as lacking any moral value would remove any possibility of a cause for your argument.

Neogaia777 said:

And in my opinion, the only reason people buck this truth, or try to deny this truth, is only due to their own rebellion, or rebellious heart or nature that just doesn't want to "submit" to this, or admit they are under this for various very, very selfish or self-serving reasons, etc.

Click to expand...

This again proves you don't really believe in determinism. How are you judging them? They aren't choosing not to believe lol.

Neogaia777 said:

Religious people deny this

Click to expand...

I'm an atheist. I don't deny the possibility. I just know you'll always act as if you 100% believe in free will regardless of your claims....and the discussion is then pointless.

Ana the Ist said:

1% isn't enough...1% can lead us stumbling in the wrong direction for fact that the larger percentages were other causal factors.

Click to expand...

Right now we know next to 0%, and we're still stumbling in the wrong direction for not knowing anything.about it, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

It's not obvious because you do not act as if it's obvious.

Click to expand...

It's obvious.

And I don't know just how much differently you think I'm supposed to act?

Ana the Ist said:

What moral value can be assigned to an inescapable chain of causal events?

To truly believe this....you would have to act as if you genuinely saw no good or bad in the world at all. Those words don't make sense to someone claiming "I believe in determinism".

Click to expand...

No, you can still believe there is good and bad in the world but that people just are not choosing it, or are ultimately responsible for it, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

Determinism is a concept you can hold in your head briefly....and it immediately leaves in real life.

Click to expand...

Maybe for you maybe, but I get to see it a lot, or all of the time.

Ana the Ist said:

The mere fact of you choosing to argue for this position is in itself a claim that it is in some way superior to free will.

Click to expand...

Not superior, just true.

And I'm not choosing to argue for it, but am just feeling compelled to, and I'm 100% certain there is/was/will always be a cause to or for that, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

Maybe you think we'd all be better for understanding it. If you think so....you don't believe it.

Click to expand...

That's because I don't know for sure if we'd all be better off for knowing it or not, and is not why I'm arguing it, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

That's the paradox of determinism. To understand all behaviors all actions all choices as lacking any moral value would remove any possibility of a cause for your argument.

Click to expand...

Again, things, or a thing can still be seen as good or bad, or right or wrong regardless. It's just that I believe people are not ultimately responsible for it, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

This again proves you don't really believe in determinism. How are you judging them? They aren't choosing not to believe lol.

Click to expand...

Right now, they are choosing to deny or reject this, etc, but it is also my hope that I can somehow introduce them to a new set of causal factors that will then cause them to believe in this afterwards, or after this, etc. And I think that can still be altered or changed from our perspective because none of us knows about any of our futures, or what is supposed to happen next right now etc.

Ana the Ist said:

I don't deny the possibility.

Click to expand...

I sincerely hope you are telling the truth about this.

Ana the Ist said:

I just know you'll always act as if you 100% believe in free will regardless of your claims...

Click to expand...

We really have no choice but to go about it that way right now, but I do stop to think about this that we are right now discussing and other things now, before making my decisions now, or choosing my choices now, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

and the discussion is then pointless.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you think so.

Take Care/God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

If all conditions are always exactly the same in your two door experiment, then a person will make the same exact choice 100% of the time.

Click to expand...

You assume. Yet I don't think you'll be able to explain the causal factors...you just believe they exist on faith. There's absolutely no reason to logically assume that because X happened under Y circumstances that X will happen under Y circumstances every time.

I'd say at best, you're making an educated guess.

Neogaia777 said:

You might argue that there are no existing or preexisting conditions, etc, but they immediately start from the moment you are dropped in. Could be what side you landed on when you were dropped in, or how you bumped your knee when you were dropped in, etc, but from the moment you are dropped in those deterministic processes immediately start or begin, etc, and if they were repeated exactly, you'd make the exact same choice every single time, or 100% of the time, etc.

Click to expand...

Again, you have no reason to assume that. I understand that because you have seen the sun rise every day and you understand these processes that you believe the sun will rise tomorrow....but it's still only an educated guess.

Neogaia777 said:

Look, I know it annoys you, but I have no other answer to that question other than I feel compelled to.

Click to expand...

Well that's the fundamentally absurd position of being a determinist. You're arguing against free will but still acting like it's real.

Neogaia777 said:

But you are pretty much correct that we will always proceed/act as if we choose anyways, as we basically have no choice right now in that.

Click to expand...

A point of agreement.

Neogaia777 said:

I don't see how this relates to determinism.

Click to expand...

Well those are judgements. What are you judging if that was always going to happen? If people don't make choices, and everything is simply a set of casual reactions extending far into the past before both you and your attacker were ever born then all behavior loses any possible moral values as it could not have been any other way.

If you really believed in determinism, this is the only logical conclusion you could possibly reach....and you wouldn't be making moral judgements ever.

Judging someone requires they have to have a choice....because if they could not choose, what value would possibly make sense to assign to the behavior?

Neogaia777 said:

People are made a certain way, and with an inherent morality

Click to expand...

Those are just electrical impulses in your brain....and the realization of determinism should eliminate those judgements. It doesn't though.

Let's imagine our hypothetical deterministic man....

For reasons that exist before he's born he's eventually born and every step, breath, thought, action, to the day he dies is simply a causal chain of reactions to which he has no choice in.

Can you think of any behavior that this hypothetical man could engage in that's...

1. Moral or immoral.

And...

2. If so....why? He didn't choose to do these things and they couldn't have been prevented by anyone or anything. There were always going to happen for reasons that existed prior to their happening.

The only logical conclusion the determinist can make is that "morals" are just illogical and incorrect judgements made because you see everyone acting as if they have free will. Now that you see they don't....you should no longer judge them, right?

But you do. You, and everyone else in the thread has a free will perspective...not a deterministic one.

Neogaia777 said:

Not superior, just true.

Click to expand...

You can certainly think it's true. To do so, you have to hold some faulty assumptions.

1. That all causal factors can be known, and they cannot, because we do not know what we do not know.

2. That when X happens due to Y causes it will always happen due to Y causes, or could not have happened under any other way.

Neogaia777 said:

I'm sorry you think so.

Click to expand...

It's really the only conclusion.

You're arguing for something possible, that can't possibly be proven, based on assumptions that also cannot be proven, and regardless of whomever you might be able to convince....it won't genuinely change anything about the way they actually perceive things.

Once you understand this is an entirely pointless conversation regardless of whomever may be correct....why have it?

Quantum mechanics generally does not predict what will happen or what did happen. Rather it supplies probabilities for all the things that might happen or all the things that might have happened.

If only dealing with probabilities at the quantum level, then also the brain?

Neogaia777 said:

It's a play on words due to the limitations of human language, and perspective, because really we don't even "desire" or even have our very own desires really, etc.

Click to expand...

You can speak as if you genuinely believe determinism. We have the language. You can make X happened because Y statements but you cannot logically say anything about what should be because that's entirely irrational from your view, it doesn't even make any sense if you understand that you don't control your preferences or choices....there's never going to be a reason to make "should" statements.

You also have to drop all indicators of the judgment of any actions or behaviors or as those also don't make any rational sense....perhaps you have an emotional response to something but it's not as if it has any actual meaning in relation to the cause....it was always going to happen and you can't control it.

The language isn't limiting you...you're less rational brain is. You cannot actually consider reality from the description you're giving it. Nobody can...it's not just you.

Ana the Ist said:

You assume. Yet I don't think you'll be able to explain the causal factors...you just believe they exist on faith. There's absolutely no reason to logically assume that because X happened under Y circumstances that X will happen under Y circumstances every time.

I'd say at best, you're making an educated guess.



Again, you have no reason to assume that. I understand that because you have seen the sun rise every day and you understand these processes that you believe the sun will rise tomorrow....but it's still only an educated guess.




Well that's the fundamentally absurd position of being a determinist. You're arguing against free will but still acting like it's real.




A point of agreement.




Well those are judgements. What are you judging if that was always going to happen? If people don't make choices, and everything is simply a set of casual reactions extending far into the past before both you and your attacker were ever born then all behavior loses any possible moral values as it could not have been any other way.

If you really believed in determinism, this is the only logical conclusion you could possibly reach....and you wouldn't be making moral judgements ever.

Judging someone requires they have to have a choice....because if they could not choose, what value would possibly make sense to assign to the behavior?





Those are just electrical impulses in your brain....and the realization of determinism should eliminate those judgements. It doesn't though.

Let's imagine our hypothetical deterministic man....

For reasons that exist before he's born he's eventually born and every step, breath, thought, action, to the day he dies is simply a causal chain of reactions to which he has no choice in.

Can you think of any behavior that this hypothetical man could engage in that's...

1. Moral or immoral.

And...

2. If so....why? He didn't choose to do these things and they couldn't have been prevented by anyone or anything. There were always going to happen for reasons that existed prior to their happening.

The only logical conclusion the determinist can make is that "morals" are just illogical and incorrect judgements made because you see everyone acting as if they have free will. Now that you see they don't....you should no longer judge them, right?

But you do. You, and everyone else in the thread has a free will perspective...not a deterministic one.

Click to expand...

Someday maybe you will see that determinism, is the only way that the universe can make sense.

As for morals, first off, I'm not judging anybody, but I am trying to change their current course or path, and am doing that by "any means I think might be necessary", or in any way I might think I can, etc. And I do this, or try to do this, because none of us knows the future yet, etc.

And there is still good and bad, but it's just that each person had no choice in the matter, etc, but they maybe do right now, or right at this very moment, from our point of view or perspective "right now", etc, and so, we can still try to get people to try and change it past the right now, and into the future, etc, because the future isn't yet known to us, etc.

If people don't want to do good, or be good, for the sake of good, then maybe they should just be bad then, and maybe it's just only revealing who they always truly are or were to begin with anyway, etc. They won't be getting into Heaven though, and probably won't have a very good life here either, etc, and so, because of that, I will try to change it for them past the now right now if I can, etc.

God Bless.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Quantum mechanics generally does not predict what will happen or what did happen. Rather it supplies probabilities for all the things that might happen or all the things that might have happened.

If only dealing with probabilities at the quantum level, then also the brain?

Click to expand...

We don't even need quantum mechanics....science only deals in probability. There's a degree of certainty in determinism that simply isn't logically justifiable.

The 2 door thought experiment really does cause a problem for the whole concept. Sure...it's possible that we can do this a million times to the same person who thinks it's the first time every time....and they always choose the same door.

If they choose the other door just once though, we have free will. I think the choices can lack any meaningful value and be completely arbitrary and while the cause may be the same (a desire to leave the room) the mere fact that a choice can be made and the reason doesn't invalidate it collapses the whole concept.

Neogaia777 said:

Someday maybe you will see that determinism, is the only way can make sense.

Click to expand...

Maybe you'll one day see that your mind fills in the gaps of whatever doesn't make sense, and accept that you don't need to make sense of everything.

Neogaia777 said:

As for morals, first off, I'm not judging anybody,

Click to expand...

Whoa....you definitely are. The words you used to describe the causes you assume underpin those who disagree with you were entirely negative in context.

If you genuinely believe in determinism, the correct way to describe the causes would be "they have their reasons why they don't agree and therefore cannot or do not".

You're making judgments of them as if they had some choice in the matter. You'll need to remove any negative or positive judgments from your vocabulary here on out.

That may seem like a bland way to describe everything....forever....as simply caused by reasons unknown....but they are unknown. You don't know them. You don't read minds. And what's more...they have no choice in the matter. They aren't responsible or guilty or capable of being blamed.

Neogaia777 said:

but I am trying to change their current course or path

Click to expand...

No no nooooooo....you aren't trying anything. You're simply here due to causes unknown to you, spewing forth a pointless argument for reasons you cannot hope to ever possibly comprehend.

The word trying implies a chosen effort. You're doing but never trying.

Neogaia777 said:

And there is still good and bad,

Click to expand...

How?

Neogaia777 said:

but it's just that each person had no choice in the matter,

Click to expand...

They need that for a judgment of good or bad to even make sense. Tell me how you would judge anyone compelled to do something by causes beyond their comprehension let alone ability to alter?

No...determinism demands a view absent of any moral judgements.

Neogaia777 said:

etc, but they maybe do right now, or right at this very moment, from our point of view or perspective "right now", etc, and so, we can still try to get people to try and change it past the right now, and into the future, etc, because the future isn't yet known to us, etc.

Click to expand...

What would you be judging? Whatever good or bad you may perceive you must immediately abandon once you recall that you believe they never had any choice in the matter.

Neogaia777 said:

If people don't want to do good, or be good, for the sake of good, then maybe they should just be bad then, and maybe it's just only revealing who they always truly are or were to begin with anyway, etc. They won't be getting into Heaven though, and probably won't have a very good life here either, etc, and so, because of that, I will try to change it for them past the now right now if I can, etc.

God Bless.

Click to expand...

Are you a Calvinist or something? Do you believe in a chosen few that will go to heaven regardless of anything? I can't say for certain all Christian denominations must be set aside to believe determinism but I think most would.

Ana the Ist said:

Maybe you'll one day see that your mind fills in the gaps of whatever doesn't make sense, and accept that you don't need to make sense of everything.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I got distracted by a friend when I was finishing up writing it, it is corrected/fixed now.

Ana the Ist said:

Whoa....you definitely are. The words you used to describe the causes you assume underpin those who disagree with you were entirely negative in context.

Click to expand...

So I tell the truth of what are people's reasons for denying determinism "mostly", and all of the sudden I'm judging?

Did I tell the truth or did I not tell the truth about that, etc?

Ana the Ist said:

If you genuinely believe in determinism, the correct way to describe the causes would be "they have their reasons why they don't agree and therefore cannot or do not".

Click to expand...

Causes are things, and while they can coincide or intertwine sometimes, they cannot ever "agree", etc.

Ana the Ist said:

You're making judgments of them as if they had some choice in the matter. You'll need to remove any negative or positive judgments from your vocabulary here on out.

Click to expand...

I told the truth, and I did not say "all" but "most" meaning over 50% of the people, or the majority. Suck it up. I told the 100% truth about it, and I'm not taking it back or apologizing for it, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

That may seem like a bland way to describe everything....forever....as simply caused by reasons unknown....but they are unknown. You don't know them. You don't read minds. And what's more...they have no choice in the matter. They aren't responsible or guilty or capable of being blamed.

Click to expand...

And your point is?

Ana the Ist said:

No no nooooooo....you aren't trying anything. You're simply here due to causes unknown to you, spewing forth a pointless argument for reasons you cannot hope to ever possibly comprehend.

Click to expand...

I have learned a lot about myself and why I am the way I am, or do the things that I do over the years, but am nowhere close to all of it yet, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

The word trying implies a chosen effort. You're doing but never trying.

Click to expand...

From my perspective or point of view, I'm trying.

Ana the Ist said:

How?

Click to expand...

There are things that are good or beneficial, or helpful or positive, and then there are things that are not, but are the opposite of that, and are just plain bad/not beneficial, or that are just plain evil, etc.

Determinism doesn't change this, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

They need that for a judgment of good or bad to even make sense. Tell me how you would judge anyone compelled to do something by causes beyond their comprehension let alone ability to alter?

Click to expand...

You remove or punish people in order to keep the rest of the people safe, regardless of whether they can be held accountable technically for them or not. And this matter about "justice" in the light of this has already been fully and exhaustively expounded upon way, way back already in this thread. I'm not about to repeat it all again, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

No...determinism demands a view absent of any moral judgements.

Click to expand...

No it does not, but seeking retribution or revenge or vengeance is not why we should be punishing other people for bad, and this has already been exhaustively discussed already, way, way back in this thread already. I'm not about to repeat it all again, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

What would you be judging? Whatever good or bad you may perceive you must immediately abandon once you recall that you believe they never had any choice in the matter.

Click to expand...

No, we still must punish people for bad or wrongdoing here, for the good of our societies, etc, but I'm not going to repeat all of this all over again. Go back through the thread.

Ana the Ist said:

Are you a Calvinist or something? Do you believe in a chosen few that will go to heaven regardless of anything?

Click to expand...

No, not a Calvinist. And I cannot know beyond what Jesus or God the Holy Spirit didn't used to know as to whether those who are going to be saved will be many or few or not, etc.

Ana the Ist said:

I can't say for certain all Christian denominations must be set aside to believe determinism but I think most would.

Click to expand...

Well, where you said I was "negatively judging" I did mention that most Christian denominations don't want to deal with this, etc. But my beliefs, as far as I know, no one else has them (yet), and right now at least, they are not embraced or accepted anywhere, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Ana the Ist said:

You can speak as if you genuinely believe determinism. We have the language. You can make X happened because Y statements but you cannot logically say anything about what should be because that's entirely irrational from your view, it doesn't even make any sense if you understand that you don't control your preferences or choices....there's never going to be a reason to make "should" statements.

You also have to drop all indicators of the judgment of any actions or behaviors or as those also don't make any rational sense....perhaps you have an emotional response to something but it's not as if it has any actual meaning in relation to the cause....it was always going to happen and you can't control it.

The language isn't limiting you...you're less rational brain is. You cannot actually consider reality from the description you're giving it. Nobody can...it's not just you.

Click to expand...

I'm going back to more important things.

But I get to see determinism in action all of the time, and I look for it when I'm out, and watch out for it when I'm out, especially in the form of "providence" a lot, etc. Happens to me and with me and around me all of the time, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

Yeah, I got distracted by a friend when I was finishing up writing it, it is corrected/fixed now.

Click to expand...

Ok.

Neogaia777 said:

So I tell the truth of what are people's reasons for denying determinism "mostly", and all of the sudden I'm judging?

Click to expand...

The truth? You made a guess. There's no way you could ever know every possible cause that in some small way influenced an outcome.

Neogaia777 said:

Did I tell the truth or did I not tell the truth about that, etc?

Click to expand...

You made a guess...I can't even imagine a way to know if it was the truth unless you possess omniscience.

Neogaia777 said:

Causes are things, and while they can coincide or intertwine sometimes, they cannot ever "agree", etc.

Click to expand...

I'm driving down a road...the causes will be almost infinite for this....they stretch back into infinity. The road had to be laid, the car bought, gas put into the engine, etc etc.

Neogaia777 said:

I told the truth, and I did not say "all" but "most" meaning over 50% of the people, or the majority.

Click to expand...

I see...you don't really understand what you're saying. You imagine that you can perceive causes?

Neogaia777 said:

And your point is?

Click to expand...

Obvious...you don't actually believe in determinism, or perhaps you just don't understand it.

Neogaia777 said:

I have learned a lot about myself and why I am the way I am, or do the things that I do over the years, but am nowhere close to all of it yet, etc.

Click to expand...

You can't possibly accurately assess the causes that force you to act in a deterministic worldview.

Neogaia777 said:

From my perspective or point of view, I'm trying.

Click to expand...

That's a strong indicator that you don't genuinely believe determinism.

Neogaia777 said:

There are things that are good or beneficial,

Click to expand...

I'll bite...let's hear an example.

Neogaia777 said:

or helpful or positive,

Click to expand...

Example?

Neogaia777 said:

and then there are things that are not,

Click to expand...

Example?

Neogaia777 said:

but are the opposite of that, and are just plain bad/not beneficial, or that are just plain evil, etc.

Click to expand...

Example?

Neogaia777 said:

Determinism doesn't change this, etc.

Click to expand...

Of course it does.

I already gave you our hypothetical determinist man....and I already asked you what he could possibly do that's moral or immoral.

I'd like to see whatever answers you think you have that you didn't provide when I asked.

Neogaia777 said:

No, we still must punish people for bad or wrongdoing here, for the good of our societies, etc, but I'm not going to repeat all of this all over again.

Click to expand...

I'd just like an example of a moral or immoral behavior one person can make from a determinist worldview.

I'm not perusing 99 pages to hope you already provided it somewhere. It's a very simple question and if you believe as you claim, it should be an easy answer.

Neogaia777 said:

But my beliefs, as far as I know, no one else has them (yet), and right now at least, they are not embraced or accepted anywhere, etc.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean the question as an interrogation of your faith. If you believe this idea of determinism is compatible with your Christian faith...I'll believe you do see it that way.

@Ana the Ist

I'll get back on here when I feel like trying to convince you guys again, ok.

But it might be a little while though, etc.

I'm beginning to realize that anything said on here is pretty pointless, because it just gets buried/wasted/forgotten in a day, etc, and who wants to waste their time with that when there are a lot better things to do and ways to use your time out there, etc. It is also my plan to start working on a book soon, etc. Maybe that won't get forgotten so easily maybe, etc.

Anyway,

Take Care/God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

@Ana the Ist

I'll get back on here when I feel like trying to convince you guys again, ok.

But it might be a little while though, etc.

I'm beginning to realize that anything said on here is pretty pointless, because it just gets buried/wasted/forgotten in a day, etc, and who wants to waste their time with that when there are a lot better things to do and ways to use your time out there, etc. It is also my plan to start working on a book soon, etc. Maybe that won't get forgotten so easily maybe, etc.

Anyway,

Take Care/God Bless.

Click to expand...

I understand the feeling. That's precisely why I haven't bothered to do more than vomit an occasional post or two every couple hundred posts making the exact same points.

I've seen this discussion had probably dozens of times....and it tends to be the same discussion where few consider any implications of the actual premise, or worse...they attempt to use determinism to persuade others into a moral viewpoint....which is fundamentally absurd. If a woman stubs her toe after she wakes and sleepily steps into her oak dresser....nobody sees that as something immoral or moral, as mere damage alone isn't a basis for anyone's moral views (not anyone I've ever met anyway) because despite damage occurring....there's no deliberate choice in the matter.

Determinism removes the possibility of deliberate choice in every matter. The result is a viewpoint without any moral or immoral behaviors....regardless of who damages who or what causes were involved. It argues that the future is as certain as the past and no one makes any choices of their own free will....so if that same woman were violently sexually assaulted in her own home later in the day, the determinist can only state that it is no more or less moral than her stubbing her toe (essentially making all outcomes nuetral in regards to any moral value)....as both outcomes were always going to happen and no one is capable of choosing a different outcome.

I suppose one could use determinism as a way to rationalize away any guilt they may feel for immoral transgressions in their lives....but outside of that, I don't see much use to the concept.

Edit- although I do admit it would be funny to get into a minor car accident with Sam Harris and when he becomes angry at my driving, I could reply with "I don't know why you're yelling at me Sam, we both know that an infinite chain of causal factors have led to this inevitable accident that neither of us chose to have and cannot possibly be blamed for."

I imagine the look on his face would be priceless lol.

Ana the Ist said:

I understand the feeling. That's precisely why I haven't bothered to do more than vomit an occasional post or two every couple hundred posts making the exact same points.

I've seen this discussion had probably dozens of times....and it tends to be the same discussion where few consider any implications of the actual premise, or worse...they attempt to use determinism to persuade others into a moral viewpoint....which is fundamentally absurd. If a woman stubs her toe after she wakes and sleepily steps into her oak dresser....nobody sees that as something immoral or moral, as mere damage alone isn't a basis for anyone's moral views (not anyone I've ever met anyway) because despite damage occurring....there's no deliberate choice in the matter.

Determinism removes the possibility of deliberate choice in every matter. The result is a viewpoint without any moral or immoral behaviors....regardless of who damages who or what causes were involved. It argues that the future is as certain as the past and no one makes any choices of their own free will....so if that same woman were violently sexually assaulted in her own home later in the day, the determinist can only state that it is no more or less moral than her stubbing her toe (essentially making all outcomes nuetral in regards to any moral value)....as both outcomes were always going to happen and no one is capable of choosing a different outcome.

I suppose one could use determinism as a way to rationalize away any guilt they may feel for immoral transgressions in their lives....but outside of that, I don't see much use to the concept.

Edit- although I do admit it would be funny to get into a minor car accident with Sam Harris and when he becomes angry at my driving, I could reply with "I don't know why you're yelling at me Sam, we both know that an infinite chain of causal factors have led to this inevitable accident that neither of us chose to have and cannot possibly be blamed for."

I imagine the look on his face would be priceless lol.

Click to expand...

Thanks for being understanding.

Take Care.

Ana the Ist said:

I understand the feeling. That's precisely why I haven't bothered to do more than vomit an occasional post or two every couple hundred posts making the exact same points.

I've seen this discussion had probably dozens of times....and it tends to be the same discussion where few consider any implications of the actual premise, or worse...they attempt to use determinism to persuade others into a moral viewpoint....which is fundamentally absurd. If a woman stubs her toe after she wakes and sleepily steps into her oak dresser....nobody sees that as something immoral or moral, as mere damage alone isn't a basis for anyone's moral views (not anyone I've ever met anyway) because despite damage occurring....there's no deliberate choice in the matter.

Determinism removes the possibility of deliberate choice in every matter. The result is a viewpoint without any moral or immoral behaviors....regardless of who damages who or what causes were involved. It argues that the future is as certain as the past and no one makes any choices of their own free will....so if that same woman were violently sexually assaulted in her own home later in the day, the determinist can only state that it is no more or less moral than her stubbing her toe (essentially making all outcomes nuetral in regards to any moral value)....as both outcomes were always going to happen and no one is capable of choosing a different outcome.

I suppose one could use determinism as a way to rationalize away any guilt they may feel for immoral transgressions in their lives....but outside of that, I don't see much use to the concept.

Edit- although I do admit it would be funny to get into a minor car accident with Sam Harris and when he becomes angry at my driving, I could reply with "I don't know why you're yelling at me Sam, we both know that an infinite chain of causal factors have led to this inevitable accident that neither of us chose to have and cannot possibly be blamed for."

I imagine the look on his face would be priceless lol.

Click to expand...

I just now thought of something that is short that might describe some of the conclusions that were reached about determinism and morality earlier on in this thread maybe...?

We all pretty much admitted that while people may not be able to be held morally responsible, our societies still have to hold them morally accountable, etc.

The laws/rules, etc, that each society decides upon must still be followed or obeyed regardless, etc, and we must still have consequences for them regardless, etc, which is what I mean when I say that there is still right and wrong, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

I just now thought of something that is short that might describe some of the conclusions that were reached about determinism and morality earlier on in this thread maybe...?

We all pretty much admitted that while people may not be able to be held morally responsible, our societies still have to hold them morally accountable, etc.

The laws/rules, etc, that each society decides upon must still be followed or obeyed regardless, etc, and we must still have consequences for them regardless, etc, which is what I mean when I say that there is still right and wrong, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Click to expand...

And while we are holding them morally accountable, we hope that they will then change, or change their ways, because that's the part that none of us knows yet, etc.

But in the meantime, we have to have consequences for what the majority of a societies population has deemed is "wrong", etc, as we are also never judging another one's eternity, etc.

This is part of what was discussed already earlier @Ana the Ist, part of it anyway, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

stevevw said:

The experiences or rather effects of treatments with psychotropic drugs are completely different to NDE. That is why I am wondering why you keep bringing up these examples even though you say they are 'reminiscent' instead of 'the same as'.

There is a completely different mindset where psychotropic drugs come with fragmentation, disorientation, negative emotion, and the thinking is often hazy and easily forgotten. Whereas what makes NDE destinguishable is its consistency, clarity and stability despite the severe episode.

You seem to be trying to make out that they are the same as NDE except caused artifically by drugs or toxicity. I assume in an attempt to give a physical cause to NDE. But I keep saying these are different, they are not the same though having some similar asdpects.

Click to expand...

All we have to go on are the reports of those who have had NDEs and the reports of those who have experienced psychotropic (and some personal experience). Having dabbled in my youth and read a fair amount of the literature (Burroughs, McKenna, et al.), I see quite a strong correlation between not the content of the experiences, but their nature (hyper vivid, consciousness expanding, time distorting, otherworldly, etc).

Your experiences may differ, but everyone is different, as is every experience.

stevevw said:

But its the quality, the clarity and organisation that is lacking with drugs. Obviously because drugs compromise the system, the brain and thus thinking.

Click to expand...

Let me guess, your only experience with psychotropic drugs is alcohol, eh? Did you never wonder why so many artists & musicians make use of psychotropics for their work?

If 'drugs obviously compromise' the brain and thus thinking, why is it that one of the fastest-growing areas of mind-altering drugs is nootropics ('smart' drugs)?

stevevw said:

Thats doesn't matter, its not enough to give higher order conscious thinking. Even a very weak undectable signal is not bringing enough oxygen to the brain. The brain is shutting down not thriving for consciousness.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the fragmentary activity of a brain during physiological trauma and the potential connectivity changes involved could quite plausibly influence subsequent activity as full consciousness is recovered. Having said that, I'm more inclined to think it's the reperfusion & recovery period that results in these experiences.

stevevw said:

I know what Hallucinogens can do to your perception lol.

Click to expand...

Really? Which of the broad range of hallucinogens and their varied effects are you familiar with?

stevevw said:

But NDE is different.

Click to expand...

Have you experienced one?

stevevw said:

You could say that toxins and psychotropic drugs distort the frequency of consciousness.

Click to expand...

'Distort the frequency of consciousness' is gibberish - what is the frequency of consciousness?

stevevw said:

Whereas NDE enhance it to a hyper level. We know when we are drug effected. We don;t think we were in reality later. But people do with NDE. They think its more real than everyday life.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's just the kind of thing psychedelic / hallucinogenic drugs can do for you - also, lucid dreams. When your sense of reality has changed, the reason for it seems irrelevant.

stevevw said:

I'm not talking about the physical eyes. As compared to a camera lens they are based on light spectrums within temporal space. But we know we can see stuff without our eyes. In fact you could say our minds are creating what we see like colors.

But we also have a sort of vision in our dreams. We see with meaning and not just our senses. In our minds eye. This is our second sight that goes beyond the physical senses. A common NDE is seeing through physical substrates. That would make sense if physical sight is a surface reflection rather than anything solid. Other creatures see differently so our physical sight is not exclusive.

Click to expand...

Yes, our minds generate our visual reality predictively, from experience. But we need eyes to correct the prediction - they don't have the resolution or bandwidth for the high-resolution real-time image we think we see, but they're sufficient to correct predictive errors.

But the point remains - if we could receive visual information about the real world (enhanced or otherwise) with our mind's eye, we wouldn't have evolved physical eyes.

Our eyes are limited to the 'visible' part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but other creatures can see higher (UV) and lower (IR) frequencies. Others have alternative imaging techniques such as sonar. But they're all physical remote-sensing mechanisms (based on various kinds of waves).

stevevw said:

Maybe at first but on reflection we usually realise its unreality. Its logical that a compromised and chaotic system is going to throw out compromised and chaotic output. But NDE'rs will remember all detail for decades like it happened yesterday. Like it was a real experience like everyday life. Theres a destinct quality difference.

Click to expand...

You'll find that most people who've taken a psychedelic will call it a life-changing experience and remember the details (as will lucid dreamers). Extraordinary experiences are exceptionally memorable.

stevevw said:

Just because its a post hoc recall doesn't deminish its reality no more than a witness testimony is not deminished after the event. In fact it acts as strong evidence in some cases as 1st hand eye witness testimony is a direct link to the event. So is the best form of evidence for understanding consciousness. Getting it from the horses mouth so to speak.

Science devalues this type of evidence because they deal in 3rd person measures. But that doesn't mean 1st person experiences are automatically unreliable. That is why studies like NDERF are good because they look at 1,000s of experiences and can derive overall evidence for consistency across age, culture and individuals rather than individuals in isolation.

Click to expand...

Science has cast doubt on the reliability of eyewitness testimony by empirical demonstration. You'll find that, these days, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the weakest forms of evidence, just above hearsay. There's a long history that demonstrates how unreliable and labile even the most honest witness testimony can be. Police and judicial practice in handling eyewitnesses has changed radically as a result.

Here are some links you may find informative:

Why I’m Skeptical of Eyewitnesses
The ‘Mandela Effect’ and How Your Mind is Playing Tricks on You
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?
Memory is Unreliable - and it could be worse
List of Memory Biases

Bradskii said:

... Unless they are coerced in some way, nobody does something that they'd prefer not to do. Don't confuse wanting to do something with preferring to do it. I want to laze around this afternoon, but I prefer to go to the gym.

Click to expand...

I prefer to think of it as multiple competing desires, wishes, preferences, wants, etc.

I like the office doughnuts example - you're new in the office and someone brings around a box of doughnuts. There aren't enough for everyone; you like doughnuts but you want to lose weight; you don't want to offend by refusing, but you don't want to look greedy; you're hungry, but you don't want to spoil your dinner; you want to assert yourself, but you don't want to seem selfish; you really fancy a doughnut, but it might make you feel queasy. You think you might regret having one but then again you think you might regret not having one.

Let's suppose all these conflicting thoughts pass through your mind; one way or another, you have to make a decision - to take a doughnut or not to take one. One (or a combination) of these wants & desires will prove stronger than the rest and you'll make a choice, but it's a dynamic process. As you contemplate, the weightings of the preferences may change and new considerations may come to mind (you could skip breakfast tomorrow to make up for having one, or you think of a good excuse not to take one, or it all gets too complicated and you just grab one and worry about it later).

My point is, it's the fact that you have to evaluate all this to make a decision, and the dynamic nature of that process, that is what makes it feel like an exercise of free will, although the various considerations and the strength of your feelings about them are the result of subconscious processes using your predispositions, previous experiences, current state of mind & body, etc. If you'd just read an article about the damage sugar & fat can do, or had a bigger breakfast, or been for a run earlier, or had been planning to skip lunch, or had already had a snack, or your blood sugar is low so you can't think clearly, etc, the decision might have been different, but all ultimately resulted from external influences that had changed the person you were to the person that was faced with the decision, and the outcome you chose was inevitable given all those circumstances, but you don't really know the outcome until you reach for the doughnut or refuse it.

We call it free will because that's how it feels, but sometimes what we decide surprises us - how can that be?

Ana the Ist said:

... this thread is silly.

Click to expand...

Not at all, it's philosophy!

We inevitably get tangled up in threads like this, it's just the kind of people we are