Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

I didn't ask about anyone's wants or likes. I can like or dislike pistachio ice cream. I asked if you agree it's immoral.

It's detrimental to society. Therefore we call it wrong. Therefore some class it as immoral. I try not to confuse what is detrimental with what someone might describe as immoral.

An example: Incest is described as being immoral by most people. But it's 'wrong' because it causes problems with the dna. All those who thought that there was nothing wrong with it...well, their lineages have died out. Leaving the ones that think that there is something wrong with it, even if they don't know why. But...if biology had turned out differently and it was advantageous to breed within a family and breeding outside the family would cause problems, then having sex with a stranger would be considered taboo.

How so? But please answer in regard to my example of torturing puppies, not the very general and vague "how we treat animals".

It's empathy. You'd have no problem in swatting a mosquito. But beating a puppy to death is another matter. To be able to do so wouild exhibit a lack of empathy. And that's one of the things that's required for a smooth running society. Social relationships suffer. So people think that beating puppies is wrong because you are exhibiting a lack of empathy and their empathy allows them to understand the pain that the puppy is feeling. And empathy leads to sympathy.

 

[Bradskii]

They say...there are no moral truths and there no consciousness, no sense of self in the world able to navigate and influence reality.

It would really help if you didn't make things up. Nobody has suggested any of those things.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, I make no such assumption. In fact, I tend to lean in the opposite direction... that you're an illusion.

Then we're different. The guitar is real. The broken string is real. The croissant was real. That there was a sequence of events over which I had no control determined my decisions leads me to consider that the world is deterministic and that therefore free will is an ilusion. You've skipped all the steps that I went through and have assumed that from the outset.

 

[partinobodycular]

Then we're different. The guitar is real. The broken string is real. The croissant was real. That there was a sequence of events over which I had no control determined my decisions leads me to consider that the world is deterministic and that therefore free will is an ilusion. You've skipped all the steps that I went through and have assumed that from the outset.

Okay, I have to admit that you lost me with this one. But then again I can be a bit slow. If it helps, I actually think that your line of reasoning was excellent, I'm just not sure how any of this applies to my previous post.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, I have to admit that you lost me with this one. But then again I can be a bit slow. If it helps, I actually think that your line of reasoning was excellent, I'm just not sure how any of this applies to my previous post.

I treat things as being real unless investigation proves otherwise. I don't assume that everything is an illusion in the first instance.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't change the way we must judge moral or immoral actions or decisions here.

Of course it does.

We'll come back to that.

It really should not change it regardless. Not as far as being here is concerned anyway.

It does though....choice is always a factor. We don't judge babies for being born...they have no choice in the matter. Basically any argument for or against a moral judgement centers on whatever choices were available to the person engaging in the behavior at the time.

I recall a cop shooting and killing a chubby black 14yo girl with a kitchen knife as she was about to insert it into another girl's guts near Columbus, Ohio. Many black people considered this immoral for a number of reasons they have openly stated. All of them express a possibility to do otherwise.

You can still say a thing was either ato Y I h ty the_popple good or bad thing regardless,

How? Sure, you could physically speak the words.....but you wouldn't believe in determinism.

and try to take steps to try and alter or change that behavior for the future (which is unknown) regardless, which is really what crime and punishment should be all about.

Crime and punishment aren't about morality to the determinist. He doesn't have any ability to make moral judgements.

A thing is still seen as either a good or bad thing, or positive or negative thing here regardless.

In what way?

I thought I already pointed out you don't judge morality based solely on outcomes.

How are you determining what is a "positive or negative thing"?

Again, you still haven't told me how you think it supposed to change you/me, or us here, etc?

I've been working down the list. You seem stuck on #1. You wouldn't be able to make moral judgements...yet you seem to continue to do so. You claim that you're unable to stop....yet I'm certain you can.

Circumstances always need to be considered in any or all judgements, and obviously in this circumstance one should recieve a lesser or lighter punishment than the other one who should recieve a lot heavier regardless.

The circumstances are objectively the same. A man ran over a little girl. In both cases, the man made no choice, it had to happen exactly as it did (at least, you see it this way as a determinist) and the only consideration to make....if this is against the law....is how important each of them is to the function of the state. Obviously, if the man (for example) is important enough....or difficult enough to replace, then his punishment will be light or non-existent.

And to reiterate this again "all circumstanes/facts always need to all be considered/carefully weighed in any and all truly just judgements", etc, irregardless of ones own personal feelings or beliefs, or beliefs about determinism and whatnot, in any given truly just judgement or circumstance, etc.

What? Personal beliefs?

A moment ago determinism was "obviously true" and now it's just a personal belief.

What are you here trying to convince people of? The truth? Or a personal belief we should all disregard the moment it's implications become important?

Remember wayyyyy back when I said this was a dumb philosophical argument?

Sure feels that way now that you think we should disregard what you consider obviously true.

This is part of the job of any truly just criminal justice system regardless, etc.

Justice isn't a reason to have laws under a deterministic world view. Functioning of the society/state is why laws should exist.

Trying to change or alter current behavior for better behavior in the future (which is unknown) needs to be practiced in every single society in order for them to function and maintain order properly probably regardless, etc.

How are you deciding that one "behavior" is "better" than any other? Utility to the state?

You can also say that a thing a person did was good or bad, or right or wrong, or contributes positively or negatively

How? In regards to the state....the little girl may be no significant loss at all. On the other hand, imagine the man is a very important and well respected diplomat known for his negotiating skills with a hostile nation.

At that point.....you'd agree running over the little girl isn't really a crime.

I know you weren't trying to attack me, and I didn't take it as such, I just wanted you to know that quote/unquote "winning" is not at all a part of the reason I was/still am continuing our conversation here, etc.

Ty for clearing that up.

Not if one believes in a God who could have determined it differently from the beginning, because in that sense, everything was allowed to happen, and something being allowed to happen, versus something having AND 2to happen, are one in the same thing, etc.

I'm a bit lost...but I'll simply take your word for it that your Christian beliefs are compatible with your determinist beliefs.

Obviously, feelings would be different in both of those scenarios, but the law should be written to allow lesser orL·LPOOP greater punishments for both of those scenarios or circumstances, etc.

It's unclear why feelings would matter.

And if it's not, then it needs to be altered or changed, etc

Mainly that while we are still here, some things still have to be done the same way regardless, etc. Like crime and punishment, and judgement and justice, for example.

Why?

 

[partinobodycular]

I treat things as being real unless investigation proves otherwise.

That's an understandable assumption to make... but it's still an assumption.

I don't assume that everything is an illusion in the first instance.

Neither do I. Hence my confusion concerning your last post.

 

[stevevw]

Since God is Love then Morality (caring about others) is a deterministic power.

But as there is also hate its a choice.

 

[Bradskii]

Neither do I. Hence my confusion concerning your last post.

OK, but you 'tend to lean in that direction'. I lean the opposite way.

 

[stevevw]

It would really help if you didn't make things up. Nobody has suggested any of those things.

Well I know the atheistic and materialist view is that there is no objective morality or independent moral truths. We know the materialist view of consciousness is caused by the physical brain. Therefore any experience about our conscious self having any agency is the result of neural activity and nothing real in the world as far as having causal influence.

I mean even evolution believe this. We hear the material rationalisations for our experiences as means to survival in some way, shape or form.

But just think of the logic someone who does not believe in anything real beyond the material that can make a difference in reality.

That logic in itself relegates all our beliefs in gods, spirituality or consciousness and self as something that can alter reality as a secondary phenomena that has a material explanation and therefore is basically a delusion in that it makes no difference to fundemental reality.

 

[Bradskii]

Well I know the atheistic and materialist view...

Apparently not.

'there are no moral truths... I've explained my position on morality and that isn't it.

'...and there no consciousness': Complete nonsense.

'...no sense of self in the world able to navigate and influence reality.': You appear to be reading posts not just from a different thread but from a different forum.

 

[stevevw]

I think the arguement that everything is deterministic and has a physical cause is a misrepresentation of what free will is. Free will should be judged by how we actually experience it and live it. In everyday reality. We don't stop and consider the deterministic causes of behaviour before we judge and attribute responsibility. We are moral beings and that is like a human constitution and not something evolution created in us.

Free will is about whether there are any blocks to our ability to make self determined choices based on reasoning. If one person is being controlled and denied their freedom to choose then they have less freedom to make choices compared to another who is not being denied or controlled by an outside force, person or government.

There is a difference between someone denied their autonomy and someone who is not and that differences is free will. Its the simple everyday and real life meaning we give in how we actually live free will and not some detaqched rationalisation beyond our actual experience of it.

Which means if there is going to be an unreal and delusional meaning of free will then its one that is abstracted beyond our dirtect and lived experience. Sometimes we just have to trust our gut, our experience of something as it may just be represetative of whats really going on.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the arguement that everything is deterministic and has a physical cause is a misrepresentation of what free will is. Free will should be judged by how we actually experience it and live it.

Same ol' same ol'. It must be real because it feels real.

Seems that you have run out of arguments yet again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok so can you tell me the moral of the story. You said it may be a little confusing and it is lol. Or is there no moral as its determined.

Lol the movie???

It's about the sheriff. He's gotten old. He's seeing the world change. He understands that he's not ready to deal with what is out there anymore....and there's wisdom in understanding when to call it quits.

Even the captive bolt gun (cattle killer) indicates how Chigurh views people....no different from domesticated animals ready for slaughter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Humans ever since the beginning of time have had and made rules for their societies or people groups, etc,

True.

so it doesn't matter what reason they are made for,

I don't know if it doesn't matter. I'm sure it matters to those living in the society.

And saying that a determinist cannot have standards is ridiculous, etc.

I don't know if anyone is saying "no standards" but moral judgements are judgements of someone's behavior....

The idea that we would be judging people's behavior if we genuinely don't see them as having any agency is odd. Why would we?

It's like judging a bear or tiger for doing bear or tiger stuff. It doesn't make any sense.

We still have them the same way you do depending on our own inner convictions on the inside just like you do, etc.

I don't think too many are coming from "inner convictions".

We're not lawless animals, and I'm sorry you think that about us.

We are animals. Lawless is a matter of time and geography.

As if we're somehow not human, or don't have a heart or conscience, etc.

I think you're confusing morals with feelings.

But I guess it's not really at all uncommon for certain people to try and demonize those who don't think the same way they do due to matters they automatically want to refuse, or do not want to accept, etc.

I'm certainly not trying to demonize you or anyone else. We can certainly live our lives without making moral judgements of others. It's not a necessary thing to survive.

It just becomes bizarre fundamentally to say....

"I see everything as happening this way without exception..."

And the moment someone says "well how about these things which are directly related to how you claim to see everything now?"

You reply, "Well obviously not those things....they aren't affected at all by this completely different way that I see everything"

Perhaps you either....

1. Don't actually see things as deterministic.

2. Don't believe in determinism because it leads to some conclusions that aren't emotionally satisfying....but say you do for reasons that are emotionally satisfying.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, fine, I apologize, but some of you think it sometimes though, etc.

So I guess the next question is going to be for us determinists is "why have them?", or "why not just abolish them all?", etc.

It's a far simpler worldview than you're making it sound. Remember those posts several pages ago when I wrote sentences like "the determinist would say...." and in your reply you literally said those things?

It's not really that complicated.

The primary reasons why humans have had or made these rules or laws since the beginning of time, etc, is to protect and preserve the health, wealth, welfare, and well-being of the majority, and for those one's personal safety, etc.

I would imagine early rules and laws existed so that everyone understood what the group expected of them under certain circumstances and to avoid internal conflicts and prevent the group from splitting.

And they are also made, or they try to be made, according to all the own inner personal convictions that all the individuals in that society share in common, etc, or they try to be made that way anyway. So that's mainly why, etc.

Again, I'm not sure what degree
"inner personal convictions" were a part of the early process. It's hard to imagine some really early man trying to explain why he felt it was important for Janine to cover her breasts because he cared a lot about modesty. It seems more likely he was getting nagged endlessly by his wife every time he was caught looking so the guys got together and made the rule lol.

But the ones who don't have any of these personal inner convictions, or that want to ignore them or deny them, in order give themselves permission for something that would go against them, or against the rules and laws agreed upon by the majority, and actually carry out those acts, etc, are the ones that should be punished, but with the hopes for the rest of us of turning them around if we possibly can possibly, etc, but if we can't, they face further consequences, etc.

l don't know what early jail looked like.

And if they are just flat out evil, and don't seem to have any of these inner convictions at all, and they just flat out refuse to follow the rules agreed upon by the majority, or obey the laws or rules ever, etc, then there comes a time when if the crime is bad enough, or they've just repeated something bad enough just too many times, without showing any signs of remorse for it, or ever changing, etc, then we may have to "lock them up for life", or something like that, or keep them ostracized/separate from the rest of society for life, or something like that, etc, but we should try to do all we can with them while we still can with them though, etc.

No....those guys were the ones you brought with you when raiding the next community over. You don't want to lose that fight and those guys aren't really scared the way everyone else is.

 

[Neogaia777]

Of course it does.

We'll come back to that.

I see "moral and immoral" as being synonymous with right and wrong, good and bad, and in most situations positive or negative maybe, so maybe you're getting hung up on semantics maybe?

And I can say that the actions of a person were one or the other of those things regardless of whether I think they had a choice in the matter "up to that point" or not, etc.

Why are you saying me/you/we can't, etc?

It does though....choice is always a factor. We don't judge babies for being born...they have no choice in the matter. Basically any argument for or against a moral judgement centers on whatever choices were available to the person engaging in the behavior at the time.

No it does not, etc. We can still say a thing was either a good or bad thing regardless of whether we thought or believed that person truly had a choice "up to that point", or not, etc.

Why are you saying otherwise?

I recall a cop shooting and killing a chubby black 14yo girl with a kitchen knife as she was about to insert it into another girl's guts near Columbus, Ohio. Many black people considered this immoral for a number of reasons they have openly stated. All of them express a possibility to do otherwise.

And I believe that everything that has passed, couldn't have happened any other way "up to that point", etc.

So what is your point?

How? Sure, you could physically speak the words.....but you wouldn't believe in determinism.

Your failing to point out to me why I couldn't, etc?

Crime and punishment aren't about morality to the determinist. He doesn't have any ability to make moral judgements.

And again I ask you "why not"? Why do we not have the ability to say a thing was either good or bad, etc?

In what way?

It is either a positive or negative thing, or goes against the agreed upon rules of the majority, etc.

I thought I already pointed out you don't judge morality based solely on outcomes.

No, not solely, or that is not the only thing that decides it, but it is always whatever is fully agreed upon by the majority in any society, etc.

How are you determining what is a "positive or negative thing"?

It is always whatever is agreed upon by the majority in any society, etc.

Now that is probably also always subjective, or relative, but that's a whole other topic entirely, etc.

I've been working down the list. You seem stuck on #1. You wouldn't be able to make moral judgements...yet you seem to continue to do so. You claim that you're unable to stop....yet I'm certain you can.

And you have still failed to point out to me, and everyone else, why you/me/we can't, etc.

The circumstances are objectively the same. A man ran over a little girl. In both cases, the man made no choice, it had to happen exactly as it did (at least, you see it this way as a determinist) and the only consideration to make....if this is against the law....is how important each of them is to the function of the state. Obviously, if the man (for example) is important enough....or difficult enough to replace, then his punishment will be light or non-existent.

That's called a corrupt justice system, and it needs to be changed, etc.

The issue of lighter or heavier punishment is supposed to be based on pre-meditation, meaning and intent, and a whole slew of other things (other circumstances regarding/surrounding the situation), and is never supposed to be decided on based on how important or not important someone is seen as being to any entity, etc.

What? Personal beliefs?

A moment ago determinism was "obviously true" and now it's just a personal belief.

I'm 99.9999% sure it's true, etc.

But the reason I called it a "belief" in this instance was because that is what it always seems to be to everyone else nowadays, or these days, etc, everyone having their "own truth" nowadays, and everything or all thing being seen as "relative" nowadays, and no absolutes, etc. I could have just as easily said "think", because it's what I "think", etc. So to reword it, regardless of what you/me or anyone else "thinks", all situations/circumstances, and any or all "factors", etc, all need to always be fully considered in any truly just judgement(s), etc.

There, is that better?

What are you here trying to convince people of? The truth?

The Truth.

Or a personal belief we should all disregard the moment it's implications become important?

Is that what your afraid of? The implications of this, etc?

Because I can help you with all of those probably, etc.

Remember wayyyyy back when I said this was a dumb philosophical argument?

Yeah I remember that. But you seem to have just as much time to waste as I do, etc.

Sure feels that way now that you think we should disregard what you consider obviously true.

I "think" determinism is true, just as much as I "think" something like the theory of evolution is true, etc. And I "think" this for both, just as much as the other, or for the very same reasons, etc.

Justice isn't a reason to have laws under a deterministic world view. Functioning of the society/state is why laws should exist.

Justice is whatever is decided upon by the majority, and is probably relative, and is subject to change or be different in different places, or at different times, etc.

So the proper functioning of a society is not the only thing to consider, etc.

But we also have to consider the majorities "feelings" at any given time, etc.

How are you deciding that one "behavior" is "better" than any other? Utility to the state?

"Better" can be alot of things, but it is not the only thing that needs to be considered, etc. But you also have to weigh in the feelings of the majority at any given time, etc. Even if it has no personal utility, etc.

How? In regards to the state....the little girl may be no significant loss at all. On the other hand, imagine the man is a very important and well respected diplomat known for his negotiating skills with a hostile nation.

In any truly just justice system, it is not supposed to be any "respecter of persons" when it is judging, or when it is deciding it's judgements, etc.

If it is erring in that, then it has become corrupt, etc.

At that point.....you'd agree running over the little girl isn't really a crime.

If the majority would have an aversion to it, or thinks it is right now currently a crime, then it would be a crime, etc.

Ty for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

I'm a bit lost...but I'll simply take your word for it that your Christian beliefs are compatible with your determinist beliefs.

Yes they are, and it actually part of the reason I hold them, but that might take a bit more explaining, etc.

It's unclear why feelings would matter.

Feelings matter because we all have them, etc. Maybe if we didn't, they wouldn't, etc. But right now we all have them, and so they matter, etc.

Why?

Why would the laws need to change or be altered if they were unjust? Or why would some things need to handled the same way regardless? Or just why are you asking me why exactly? And what about, etc?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

True.

Glad we can agree somewhere.

I don't know if it doesn't matter. I'm sure it matters to those living in the society.

I meant that it doesn't matter because they are still going to be made anyway, and not that people's reasons for making rules and laws in general don't matter.

I don't know if anyone is saying "no standards" but moral judgements are judgements of someone's behavior....

They are judgements of both actions and behavior, and we can still say some of those were either good or bad, or else right or wrong regardless.

The idea that we would be judging people's behavior if we genuinely don't see them as having any agency is odd. Why would we?

It's mainly because none knows the future, etc.

It's like judging a bear or tiger for doing bear or tiger stuff. It doesn't make any sense.

We would hope that they would abide by and obey all the rules and laws that were set or made by the majority, but if they don't, then there has to be some consequences for it, etc, and because we don't know the future, there is the possibility of change, but it is only from "this point onward", etc.

I don't think too many are coming from "inner convictions".

Sure some or a lot of them are, etc.

Most people all have in common feeling a certain way when certain acts or behaviors are done, or are committed, etc.

We are animals. Lawless is a matter of time and geography.

I'm afraid I have to say that I can't agree more with you here, as I think it is where we are heading, etc.

I think you're confusing morals with feelings.

Most morals stem from feelings.

I'm certainly not trying to demonize you or anyone else.

I didn't necessarily think "you" were, but some do, etc.

We can certainly live our lives without making moral judgements of others. It's not a necessary thing to survive.

Oh yes it is, otherwise there would be total anarchy, and a lot of people wouldn't survive.

It just becomes bizarre fundamentally to say....

"I see everything as happening this way without exception..."

And the moment someone says "well how about these things which are directly related to how you claim to see everything now?"

You reply, "Well obviously not those things....they aren't affected at all by this completely different way that I see everything"

Can you perhaps be more specific? And maybe in not such a long, greatly, greatly parsed post maybe?

Perhaps you either....

1. Don't actually see things as deterministic.

2. Don't believe in determinism because it leads to some conclusions that aren't emotionally satisfying....but say you do for reasons that are emotionally satisfying.

I do see things as deterministic though, etc?

So I don't know what you are trying to get at here?

Perhaps you can more specific maybe, etc?

What "things" are you talking about?


Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's a far simpler worldview than you're making it sound. Remember those posts several pages ago when I wrote sentences like "the determinist would say...." and in your reply you literally said those things?

And again I'd have to ask you "what things", and ask you to be more specific.

It's not really that complicated.

Whatever.

I would imagine early rules and laws existed so that everyone understood what the group expected of them under certain circumstances and to avoid internal conflicts and prevent the group from splitting.

That was most definitely probably part of it, etc.

Again, I'm not sure what degree
"inner personal convictions" were a part of the early process.

Most people all have in common feeling a certain way when certain acts or behaviors are done, or are committed, etc.

It's hard to imagine some really early man trying to explain why he felt it was important for Janine to cover her breasts because he cared a lot about modesty. It seems more likely he was getting nagged endlessly by his wife every time he was caught looking so the guys got together and made the rule lol.

I don't know how those specific rules came about, etc.

But it's just as much possible that the women came up with those specific rules back then instead of the men back then during those times maybe, etc?

l don't know what early jail looked like.

There probably wasn't one for a while, but there might have been "other consequences" for what they back then thought was appropriate to the measure of what they back then thought was a crime, etc.

No....those guys were the ones you brought with you when raiding the next community over. You don't want to lose that fight and those guys aren't really scared the way everyone else is.

Ok...?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Same ol' same ol'. It must be real because it feels real.

Seems that you have run out of arguments yet again.

Why can't what we feel represent what is real lol.

I have gone through this before with you. Feelings alone cannot explain everything and its an assumption to think so. Like I said its more than feelings and also involves our embodied experiences. We test our free will everyday and our experience of this is more than feelings.