Free will and determinism

[ladodgers6]

So that process has determined some of your views, your values, your goals...it was instrumental in making you the person you are.

It was my love for my Mother. We came from having nothing, life was very tough, but instead of resorting to crime, gangs, drugs. I wanted more then what they had to offer me. I wanted to make my mother proud. But what was even more amazing to me, is how amazing this great nation is and the opportunities it offered. I was overwhelm by this country's dream of being whatever you to make of yourself. Doctor, Lawyer, Police, Politician, teacher, Nurse, Entrepreneur, NASA or whatever, the sky is the limit. Seeing people throw that away was mind boggling for me. But personal goals, achievements, degrees are one thing.

But doing the right thing; meaning the moral right thing is another altogether. Some don't care about victimizing innocent people or robbing banks, murdering for pleasure. Though they know it wrong because they try to remain undetectable and avoid getting caught. They try to clean up the scene or hide evidence or kill witnesses. In other words they know what they do is wrong. How this is possible, though? People could say it's the Law and the sentence they will face, but after watching interviews of serial killers on YouTube, they admit they try to compartmentalize their emotions, why? To control what they feel so that they do not feel bad for the victim.

Ed Kemper turned himself in because he said if he didn't he would keep on killing co-ed's. His emotions got the better of him.​

The moral compass is you. You know what's right or wrong. You've learned this as you grew up. From many sources.

Not so fast Bradskii, where does this moral compass exist in our body? If we are not born with this faculty, how can it develop? And if we aren't born with it, how can outside sources influence or condition it or learn?

Do you want to be murdered or robbed? Obviously not. Do you have empathy? I presume so. So you'll know that other people feel the same way as you do. So for society to work then we (generally) don't murder and rob people whenever we feel like it. We say it's wrong, because for those reasons. And we make sure that people who do murder and rape are removed from society.

Bradkii shouldn't we be asking the origins of empathy, where it comes from? Therefore where does our reasoning come from? These faculties do not develop over time if the part is missing within? We must be born with these faculties to possess these abilities, yes? And if we are born with these faculties, meaning implanted moral compass knowing right from wrong it is a design; God given, not some randomness out of nowhere, without meaning. God commanded that we must love our neighbor, because by doing so, we will keep the Law. Do not commit murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not covet, Do not steal. God instilled morals into us, these faculties keep us in check per se.​

That's how we were able to form groups where we all took some interest in the welfare of the group. It's easier to live in a group than it is to live as an individual. Hence civilisation. It's all down to reciprocal altruism.

First of all, I thank you for being cordial and civil with me. I am glad I can have a respectful conversation without the name calling, and being belittling or mean-spirited. Anyway, I really enjoy having a discussion with you. I believe we need to dig deeper to see how we work and are designed, and how far we have fallen. I know you are no religious, I do believe in God, for the sheer awe I see all around us is just majestic and God inspiring for me.​

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not sure if you mean there has to be God (no point in referring to Him as 'The Influencer' all the time) or just the need to believe in God for justice and morality to have meaning. Although I disagree with both I can understand the latter.

I know you have a particular aversion to the subject so no need to get into naming. I'm happy to zoom out and keep things at a broad level. We can change the terminology if it suits you but at this level it's just semantics.

if there is an outside force that manipulates inside and does so with purpose then the things that are manipulated inherit that purpose. This is of more value when without the outside purpose these things have no purpose at all, such as in a closed deterministic system, so things like justice can take on meaning where otherwise they had no meaning.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by influence. Instilling a conscience?

Any interference from the outside. I'm specifically addressing that which is purpose driven since it would be arbitrary to discuss interference from the outside without purpose.

 

[partinobodycular]

where does this moral compass exist in our body? If we are not born with this faculty, how can it develop? And if we aren't born with it, how can outside sources influence or condition it or learn?

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.

 

[Bradskii]

But doing the right thing; meaning the moral right thing is another altogether. Some don't care about victimizing innocent people or robbing banks, murdering for pleasure. Though they know it wrong because they try to remain undetectable and avoid getting caught. They try to clean up the scene or hide evidence or kill witnesses. In other words they know what they do is wrong. How this is possible, though?​

Have you never done anything wrong when you knew it was the wrong thing to do? Even a psychopath knows that what they are doing is wrong. It's just that they don't care. But mostly people do wrong simply because they think they can get away with it. And doing the right thing is quite often the harder option. Some people are more lazy than others. So they take what you've worked for instead of working for it themselves.

I call it part of the natural human condition. It's probably the default position. Look at any example of when law and order breaks down. Look at how many people who were law abiding citizens then break the law. Look at the atrocities committed in wartime when they is no likelihood of being punished. I've been to Auschwitz and the Killing Fields. Look at Rwanda. Then read this and ruin your day:

A third of male university students say they would rape a woman

A significant proportion of men who said they would force a woman to have sex did not recognise it as rape

www.independent.co.uk

The veneer of civilisation is extremely thin.

Not so fast Bradskii, where does this moral compass exist in our body? If we are not born with this faculty, how can it develop? And if we aren't born with it, how can outside sources influence or condition it or learn?

Why can't you learn it? From your parents, for example. From constant feedback from the people with whom we live.

Bradkii shouldn't we be asking the origins of empathy, where it comes from?​

It's an evolved ability. It helped us work together better. When we became self aware there was an idea that others might be feeling what we are feeling.

 

[Bradskii]

I know you have a particular aversion to the subject so no need to get into naming.

Not so much an aversion. I'm just not able to offer anything positive to a discussion about something I don't believe exists.

Any interference from the outside. I'm specifically addressing that which is purpose driven since it would be arbitrary to discuss interference from the outside without purpose.

Well, if there's an example of such an outside purposeful interference that isn't God then we can certainly discuss it.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well, if there's an example of such an outside purposeful interference that isn't God then we can certainly discuss it.

If we zoom out at a more broad level then the possibility of what this purposeful interference is could be inclusive of concepts found in thesism. I'm happy not to address thesism but I can't reject that a theisitc view is also compatible with purposeful interference.

Everything on the outside is unseen/unknowable by the inside except through observation of the interference in question on the inside. We can observe the interference but we cannot observe it's source. Because of this outside interference can't really be proved or disproved except if we can isolate a specific cause as uncaused. We may either conclude it is a spontaneous cause or infer that something we cannot obverse prompted the cause (or just say we don't know). Like a knock on a door, do we say the knock was spontaneously caused or do we say something on the otherside caused the knock? Of course this is too simplified because we can't open the door to look and even if we could nothing science can observe is there so the knock is an observable cause from an inobservable source. But we know it's there because of the observable on our end it just comes down to how we explain it.

Other angle would be in practice we are purposefully driven. We can simply throw our hands up and say it's an illusion and there's no such thing as purpose as is implicit from natural determinism or we can conclude we experience purpose therefore purpose must exist. Since purpose cannot come from a closed deterministic system yet we feel it, we must conclude it has come from outside. This will have greater meaning to those who champion purpose such as with matters of justice, morality, love, etc... or even with issues of pain and suffering. If they matter then the purpose must be inherited. Those with greater apathy towards things would however have less of an impact.

So do you value purpose? If you refuse to accept that purpose is an illusion then purpose must come from an outside influence.

 

[Bradskii]

If we zoom out at a more broad level then the possibility of what this purposeful interface is would be inclusive of concepts found in thesism. I'm happy not to address thesism but I can't reject that a theisitc view is also consistent with purposeful interference.

I can't see it including anything except theism.

So do you value purpose? If you refuse to accept that purpose is an illusion then purpose must come from an outside influence.

Teleology is an illusion. Individual purpose is not. If I go to the fridge it's for the purpose of getting a cold one. I like beer, I'm at home, I'm thirsty, it's beer o'clock...they all determined my choice.

Well, it's nearly beer o'clock. So I've decided to prep dinner instead.

 

[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.

I'm sorry forgive what exactly? Why Love? Why and what reason do we experience this beautiful and wonderful attribute? Did the rocks that nobody can explain where they came from teach we this, or give us this ability? Maybe one should wonder at life and the experiences we face and learn from them, with the God given attributes we have been given.

For what can be known about God is plain to us, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

The divine spectacle of this planet is plain to see with our eyes, God, though seen, is clearly perceived by the things he has created especially this astounding planet full of life, and God given attributes to experience them; viewing that beauty; smelling the aromas of nature's fragrance; walking though breath taking nature trails; spending time with love ones; watching a sunset; or your children grow. How can anybody say this is random? Viewing the heavens above through a telescope and wondering how can that be? Trying to comprehend how all of that up there is possible, while we are spinning on a rock floating through space.

Sorry, only God can do all of this. Which is why I believe in him. The evidence for his existence is right in front of you. The evidence people ask for has always been right in front of them.

​

 

[ladodgers6]

Question, how do explain where evil & sin comes from? If the response is nature & nurture, please expound upon how nature & nurture is involved. I am more interested on your thought on nature.​

 

[DamianWarS]

I can't see it including anything except theism.

Teleology is an illusion. Individual purpose is not. If I go to the fridge it's for the purpose of getting a cold one. I like beer, I'm at home, I'm thirsty, it's beer o'clock...they all determined my choice.

Well, it's nearly beer o'clock. So I've decided to prep dinner instead.

Except your choice was predetermined if you accept determinism so the choice is an illusion, the preference for beer is also an illusion. You are simply a product of a sum of causes that has added up to what you perceive as desire for a cold one then the subsequent cause to get one that you call choice. In natural determinism if the experiment was run a million times with idetical parameters you would always choose the same thing just as 2+2 is always 4.

If you want to inject purpose that your preference or well being has meaning then you won't find that meaning in natural determinism and it must be inherited from a purpose driven outside influence. If you reject this, then you reject purpose.

 

[Bradskii]

Question, how do explain where evil & sin comes from? If the response is nature & nurture, please expound upon how nature & nurture is involved. I am more interested on your thought on nature.​

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.

 

[Bradskii]

Except your choice was predetermined if you accept determinism so the choice is an illusion, the preference for beer is also an illusion. You are simply a product of a sum of causes that has added up to what you perceive as desire for a cold one then the subsequent cause to get one that you call choice. In natural determinism if the experiment was run a million times with idetical parameters you would always choose the same thing just as 2+2 is always 4.

If you want to inject purpose that your preference or well being has meaning then you won't find that meaning in natural determinism and it must be inherited from a purpose driven outside influence. If you reject this, then you reject purpose.

No...the decision is real. Making a decision is not illusory. We obviously do it all the time. But we think we have free will in making the decision. That is illusory.

So yeah, I thought that there was some mini-me that was able to ignore all the antecedent conditions and step outside everything to make the decision. But there's just me. And those conditions determined my actions.

 

[DamianWarS]

No...the decision is real. Making a decision is not illusory. We obviously do it all the time. But we think we have free will in making the decision. That is illusory.

So yeah, I thought that there was some mini-me that was able to ignore all the antecedent conditions and step outside everything to make the decision. But there's just me. And those conditions determined my actions.

In natural determinism there is only one outcome. So the path you call choice or decision is real but the splits in the path representing all the other possiblies are illusions. We can intellectually think of different outcomes but what we land on was always the outcome from the start.

 

[Bradskii]

In natural determinism there is only one outcome. So the path you call choice or decision is real but the splits in the path representing all the other possiblies are illusions. We can intellectually think of different outcomes but what we land on was always the outcome from the start.

Agreed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

.... so much for the further study of the convoluted environs of Ethics. You've found the Holy Grail of Morality, Bradskii !

Now, we can cancel our Ethics classes at all the universities, burn our books on Ethics, and go and relax and sleep soundly.

(Sorry, I just felt I had to give someone a ribbing this morning ... )

I see this thread is still going strong as a median point within a discussion on Ethics (rather than on Metaphysics), and I'm still trying to figure out why.

 

[DamianWarS]

Agreed.

Then morality is reduced to a pseudo binary choice of determined or non-determined. It doesn't matter how many variations there are because any possibility fits one of those categories. Of course since we always choose the determined choice we are always right.

 

[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.

Thanks for sharing that with me. I know it's off topic, I was just curious on your take. Any hoot, for me which is much deeper is to know where these actions come from? I can see that loving your neighbor would compel to help them. But most people are selfish and turn their backs on neighbors, homeless, Vets, people in need. I guess I can understand this behavior when times are tough and money is tight.

But what I can't understand when I see people in fancy cars and can afford to give a lending hand do not. They look at these people in need as scum, and non-human. That they deserve being poor, hungry because they got themselves there by their own actions. I see also a lot of rage on the streets for absolutely no reason at all.

For me Sin is a verifiable behavior that can be seen everyday. There's no escaping this. But why do we act like this? Nature or Nurture, the part must be present to work in the first place. The part is not installed later but already there. I'm talking about where is hate comes from; the corrupted heart.​

 

[Bradskii]

.... so much for the further study of the convoluted environs of Ethics. You've found the Holy Grail of Morality, Bradskii !

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

 

[Bradskii]

Then morality is reduced to a pseudo binary choice of determined or non-determined. It doesn't matter how many variations there are because any possibility fits one of those categories. Of course since we always choose the determined choice we are always right.

Why would we always make the right decision? We make the decision we prefer. But we might know it's not the morally acceptable one. The guy knows that stealing your wallet is wrong but he prefers to steal it. If he's caught and rehabilitated - shown the errors of his ways and accepts that he must change, then the next decision he makes in the same situation might be the right one.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why would we always make the right decision? We make the decision we prefer. But we might know it's not the morally acceptable one. The guy knows that stealing your wallet is wrong but he prefers to steal it. If he's caught and rehabilitated - shown the errors of his ways and accepts that he must change, then the next decision he makes in the same situation might be the right one.

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