Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

You didn't say that you didn't understand it cleary enough. You said that you didn't know what it was. Period. That was quite clearly wrong.

Ok I knew what your position was from your own words. But I didn't believe you. I didn't believe your position was coherent. Thats why I contested it.

I really don't care. I gave my position clearly and specifically. And I'm not interested in arguing for my position because this is a thread about free will. Not the differences between objective and subjective morality. Take that discussion elsewhere.

Ok so you want to exclude morality as well even though you literally cannot speak of free will without morality ie free will is about responsibility and accountability which bring moral deliberations in.

 

[Bradskii]

The most common used to rationalise alturism for example is there is some sort of feedback benefit from such behaviour.

So we'd do it for some sort of benefit. I did ask you to be specific. So what sort of benefit? Give an example.

Or our natural instinct to protect auch as a mother saving her child.

So the reason a woman would give her life for her child is because of a natural instinct. Now there may be other reasons but you have been quite specific about that one. We'll come back to it.

But that does'nt explain many situations where people sacrifice themselves for love or a greater cause than themselves. Thats the problem. Like natural selection it sounds good. Its logical. But it doesn't fit the reality.

So another reason is love for the person. Or they believe there's a greater cause worth sacrificing themselves for. We'll get back to both of those as well.

I think it is better that you give a reason and I show how this reason is inadequate for explaining whats actually happening. Otherwise everything I say you are going to dismiss it.

No, I like your reasons. They'd be ones I'd use myself. Now, are there any more or shall we just deal with the ones that you have given? More might be useful, because I'm not going to go through these and then you bring up another 3 or 4 ad nauseum. So these better be your best ones. I won't give you another opportunity.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok I knew what your position was from your own words...that's why I contested it.

No you did not. You specifically mistated my position, not contest it. And then when I corrected you and asked for you change it and gave you evidence for what I said, you specifically said that you didn't know. Please stop playing these childish games.

Ok so you want exclude morality as well even though you literally cannot speak of free will without morality.

The difference between objective and subjective morality is a topic for another thread. It's irrelevant for this topic because whether free will exists or not we can still offer our beliefs on what we think is right or wrong as it relates to punishing wrong doers. Again, whether that is an objective position or a relative one is irrelevant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Solving the rest of the world's, and everyone else's problems, is never as simple or easy as it seems, etc, and sometimes the hardest thing to do, is to not hardly do anything, or do next to nothing, etc.

God Bless.

I can't think of any government able to solve its own people's problems...we spent 20 years in Afghanistan and trillions of dollars trying to get any outcomes other than the one we got.

My entire life has been one series of politicians talking like ideologues promising the world to fools and delivering nothing or less than nothing.

We don't need ideologues. We don't need to solve poverty and anyone pushing a solution for "racism" appears to have only made racism worse. I would be ecstatic for a politician to just spill the beans for once to the US voter. No...we aren't going to solve climate change. It's not that we can't slow it down....we can, but we can't prevent it and keep modern technology. It won't happen. Even slowing it down requires something that has never happened in the history of mankind....it requires everyone everywhere agreeing to change their behavior and then doing so. Covid did more to prevent climate change than any government.

No, we don't fight moral wars for morally good reasons. There are no morally good reasons to travel abroad killing people. It's been over 100 years since anyone came to fight us....with the exception of maybe Pearl Harbor....and for that we annihilated two cities. If you don't have the stomach to do whatever it takes to win...don't sit down to eat at the war table. We didn't send people to Afghanistan to make sure the little girls get an education.

There's no economic models that benefit everyone. Why? Because that's like agreeing to play a game where no one wins or loses and then playing the game your entire life lol. Hard to imagine a bigger waste of time. All economic issues are trade offs...if we gain, someone somewhere else loses. That's it. That's all economics for all human history.

There are no human rights. There are natural rights (things that we believe that the government shouldn't interfere with like freedom of speech or belief or bearing arms) and civil rights (things we think the government should protect, like the right to vote or not be discriminated against for inherent characteristics that don't matter). In both cases, they either apply to all people of a nation or they aren't a right. No...a movement where black people want to be treated differently by the police because they are black isn't a civil rights movement. They can argue that they wanted to be treated the same...anything else is going to be special privileges. Sorry but those words have meanings.

We don't elect morally good people....by the very nature of their job they cannot possibly behave morally as you or me or really anyone sees morality. Just as you had a set of morals when you were only responsible for yourself...and those changed once you got married or had children...the number of people you are responsible for the well being of changes the things you are willing to do for them. Imagine yourself responsible for 340 million people who have put you in charge of their well being....if you hold the same moral views as you did when you were only responsible for yourself, you're going to fail horribly. From the moral viewpoint of a single man responsible for no one else....politicians are demonic monsters. From the viewpoint of a man responsible for a large family? They're just morally bereft and corrupt evil doers. From the viewpoint of a head of a multinational corporate conglomerate that employs hundreds of thousands and provides vital services to more...they are just sort of bad sometimes. The view of the top from the bottom is as wildly different as the view of the bottom from the very tippy top. They know this even if the voter doesn't, and that's why you are always lied to.

What else....oh, any movement that only has a complaint without a solution isn't good enough at identifying problems and solutions to bother giving any support to. That's a generally useful rule of thumb. If a guy kneels for the anthem because he's against "police brutality" he's not deserving of a medal and a Nike commercial. He's just wasting everyone's time for his own image.

Oh, whenever the media calls something "political analysis" it's almost certainly an editorial. Whenever someone tells you "their truth" they're just giving you an opinion. Whenever someone wants you to believe an entire category of people on a claim or set of claims they don't have much or any evidence for....they will typically call you a bigot if you disagree....but that doesn't actually make anyone a bigot. Asking for evidence of a claim is entirely reasonable if you're expected to just believe it....not even if you are being asked to do something about it. If you are being asked to do something about the claim....you can also reasonably ask why the change in your behavior is at all necessary or better than not changing. This also doesn't make anyone a bigot.

No...education is not the same as indoctrination. Only authoritarian fools believe their opinions are factual....or their ideology is without flaws. Indoctrination teaches opinions and unproven theories as facts. Indoctrination teaches beliefs and possibilities as certainties. It offers no methods of knowledge other than expertise and firsthand experience. It claims expertise in everything that it merely believes or holds opinions on. Indoctrination is a real threat to democracy, as it inevitably leads to a one party system where no one can question the authorities of the party on anything...for they are the "experts."

 

[Ana the Ist]

No you did not. You specifically mistated my position, not contest it. And then when I corrected you and asked for you change it and gave you evidence for what I said, you specifically said that you didn't know. Please stop playing these childish games.

The difference between objective and subjective morality is a topic for another thread. It's irrelevant for this topic because whether free will exists or not we can still offer our beliefs on what we think is right or wrong as it relates to punishing wrong doers. Again, whether that is an objective position or a relative one is irrelevant.

You don't even have subjective morality as a determinist. You have the illusion of subjective morality. It's bizarre to claim that morals are based on preferences....especially when you haven't experienced them. You prefer that people aren't murdered? How would you know without murdering anyone or getting murdered?

You may just prefer it if you tried it.

 

[Neogaia777]

I agree with @Bradskii, our discussion of morals, and morality here has gotten this thread off-topic, and I'd like to redirect the conversation/discussion back to determinism if we can?

So, maybe we should start by discussing which there is more evidence for right now, etc?

Evidence for determinism is that everything from the atom up can be shown to be deterministic for the most part, etc, so what is the evidence for free will, and/or against?

Any starters?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

How we got into a discussion about morality is that some of you seem to think that you can't have morals or morality if determinism is true, but that is not the case, etc.

So if you want to show us how one can't maybe, then maybe we can discuss just that aspect of it maybe, but let's not take this thread to far off-topic in the process, etc.

The subject is determinism and not determinism or else free will here, and not morality, etc.

Morality can be discussed in another thread, etc, as it needs it's own thread anyway, etc, because there is just too much to discuss when it comes to the topic of morality, etc.

But this thread is supposed to be about determinism and free will, etc, so let's not take it/that too far off-topic in this thread, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'll posit something to hopefully try to get this thread back on topic, etc.

Can anyone make a different choice if he or she could go back to any situation or circumstance being the exact same person they were back then and with the exact same conditions/circumstances/factors present and make a different choice or choose differently ever?

Yes or No?

And if the answer to that is "no", or if they can't, then does that mean they didn't really choose, and there was only ever really one choice? Or only one way it could ever can happen or go ever, etc?

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

How we got into a discussion about morality is that some of you seem to think that you can't have morals or morality if determinism is true, but that is not the case, etc.

So if you want to show us how one can't maybe...

Unfortunately, the argument has been used in reverse. That we have morality, therefore we must have free will. But the argument is worthless as those who contend that there is no free will do not deny that morality exists anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

I'll posit something to hopefully try to get this thread back on topic, etc.

Can anyone make a different choice if he or she could go back to any situation or circumstance being the exact same person they were back then and with the exact same conditions/circumstances/factors present and make a different choice or choose differently ever?

Yes or No?

And if the answer to that is "no", or if they can't, then does that mean they didn't really choose, and there was only ever really one choice? Or only one way it could ever can happen or go ever, etc?

God Bless.

In my experience, some of those in this thread who have a difficulty with the concept of determinism also have a difficulty with hypotheticals. As in 'but you can never recreate the exact conditions'.

Just preparing you for that, is all.

 

[Neogaia777]

In my experience, some of those in this thread who have a difficulty with the concept of determinism also have a difficulty with hypotheticals. As in 'but you can never recreate the exact conditions'.

Just preparing you for that, is all.

I'm hoping and praying that they can theorize, and follow logic and reason.

Right now determinism is the only logical conclusion right now currently, and our job right now, is to try and get them to see that clearly, etc.

But some (many probably) are still going to insist that they have their own free will anyway, and that everyone does, etc.

But it's born out of pure selfishness and rebelliousness, and their own just not wanting to accept it for a lot of "other reasons" that are all ultimately sinful, or are extremely selfish, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm hoping and praying that they can theorize, and follow logic and reason.

Right now determinism is the only logical conclusion right now currently, and our job right now, is to try and get them to see that clearly, etc.

You and @FrumiousBandersnatch are doing great work. But to no avail. I started this thread to test my own arguments, hope for some decent rebuttals that maybe I hadn't come across before and perhaps, just perhaps, try to to persuade someone to realise in some way that I was right. In that last endeavour it's been a complete failure.

That doesn't make me think I'm wrong. Far from it. Some of the arguments against what we have presented have exhibited the paucity of the opposing position (sorry to all those who have put those arguments forward, but I'm being honest) and have served to convince me I'm right. I just need to readdress what arguments we are using and try to work out why they aren't working.

That, at least, has been a big plus.

 

[Neogaia777]

In my experience, some of those in this thread who have a difficulty with the concept of determinism also have a difficulty with hypotheticals. As in 'but you can never recreate the exact conditions'.

Just preparing you for that, is all.

I'm hoping and praying that they can theorize, and follow logic and reason.

Right now determinism is the only logical conclusion right now currently, and our job right now, is to try and get them to see that clearly, etc.

But some (many probably) are still going to insist that they have their own free will anyway, and that everyone does, etc.

But it's born out of pure selfishness and rebelliousness, and their own just not wanting to accept it for a lot of "other reasons" that are all ultimately sinful, or are extremely selfish, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

I think a lot of people's resistance to it, is they don't want to be humbled by it, which is why I say that it is ultimately sinful, and selfish.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And try to work out why they aren't working.

See my last post. Because while there are probably a lot of other reasons, what I just said is what I think is the main one. People don't like being or feeling "small", etc.

That, at least, has been a big plus.

I'm very, very glad that you have benefitted from them at least.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

See my last post. Because while there are probably a lot of other reasons, what I just said is what I think is the main one. People don't like being or feeling "small", etc.

I'm very, very glad that you have benefitted from them at least.

Take Care/God Bless.

@Bradskii

Oh, and other one, besides not wanting to be humbled by it, or feeling small, is "control" also, etc. Generally people don't like to ever feel or admit that they are not always in total or full control also, etc. Their own choices/destiny is what they make of it, and no one else's, etc. All rooted in "pride", etc

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

No, he assumes it right out of the gate.

You're the one who brought up Mere Christianity. It's a Christian book written by a Christian. He's giving the traditional Christian view. What would you expect?

He's talking about emotional love as well as emotions such as joy.

'...love or goodness or joy worth having.'

You can't make a conscious decision to feel love or joy.

But that doesn't address the point being made. You had no free will in deciding to love the woman. And you had no free will in feeling betrayed when you found that the love wasn't reciprocated. None at all. None whatsoever.

I've never heard anyone claim that every human experience or action is willed. I don't think I can will myself to be sleepy or hungry. If a bee stings me I'll probably say "ouch!" suddenly without having consciously willed myself to say it.

Nevertheless, as I said, Lewis is correct as pertains to the Christian understanding of the highest love - agape. The ancient Greek word has the simultaneous double meaning of feeling love, and "doing" love. Feeling an emotion may not require will, but doing something does.

You may or may not be familiar with what's sometimes called "the love chapter" in the book of Corinthians. It's often read at weddings in America even where those being wed are only nominal Christians just because it's lovely. I bring it up because the word "love" is used many times there, and what's interesting is that in English it will sometimes be translated as "love" and sometimes as "charity". And I mention that to point out that love may be an emotion, but charity is not. Charity is action, which requires will.

When Jesus tells us to love our neighbor and love our enemy, he's not telling us to try and feel a certain way, he's telling us how to treat them. And when scripture teaches us that we should help the needy, the sick, prisoners, widows, etc., we're not being told to feel something about them, we being told to do something, which requires will.

 

[Chesterton]

And I'm reminded of a quite brilliant film with Ryan Gosling called 'Lars And The Girl'. He plays a young guy in a small town who is socially inept and crushingly lonely who sends away for a realistic female 'friend'. And introduces her as his new love. Everyone is embarressed but they realise that he needs help so they all gradually go along with it. And it turns out that he does love his new girl and people come to respect what he feels.

No spoilers, but the point is that he did fall in love with his new girl. And he couldn't help it. We can see that it's real even if at some level he might know she's not.

There were no free will decisions. He couldn't help his feelings and neither could his friends and neighbours.

I ask you about a real life hypothetical, and you give me...a fictional comedy...about a man with one or more mental disorders.

 

[Bradskii]

You're the one who brought up Mere Christianity. It's a Christian book written by a Christian. He's giving the traditional Christian view. What would you expect?

I didn't expect anything different.

I've never heard anyone claim that every human experience or action is willed.

Me neither. But I know some who say that it's all determined.

When Jesus tells us to love our neighbor and love our enemy, he's not telling us to try and feel a certain way, he's telling us how to treat them.

Very early on in the thread it was mentioned that treating people well because it has been circumstances over which they had no control that have resulted in their actions tied in nicely with what Jesus was asking us to do.

 

[Bradskii]

I ask you about a real life hypothetical, and you give me...a fictional comedy...about a man with one or more mental disorders.

I responded to your hypothetical. Do you want to comment on that?

 

[stevevw]

So we'd do it for some sort of benefit. I did ask you to be specific. So what sort of benefit? Give an example.

Ok, I thought that was common knowledge. For example some sort of survival advantage. All behaviour is an extended phenotype ultimately. Which seems to go with all processes are mechanical and programmed.

So morality was evolved because it had some benefit for the group like cooperation. Altruism would be the same. It provides some survival benefit to pass on genes which is ultimately the cause. So any example along those lines. It doesn't matter which as theres a reductionist rationale for all behaviour.

But this reductionist explanation doesn't fit the reality. Funny a bit like free will.

So the reason a woman would give her life for her child is because of a natural instinct. Now there may be other reasons but you have been quite specific about that one. We'll come back to it.

So another reason is love for the person. Or they believe there's a greater cause worth sacrificing themselves for. We'll get back to both of those as well.

No, I like your reasons. They'd be ones I'd use myself. Now, are there any more or shall we just deal with the ones that you have given? More might be useful, because I'm not going to go through these and then you bring up another 3 or 4 ad nauseum. So these better be your best ones. I won't give you another opportunity.

Maybe just one more. I think 'Belief' is another reason. If theres one thing that motivates people to give their life for another its belief. In fact I would say it is the greatest motivator.

That way we have 'natural instinct', 'love' as an emotion and more psychological and 'belief' which is spiritual. This covers the different dimensions of humans.

It only has to be 1 example from each.

I have given examples from natural instincts that all behaviour is ultimately an extended phenotype based on genes and natural selection. For example morality and altruism have a survival advantage such that helps communities cooperate and remain ordered and safe. Which ultimately traces back to the passing on of genes.

So basically any example like stealing. Society frowns down on stealing because not stealing keeps society ordered. Being ordered makes a more stable society with a better chance of not destroying themselves and possibly going extinct lol. Theres a bit more to it. But all reasoning will be about NS and genes ultimately.

But as I said I disagree with this view and believe its an unfounded assumption based on the evidence. Which strangly enough suggest agency. Even in evolution. How dare they.