Free will and determinism

[Chesterton]

Yes, it is falsifiable. Show me an event without a cause. It's really that simple.

That's impossible. Whatever I could show you, you'd just say "there's a cause, we just don't know it yet". I could show you quantum tunneling, or any of the four fundamental physical forces, and you'd have to say there is an unknown cause, not because there has to be a cause, but because that's your firm belief.

If two people under the same conditions grow up with different characteristics then not everything was exactly the same. That's patently obvious. If someone is brought up in ideal circumstances but turns out bad then there was a reason for that happening. May be you could offer some and we could examine them.

I could not examine them. I'm not a physicist. I don't know how the atoms move around in their brains. But it's certainly interesting that physicists and neurologists and psychiatrists can't tell us why one person is good and another is very bad.

I'd say it's because you miss them. I'm not sure what that has to do with free will.

But you compared depression with physical pain. You can remove your hand from a hot stove, but you can't keep loved ones from dying.

Plants aren't social creatures. Empathy is important to those who are social. We need to know what others are thinking and what they are likely to decide to do.

There is some scientific evidence that plants are social. Some will warn other plants when an attacking insect is in their midst.

Working out all the possible conditions and trying to determine the outcome is too hard. There's a short cut. Assume that the other person is making a free will decision (just like we think we are) and base it on that. It's handy for retribution as well. He stole a loaf of bread? Well, that was his decision, so on his head be it. Hang him.

Do we want to continue like that?

So life works better when you just assume the reality of free will. Isn't that convenient? Kind of like saying "I don't believe in aspirin, but I've noticed that when I take it the headache goes away, so I'll just take it and pretend to believe in it".

In some social animals there is a hierarchy. Chimps, lions, gorillas...you don't take the bosses food.

You take the bosses food and mates as soon as you can. Soon as he's older and weaker.

And c'mon, if taking someone else's hard earned food, shelter, money was rife then society wouldn't exist.

You've apparently never heard of something called "the government".

Not the universe. The evolutionary process. Take out the freeloaders and life is easier. You already know this. If one guy in your group never buys a round then he stops getting invited to the pub. If he's found stealing from the group then the retribution might be a little more physical. This is so common it needs no further explanation.

Okay so the universe isn't interested in retribution, but the evolutionary process is interested in fairness. I've never heard that before.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm currently reading a book on consciousness by Anil Seth - 'Being You'. And I literally just finished one chapter where he touched on free will and he concluded by saying the following. I thought it might be apropos:

'Einstein stated in a 1929 interview that because he didn’t believe in free will he took credit for nothing. It is also a mistake to call the experience of volition an illusion. These experiences are perceptual best guesses, as real as any other kind of conscious perception, whether of the world or of the self.

A conscious intention is as real as a visual experience of colour. Neither corresponds directly to any definite property of the world – there is no ‘real red’ or ‘real blue’ out there, just as there is no spooky free will in here – but they both contribute in important ways to guiding our behaviour, and both are constrained by prior beliefs and sensory data.

Whereas colour experiences construct features of the world around us, experiences of volition have the metaphysically subversive content that the ‘self’ has causal influence in the world. We project causal power into our experiences of volition in just the same way that we project redness into our perceptions of surfaces. Knowing that this projection is going on – to channel Wittgenstein one more time – both changes everything and leaves everything just the same.

Experiences of volition are not only real, they are indispensable to our survival. They are self-fulfilling perceptual inferences that bring about voluntary actions. Without these experiences, we would not be able to navigate the complex environments in which we humans thrive, nor would we be able to learn from previous voluntary actions in order to do better the next time.'

This person talks like a politician. Instead of saying "volition is real", Seth says "experiences of volition are real". What's the difference? If I smash my thumb with a hammer, both the experience of pain and the pain itself are real.

The Wittgenstein comment is true. Realising that there is no free will changes our perception of our place in the universe completely. But then...in a practical sense, hardly anything changes at all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it could potentially change things in the future. Adolf Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer were influenced by philosophy and science.

 

[Bradskii]

That's impossible. Whatever I could show you, you'd just say "there's a cause, we just don't know it yet". I could show you quantum tunneling, or any of the four fundamental physical forces...

This is a discussion about free will. Which is meant to take place up here in the macro world. That's where I want the decision for no reason. Or the event without a cause.

I could not examine them. I'm not a physicist. I don't know how the atoms move around in their brains. But it's certainly interesting that physicists and neurologists and psychiatrists can't tell us why one person is good and another is very bad.

We can look at his upbringing, personality traits, medical history, genetic history. And your ACE score (Adverse Childhood Experience is an excellent guide to how you'll turn out. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854820975455

But you compared depression with physical pain. You can remove your hand from a hot stove, but you can't keep loved ones from dying.

Some things you can't change.

So life works better when you just assume the reality of free will.

It did. When everyone thought they had it. It now works better if you understand that they don't.

Okay so the universe isn't interested in retribution, but the evolutionary process is interested in fairness. I've never heard that before.

I thought it was relatively common knowledge. Maybe it's just that I've read so much about it... I won't link a specific paper but just Google 'Evolution of fairness' and there's plenty of reading material.

 

[Bradskii]

This person talks like a politician. Instead of saying "volition is real", Seth says "experiences of volition are real". What's the difference? If I smash my thumb with a hammer, both the experience of pain and the pain itself are real.

The damage is real. Is the pain real? If you now feel the pain in a foot that was amputated months ago is it real?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it could potentially change things in the future. Adolf Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer were influenced by philosophy and science.

We all are. Whether we can justify some action or other using either of those is another matter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think desires are necessary.

They can be, but aren't necessarily.

Ah, OK. When you said, "The autonomous car does not have free will because, with humans, "will" indicates desire", I took that to suggest that desire was necessary for free will. I'm not sure how else to parse it...

And this is why the two door example is so useful.. The room is devoid of stimuli apart from a light source. There's no distinguishing difference between door left and door right apart from relative position. Without any food source or means of waste disposal....any desire to leave the room that isn't present initially can be reasonably assumed to manifest eventually. Despite all the internal, genetic, and deep psychological facets of personality inherent in genetics....I've never heard of one that results in a preference for "left"or "right" in the abstract....particularly when both choices appear to have an equal potential to fulfill the desire to leave the room. It's certainly possible that some such preference exists....but because I can't feel it (particularly because I cannot feel it, it never enters the conscious choice being made) so it's not obvious that it's going to affect the outcome so significantly that it's a certain outcome every time....you know, if such a preference exists on a subconscious level.

If a door was selected, then either it was prompted by some preference or it was random (including pseudo-random, e.g. thermal noise or chaotic activity in the brain). I already suggested some reasons for preference (e.g. handedness).

 

[Chesterton]

This is a discussion about free will. Which is meant to take place up here in the macro world. That's where I want the decision for no reason. Or the event without a cause.

But you're the one who believes his thoughts are determined solely by physics, by the cause and effect of particles and sub-atomic particles. You're the one who believes he's just an amalgamation of particles and not a person in any traditional sense of the word.

But if you want macro world, look into Stephen Paddock, perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in American history. Despite exhaustive investigation by every federal and state agency you can think of, no reason for the shooting can be found. Maybe you can use the Adverse Childhood Experience to determine what the cause was.

We can look at his upbringing, personality traits, medical history, genetic history. And your ACE score (Adverse Childhood Experience is an excellent guide to how you'll turn out. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854820975455

That's wonderful. Now we can prevent all crime. Why haven't we done that?

Some things you can't change.

So your point about avoiding the situation fails.

It did. When everyone thought they had it. It now works better if you understand that they don't.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

I thought it was relatively common knowledge. Maybe it's just that I've read so much about it... I won't link a specific paper but just Google 'Evolution of fairness' and there's plenty of reading material.

I searched "evolution of fairness" and found several articles which state that we certainly have a sense of fairness, but state nothing about how it evolved. Maybe you could give me a short version of how it evolved?

The damage is real. Is the pain real? If you now feel the pain in a foot that was amputated months ago is it real?

Of course it's real. If I watch a film with a very sad scene and start to cry, my sadness is completely real even though I'm fully aware that the story and the characters are fictional.

You can't analyze humans by divorcing yourself from being human.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In my reply I anticipated something about a "weird use of semantics", but I wasn't expecting something this weird. You're giving a private definition of "desire" that would apply to my kitchen toaster, to trees, rivers, rocks and everything physical. By your logic, if I drop a rock on a slope, the rock desires to roll downhill.

I didn't intend it to mean Aristotelian teleology; it's usually associated with things we view as autonomous agents, i.e. that have internal goals.

But where you draw the line is an interesting philosophical & semantic question - if it's a 'need', it could apply to all living things; if it's a 'want', the interpretation is ambiguous - you could say a plant 'wants' to find water and light, but Dennett would say this is the 'intentional stance' (anthropomorphism). If desire involves emotion, then we must look at animals capable of emotion... wasps are said to become angry if you disturb their nest - is this emotion? Does a wasp desire your sandwich at a picnic? Do frogs in mating frenzy desire to mate? Does a dog desire its master's approval? Or is desire, by definition, something that only humans have? - if so, then only humans have free will, by definition...

This ambiguity is why I said the car has prioritised goals that are 'the equivalent of desires'. You're welcome to argue that they're not, and a car clearly doesn't have emotions, but if what counts is the accomplishment of internal goals, I don't think it matters much whether the motivation is from emotional or functional priorities.

Can the car, which has been programmed by human minds, make a wrong decision? Is it free to run out of fuel intentionally? I ask because last week I determined that I would lose some weight by dieting, and an hour later I ate two large slices of cheesecake. Can the car drive off a cliff and commit suicide, without having been programmed by human minds to have that choice?

I deliberately chose an autonomous car as the simplest example of something that seemed to satisfy your original criteria for free will, i.e. having "a possibility of choosing differently between at least 2 options". It obviously doesn't have complex enough internal states to give the flexibility to do all that humans can do - but it can learn from experience, which enables it to adjust its decision-making to avoid inefficient choices and make more efficient choices. One could see this as avoiding 'bad' choices and making 'better' choices.

If some algorithmic bug becomes apparent in rare circumstances, or it receives incorrect input data from sensors or Google maps () it might do something that results in a terminal crash or being stranded without fuel. One might consider this a simplistic version of the issues that might result in a human making a wrong decision or failing to achieve a long-term goal because the motivation for a short-term goal proved stronger, or even becoming so confused that suicide seems like the best means to achieve a goal (peace, avoiding unhappiness, etc). Simple motivations vs complex motivations...

The car will do specific things in specific circumstances. It's just that circumstances change, and the car adapts accordingly.

This is what I'd call an argument from complexity, and it's fallacious because although the car is much more complex, it is at bottom no different from my electric toaster.

I disagree - there is an important difference, your toaster doesn't have multiple goals and doesn't learn through experience. The argument from complexity is based on emergence - emergent behaviours are qualitatively different from that of their constituent elements, they follow different behavioural rules and are described with different language (including the language of agency). For example, flocking, shoaling, swarming, colony & crowd behaviours, traffic flow, market dynamics, neural networks, and cellular automata (such as Conway's Game of Life).

As with two other posters in this thread, you have no argument for determinism other than a bald assertion, based on a belief in materialism. "As far as we can tell, everything operates according to laws of physics, therefore the human mind must also." But you've no evidence or argument that this is the case. And I would have thought with the discovery of QM people would be a little more open-minded.

I try to be guided by the evidence, and all the scientific evidence we have points to effective macro-scale determinism from quantum-scale indeterminism. If the non-physical or immaterial is not necessary to explain what happens in the world, it is redundant (until demonstrated otherwise). The only outstanding inexplicable is subjective experience itself (the 'Hard Problem'), which, whether epiphenomenal or part of the decision-making process, relies on information from internal and external senses & processes.

This is all open to new evidence and/or reasoned argument, so I'd be happy to hear some.

 

[Bradskii]

But you're the one who believes his thoughts are determined solely by physics, by the cause and effect of particles and sub-atomic particles. You're the one who believes he's just an amalgamation of particles and not a person in any traditional sense of the word.

There may be what we'd describe as random events at the deepest of levels. But whatever happens waaay down where the physics is almost counterintuitive, by the time it filters up to where we live and my guitar string breaks or it starts to rain, or someone decides to break into your house, that is deterministic. Cause and event. A then B. IF this THEN that.

But if you want macro world, look into Stephen Paddock, perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in American history. Despite exhaustive investigation by every federal and state agency you can think of, no reason for the shooting can be found. Maybe you can use the Adverse Childhood Experience to determine what the cause was.

We can generally determine what caused someone to commit such a crime. Paddock is an exception that seems to prove the rule.

That's wonderful. Now we can prevent all crime. Why haven't we done that?

Lack of will. Lack of knowledge. Lack of money. Ensuring that every child has a good ACE score, that is - has been raised in a good environment with loving parents, good education, a healthy diet etc...that will go a long way to prevent people going off the rails. There's no doubt about that. But it's a monstrous change to every level of society.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

Look at the Norway experiment in treating convicted people with respect. Giving them access to comfortable cells with access to TV, the internet, gyms etc. The recidivism rate crops spectacularly. From here: How Norway turns criminals into good neighbours

'When Are Hoidal first began his career in the Norwegian Correctional service in the early 1980s, the prison experience here was altogether different.

"It was completely hard," he remembers. "It was a masculine, macho culture with a focus on guarding and security. And the recidivism rate was around 60-70%, like in the US."

And since our big reforms, recidivism in Norway has fallen to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years. So this works!"

This is where that acceptance that we have no free will leads. It's not a particular inmate's fault that he started robbing people. There were reasons which he could not control. So don't bang him up in awful conditions as retributive punishment. Try to get him to accept that what he did was wrong. Try to change his mind. Take him off the streets to protect people until he does. But only until he does.

Now a lot of people would baulk at that. Certainly a hundred or so years ago the punishment was entirely retributive. Make it harsh. Make them suffer! That's what they deserve! There was no conception of what the Norwegians are doing. So suggesting to someone that they shouldn't be punished because they committed a crime due to reasons beyond their control simply wouldn't work. Very few people indeed would have suggested that we had no free will - those being robbed thought the criminal had free will and were morally responsible and even the criminal accepted that he was. So there weren't any other options. So you accepted that people were responsible and acted accordingly. That's the way the world worked.

Now we know - or at least a few more of us know, that that isn't how it works. So we can look for different ways as to how we treat people. We can, like the Norwegians, change the process.

I searched "evolution of fairness" and found several articles which state that we certainly have a sense of fairness, but state nothing about how it evolved. Maybe you could give me a short version of how it evolved?

This one is fairly brief: https://theconversation.com/the-human-race-evolved-to-be-fair-for-selfish-reasons-31874

Of course it's real.

If I hold a flame to your foot then you'll feel pain. If I ask you what is causing that pain then you'll say it's the damage the flame is causing to your foot. If your foot literally doesn't exist then there are no nerves sending messages to your brain. But what you feel if your actual foot is burning is the same as the imaginary pain that you feel if it doesn't exist.

If there's no difference, and the missing foot pain is not real then why would we say that the other pain is real? Most people would say (as per your film example) that if you are sad you therefore cry. But there is an argument that says that crying is an automatic response and we then call that being sad.

 

[Chesterton]

I didn't intend it to mean Aristotelian teleology; it's usually associated with things we view as autonomous agents, i.e. that have internal goals.

But where you draw the line is an interesting philosophical & semantic question - if it's a 'need', it could apply to all living things; if it's a 'want', the interpretation is ambiguous - you could say a plant 'wants' to find water and light, but Dennett would say this is the 'intentional stance' (anthropomorphism). If desire involves emotion, then we must look at animals capable of emotion... wasps are said to become angry if you disturb their nest - is this emotion? Does a wasp desire your sandwich at a picnic? Do frogs in mating frenzy desire to mate? Does a dog desire its master's approval? Or is desire, by definition, something that only humans have? - if so, then only humans have free will, by definition...

You make a good point about the semantics involved there. If someone said a plant wants water, it could be taken as a "figure of speech", or maybe it's really true. But I decline to speculate on the level of plant consciousness, if any.

The important distinction between plants/animals and the car is that the car was intelligently designed by human intelligence, and the living things were not. The car does exactly what it is told to do by other agents, and that includes its "learning" (although I think the more accurate term would be "fine tuning" rather than "learning").

This ambiguity is why I said the car has prioritised goals that are 'the equivalent of desires'. You're welcome to argue that they're not, and a car clearly doesn't have emotions, but if what counts is the accomplishment of internal goals, I don't think it matters much whether the motivation is from emotional or functional priorities.

I disagree because a goal is something you strive for, it's not something you simply do. For example, I breathe every moment of every day. Breathing is not a goal for me (unless someone's choking me, lol). Saying that an inanimate thing has goals is, again, like saying if I strike a billiard ball, the ball has a goal of setting itself in motion.

I deliberately chose an autonomous car as the simplest example of something that seemed to satisfy your original criteria for free will, i.e. having "a possibility of choosing differently between at least 2 options".

I believe that was another poster, but okay, that's good enough.

It obviously doesn't have complex enough internal states to give the flexibility to do all that humans can do - but it can learn from experience, which enables it to adjust its decision-making to avoid inefficient choices and make more efficient choices. One could see this as avoiding 'bad' choices and making 'better' choices.

But where did the car get the "ideas" of bad or better? From the human minds, who programmed it to always choose the better. Therefore, it's not free.

If some algorithmic bug becomes apparent in rare circumstances, or it receives incorrect input data from sensors or Google maps () it might do something that results in a terminal crash or being stranded without fuel. One might consider this a simplistic version of the issues that might result in a human making a wrong decision or failing to achieve a long-term goal because the motivation for a short-term goal proved stronger, or even becoming so confused that suicide seems like the best means to achieve a goal (peace, avoiding unhappiness, etc). Simple motivations vs complex motivations...

So the car could make a bad decision if the decision is dictated by a bug or bad data. Again, therefore not free.

And again, the problem of the bald assertion - simply declaring the human is like the car, with no evidence for it.

I disagree - there is an important difference, your toaster doesn't have multiple goals and doesn't learn through experience.

I don't see how that's an important difference.

The argument from complexity is based on emergence - emergent behaviours are qualitatively different from that of their constituent elements, they follow different behavioural rules and are described with different language (including the language of agency). For example, flocking, shoaling, swarming, colony & crowd behaviours, traffic flow, market dynamics, neural networks, and cellular automata (such as Conway's Game of Life).

As I stated to another poster, I don't accept "emergence" as anything other than a weasel word.

I try to be guided by the evidence, and all the scientific evidence we have points to effective macro-scale determinism from quantum-scale indeterminism.

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the question of free will.

If the non-physical or immaterial is not necessary to explain what happens in the world, it is redundant (until demonstrated otherwise). The only outstanding inexplicable is subjective experience itself (the 'Hard Problem'), which, whether epiphenomenal or part of the decision-making process, relies on information from internal and external senses & processes.

With all due respect, I think it's not that the non-physical is unnecessary for explanation, but that a determinist doesn't want it to be necessary. A determinist who's an atheist can't logically allow for that, and they're so determined to avoid it that you get intelligent men like Dennett and Sam Harris saying absurd things like consciousness is an illusion and reality's an illusion, and next thing you know they're standing on the verge of solipsism.

This is all open to new evidence and/or reasoned argument, so I'd be happy to hear some.

Were you born a determinist, or did reason guide you to this belief?

 

[Chesterton]

There may be what we'd describe as random events at the deepest of levels. But whatever happens waaay down where the physics is almost counterintuitive, by the time it filters up to where we live and my guitar string breaks or it starts to rain, or someone decides to break into your house, that is deterministic. Cause and event. A then B. IF this THEN that.

But don't you think human consciousness is "at the deepest levels"? According to you it's manifested by the particles, but it's not something macro you can hold in your hand like a guitar string.

Lack of will. Lack of knowledge. Lack of money. Ensuring that every child has a good ACE score, that is - has been raised in a good environment with loving parents, good education, a healthy diet etc...that will go a long way to prevent people going off the rails. There's no doubt about that. But it's a monstrous change to every level of society.

Well I agree. Making everything good would be a monstrous change. But it'd probably be worth it.

Look at the Norway experiment in treating convicted people with respect. Giving them access to comfortable cells with access to TV, the internet, gyms etc. The recidivism rate crops spectacularly. From here: How Norway turns criminals into good neighbours

Yes, I'm aware of Norway's prisons. In fact, that's my retirement plan. I don't bother with saving and investing, I'm just going to become a Norwegian citizen, then commit some felonies there. I'll be well taken care of. The prisoners there have the latest gaming consoles, and I'm still using Atari.

'When Are Hoidal first began his career in the Norwegian Correctional service in the early 1980s, the prison experience here was altogether different.

"It was completely hard," he remembers. "It was a masculine, macho culture with a focus on guarding and security. And the recidivism rate was around 60-70%, like in the US."

And since our big reforms, recidivism in Norway has fallen to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years. So this works!"

This is where that acceptance that we have no free will leads. It's not a particular inmate's fault that he started robbing people. There were reasons which he could not control. So don't bang him up in awful conditions as retributive punishment. Try to get him to accept that what he did was wrong. Try to change his mind. Take him off the streets to protect people until he does. But only until he does.

Now a lot of people would baulk at that. Certainly a hundred or so years ago the punishment was entirely retributive. Make it harsh. Make them suffer! That's what they deserve! There was no conception of what the Norwegians are doing. So suggesting to someone that they shouldn't be punished because they committed a crime due to reasons beyond their control simply wouldn't work. Very few people indeed would have suggested that we had no free will - those being robbed thought the criminal had free will and were morally responsible and even the criminal accepted that he was. So there weren't any other options. So you accepted that people were responsible and acted accordingly. That's the way the world worked.

Now we know - or at least a few more of us know, that that isn't how it works. So we can look for different ways as to how we treat people. We can, like the Norwegians, change the process.

Do I need to remind you that you are a determinist? How every man will behave was decreed at the Big Bang, and nothing can change that, because the means used is physics. You can't change physics. (I'm starting to see why some might say there's some woo involved in determinism.)

This one is fairly brief: https://theconversation.com/the-human-race-evolved-to-be-fair-for-selfish-reasons-31874

Bad link. The article's not there.

If there's no difference, and the missing foot pain is not real...

I said the pain is real.

 

[Bradskii]

But don't you think human consciousness is "at the deepest levels"?

No. There's no quantum 'woo' involved. It's simple awareness of the self.

Well I agree. Making everything good would be a monstrous change. But it'd probably be worth it.

I think it would help if we didn't blame others for the predicament they find themselves in.

Yes, I'm aware of Norway's prisons. In fact, that's my retirement plan. I don't bother with saving and investing, I'm just going to become a Norwegian citizen, then commit some felonies there. I'll be well taken care of. The prisoners there have the latest gaming consoles, and I'm still using Atari.

I hope the wi-fi is good.

Do I need to remind you that you are a determinist? How every man will behave was decreed at the Big Bang, and nothing can change that, because the means used is physics. You can't change physics.

You can't change physics. But you use physics to change the world in which we live. Let's go back to punishment.

I recognise good from bad. You don't need free will for that. Someone steals something of mine and I'm going to be upset even though there's a little voice in my head saying 'Hey, it was determined. Things have just worked out that way'. I've suffered a loss and I don't want it to happen again.

Then they catch the guy. If it's likely that he is going to do it again, then our first priority is to protect others. So he's excluded from society for a while. Our second priority is to try to ensure that he changes his ways. So we change his situation to try to ensure that happens. We physically change the antecedent conditions. Now we can go the nuclear option and start cutting off hands or hanging people for stealing bread - that will certainly change some people's minds. But me? I'd go in the opposite direction and use the Norwegian option. Why? Well, it appears to work.

For those that don't change (there'll always be some) then we keep locking them up for longer periods.

Bad link. The article's not there.

Sorry. A glitch in the matrix: The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons

I said the pain is real.

You certainly think it's real.

 

[Chesterton]

No. There's no quantum 'woo' involved. It's simple awareness of the self.

If you can explain how awareness of the self is simple, congratulations on the Nobel Prize you'll receive.

You can't change physics. But you use physics to change the world in which we live.

You're not a very good determinist. Whatever is used, was predestined to be used. And the bad men who change would have changed anyway. The bad men who don't change would not have changed anyway.

Let's go back to punishment.

Let's not until we get this free will question settled. Punishment and rehabilitation and all that stuff are immoral and absurd concepts under the determinist view.

I recognise good from bad.

Of course you do, because you're also not a very good atheist.

Sorry. A glitch in the matrix: The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons

Oftentimes, a problem with evolutionary psychology is that it gives explanations which, if true, should not need to be studied in search of explanation. If we behave fairly for the reasons stated in that article, it would be obvious, well known and openly acknowledged by everyone. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, no scientists have had to study why we engage in personal hygiene, because the explanation is obvious.

More importantly, we were talking about the "sense of fairness", not the practice of fairness. If a monkey pulls a rope and gets one banana, and the other does the same and gets two bananas, why is that unfair? What does fair mean? The first monkey got a free banana just for pulling a rope. He should be happy about that.

And a hypothetical: I'm a large, strong man stranded on a desert island with two petite women in the 1700's. There's a very limited supply of food, and we're always hungry. I'm from North America, and the women are from China and Russia. If we were to be rescued, I'd never see them again, so they can't help me in the future, and my reputation is in no danger. I could take all the food for myself, but I would have the very strong sense that that is unfair and wrong, simply because unfairness is wrong.

You certainly think it's real.

Again, you can't divorce yourself from being human. Humans are the arbiters of what's real. You may or may not know that the colors pink and brown don't exist in the electromagnetic spectrum. You don't see them in rainbows. Yet we perceive the pink of flamingos and the brown of wood. I believe that reality doesn't exist in the mind, but it is interpreted though the mind. And with the exceptions of the minority of disorders, the interpretations are true, regardless of the yet-to-be-concluded conclusions of science.

 

[Bradskii]

If you can explain how awareness of the self is simple, congratulations on the Nobel Prize you'll receive.

I'm feeling hot. I'm feeling happy. I'm feeling hungry. I'm aware of all those sensations. I'm conscious of them. Don't confuse consciousness with the hard problem of consciousness.

You're not a very good determinist. Whatever is used, was predestined to be used. And the bad men who change would have changed anyway. The bad men who don't change would not have changed anyway.

That was in regard to me pointing out that the Norwegian method of treating criminals seems to work as regards recidivism. And your implication 'Why bother?' That's just a very odd question from my viewpoint. It's like saying that I swerved to miss the child on the road and you said 'Why bother swerving- you were always going to miss him'.

Let's not until we get this free will question settled. Punishment and rehabilitation and all that stuff are immoral and absurd concepts under the determinist view.

Punishment is still required as a deterrent to others and to protect society. I've said that multiple times. Rehabilitation is not absurd. It should be the main aim when considering punishment.

Of course you do, because you're also not a very good atheist.

I do my best...

Oftentimes, a problem with evolutionary psychology is that it gives explanations which, if true, should not need to be studied in search of explanation. If we behave fairly for the reasons stated in that article, it would be obvious, well known and openly acknowledged by everyone. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, no scientists have had to study why we engage in personal hygiene, because the explanation is obvious.

But most people might say that 'fairness' just is. There's no reason for it. Quite often they'll say it's a God given concept like justice. But there are reasons why it evolved. And it tells us more about ourselves if we know why.

More importantly, we were talking about the "sense of fairness", not the practice of fairness. If a monkey pulls a rope and gets one banana, and the other does the same and gets two bananas, why is that unfair? What does fair mean? The first monkey got a free banana just for pulling a rope. He should be happy about that.

The sense of it leads to the practical application of it.

And a hypothetical: I'm a large, strong man stranded on a desert island with two petite women in the 1700's. There's a very limited supply of food, and we're always hungry. I'm from North America, and the women are from China and Russia. If we were to be rescued, I'd never see them again, so they can't help me in the future, and my reputation is in no danger. I could take all the food for myself, but I would have the very strong sense that that is unfair and wrong, simply because unfairness is wrong.

Yes, because it's an evolved sense. The ones who didn't have that sense acted unfairly and were gradually removed from the gene pool. Leaving mostly those who do act fairly.

Again, you can't divorce yourself from being human. Humans are the arbiters of what's real. You may or may not know that the colors pink and brown don't exist in the electromagnetic spectrum. You don't see them in rainbows. Yet we perceive the pink of flamingos and the brown of wood. I believe that reality doesn't exist in the mind, but it is interpreted though the mind. And with the exceptions of the minority of disorders, the interpretations are true, regardless of the yet-to-be-concluded conclusions of science.

The interpretations are often false (I originally wrote 'mostly false' but I thought I'd crank it back a little). Penn and Teller make a living out of that fact.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm feeling hot. I'm feeling happy. I'm feeling hungry. I'm aware of all those sensations. I'm conscious of them. Don't confuse consciousness with the hard problem of consciousness.

Awareness of self is a basic part of the hard problem. Sensations are only secondarily so.

That was in regard to me pointing out that the Norwegian method of treating criminals seems to work as regards recidivism. And your implication 'Why bother?' That's just a very odd question from my viewpoint. It's like saying that I swerved to miss the child on the road and you said 'Why bother swerving- you were always going to miss him'.

You're right. I didn't quite say what I meant to say there. What I meant to get across was that you seem to advocate for the Norwegian method. There are other methods - the Kenyans have theirs, the Saudis have theirs, etc. They are what they are according to the physics of the brains of the men involved. Why bother to advocate for one thing or another? Seems like advocating that an oak tree should be more like a willow.

Punishment is still required as a deterrent to others and to protect society. I've said that multiple times. Rehabilitation is not absurd. It should be the main aim when considering punishment.

Yes I get it. We've touched on this. You say we don't have free will but admit that we have to pretend as though we do. To say we don't have free will makes a man sound insane, but if we consistently followed through on that disbelief, we would be (dangerously) acting as insane men. As a free-willer, you deny my rules, but you still have to play the game by my rules. I'll consider that a half-win.

But most people might say that 'fairness' just is. There's no reason for it. Quite often they'll say it's a God given concept like justice. But there are reasons why it evolved. And it tells us more about ourselves if we know why.

I don't believe it evolved, I believe it's God given.

Yes, because it's an evolved sense. The ones who didn't have that sense acted unfairly and were gradually removed from the gene pool. Leaving mostly those who do act fairly.

Apparently these tigers haven't read that article you linked:

The interpretations are often false...

According to who?

 

[Bradskii]

Awareness of self is a basic part of the hard problem. Sensations are only secondarily so.

There's an interesting discussion to be had here, but I don't really want to head in that direction. Wasn't there a thread on consciousness fairly recently? I'll check.

You're right. I didn't quite say what I meant to say there. What I meant to get across was that you seem to advocate for the Norwegian method. There are other methods - the Kenyans have theirs, the Saudis have theirs, etc. They are what they are according to the physics of the brains of the men involved. Why bother to advocate for one thing or another? Seems like advocating that an oak tree should be more like a willow.

I'll advocate for a change in the system in the first instance because it's apparent that it needs to change (and in passing, apart from some personal adjustments that I try to make when dealing with problems, this is the only change that I would suggest that we make and the only one that might be apparent if everyone suddenly realised there was no free will*). The current one can obviously be improved and the Norwegian method seems to work. I prefer that to the medieval barbarity of chopping off limbs.

Yes I get it. We've touched on this. You say we don't have free will but admit that we have to pretend as though we do. To say we don't have free will makes a man sound insane, but if we consistently followed through on that disbelief, we would be (dangerously) acting as insane men. As a free-willer, you deny my rules, but you still have to play the game by my rules. I'll consider that a half-win.

As I just intimated above, you could know me personally for years and not know that I believed that free will doesn't exist. The subject came up some time ago over a few drinks with some friends. When I gave my position, everyone was astonished. OK, I have only definitely taken a stand in the last couple of years but it's not like anyone has said that they've seen a change in me.

So if by 'my rules' you mean that I should differentiate between good and bad and praise or punish people accordingly...then yeah. Those rules still apply.

I don't believe it evolved, I believe it's God given.

God couldn't have arranged matters so that it evolved?

Apparently these tigers haven't read that article you linked:

The rules are a little different in that situation. Quite often might is right (and quite often that still applies with us). But for social order to form, especially in the 'higher animals' (don't like using that term) such as primates, then that sense of fairness comes into play. It becomes evolutionary beneficial. Rather than two stags fighting over who is going to control the herd, or a tiger doing the same within a pride.

According to who?

Things are not always as they seem. You might be familiar with this:

The squares marked A and B are exactly the same shade. We often see what we expect to see.

* There are some concerns by those who are proponents of no free will that some people might be negatively affected by reaching that conclusion. It might install some fatalist attitudes that prompt behaviour that is far from being beneficial. I think it was Sapolski that prefaced his book or a video explanation of his position that if you are in any way concerned about what this might mean for you personally, then stop reading or watching right now.

 

[Chesterton]

I'll advocate for a change in the system in the first instance because it's apparent that it needs to change (and in passing, apart from some personal adjustments that I try to make when dealing with problems, this is the only change that I would suggest that we make and the only one that might be apparent if everyone suddenly realised there was no free will*). The current one can obviously be improved and the Norwegian method seems to work. I prefer that to the medieval barbarity of chopping off limbs.

What I don't get is why you, as an amalgamation of particles operating solely by the inalienable laws of physics, think you have some magic woo powers to change the operation of other such amalgamations, without physical interaction, e.g., brain surgery.

As I just intimated above, you could know me personally for years and not know that I believed that free will doesn't exist.

True. There's an old sort-of joke among Christians intended to make Christians live more Christian. It goes - "If they make Christianity illegal again, would they find enough evidence to convict you?" I doubt anyone could find any evidence that you are a determinist.

The subject came up some time ago over a few drinks with some friends. When I gave my position, everyone was astonished. OK, I have only definitely taken a stand in the last couple of years but it's not like anyone has said that they've seen a change in me.

I certainly wouldn't expect to see any change in you. Any change in a person's actions due to a belief in determinism would most likely be attributed to a lapse into mental illness.

God couldn't have arranged matters so that it evolved?

Yes He could have, but it would still be God given. I just don't believe it evolved, naturally, mindlessly.

The rules are a little different in that situation. Quite often might is right (and quite often that still applies with us).

I'm surprised you said that. I'm not sure what you mean by "right" here. Most of us wouldn't see "I take what I want because I'm stronger" as right in any sense (unless you're of certain fascist political persuasions).

Things are not always as they seem. You might be familiar with this:

The correct answer to my rhetorical question was "according to humans".

View attachment 356585
The squares marked A and B are exactly the same shade.

Wrong. They only appear to be the same shade.

* There are some concerns by those who are proponents of no free will that some people might be negatively affected by reaching that conclusion. It might install some fatalist attitudes that prompt behaviour that is far from being beneficial. I think it was Sapolski that prefaced his book or a video explanation of his position that if you are in any way concerned about what this might mean for you personally, then stop reading or watching right now.

EDIT: I re-read this and I see what you're saying. Yes, someone posted a Dennett video earlier, I don't remember exactly, but I think he was saying we shouldn't be teaching it. Reminds me of how a lot of people like the idea of contacting extra-terrestrial beings, others say we should be careful about that.

 

[Bradskii]

What I don't get is why you, as an amalgamation of particles operating solely by the inalienable laws of physics, think you have some magic woo powers to change the operation of other such amalgamations, without physical interaction, e.g., brain surgery.

It's not magic. I am determined (in the free will sense) to prefer that criminals become better citizens. So I am determined (same meaning) to try to persuade people of my view. If they accept the evidence I present then they will in turn be determined to act accordingly. They, in turn, will persuade others. Things then gradually change. If no-one accepts the evidence - if they are the type of people who are determined not to believe that free will does not exist, then nothing changes.

True. There's an old sort-of joke among Christians intended to make Christians live more Christian. It goes - "If they make Christianity illegal again, would they find enough evidence to convict you?" I doubt anyone could find any evidence that you are a determinist.

True. There's hardly any difference in the way you live your life. I'm sure that some people think they'd change drastically if they were convinced. And not in a good way - you've seen some of the arguments. So there's a reluctance to entertain the idea.

Yes He could have, but it would still be God given. I just don't believe it evolved, naturally, mindlessly.

That will not be something that we'd be able to agree on, obviously.

I'm surprised you said that. I'm not sure what you mean by "right" here. Most of us wouldn't see "I take what I want because I'm stronger" as right in any sense (unless you're of certain fascist political persuasions).

I didn't mean that I thought it was morally right. It's the one that wins the fight will think the win justified.

Wrong. They only appear to be the same shade.

Uh? They look entirely different. There are dark squares and light squares. A looks dark and B looks light. But they are actually identical

I can't find what this asterisk applies to, so I don't know what conclusion you mean by "that conclusion".

Second paragraph, bracketed comment.

 

[truthpls]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences.

Some decisions are influenced by spirits according to history and the bible. Some by greed. Some by lust. Etc.

 

[public hermit]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences.

It has to be the case that prior influences determine. If that were not the case, then the choice would be arbitrary, and that's not a free- reasoned-choice.

I agree there is no way around it. What do you think follows from that? I think it matters that we want certain choices, but I'm not sure why it matters unless the end result is our realization that it doesn't matter. Does that make sense?

 

[Bradskii]

Some decisions are influenced by spirits according to history and the bible. Some by greed. Some by lust. Etc.

I'll pass on the spirits. But you are right that greed and lust are major determinants on our actions. But you can't choose to be greedy. You can't choose to feel lust. There's no free will there.