Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

Why?

Specifically?

I guess the easiest answer would be the wide variety of moral norms throughout the world over time geographically.

In the hundreds of thousands of years of modern mankind's existence....we've evolved very little physically. Very little.

So the mere suggestion that our morals are part of a rapidly evolving brain etc is pure nonsense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Call it a whole win....

You ever notice these claims of evidence are made but never offered up?


Ever notice that instead of evidence....we need hypothetical time machines and infinite causal factor adjustments?

Ever notice that abandoning the concept of free will and personal responsibility is treated like a first step towards permanent enlightenment? Yet the abandonment of morality is....too difficult, because, ya know....they feel stuff?

Ever consider that since there's no evidence, and none of this is falsifiable....free will and determinism are mere descriptions of human behavior? Ever consider that when looking at competing descriptions of something....accuracy is the principle concern?

Ever think that since determinists themselves cannot hope to stop behaving as if free will is real....it's automatically the more accurate description?


Also, if you want an evolutionary pathway for "fairness" here's one I made up....

Go back far enough and we're a big brained hominid tribe with an alpha who has access to females and beta males. Our big brains allowed us to develop rudimentary language locally....and the betas hatched a plot to kill the alpha as a group to gain access to the females. The females essentially were just a resource and as such, needed to be shared in a manner by which all the betas could find agreeable.

If you negotiate the distribution of a highly valuable limited resource long enough....you're continually engaging in consideration of what others want....in addition to yourself. A sense of fairness.

 

[Astrid]

Specifically?

I guess the easiest answer would be the wide variety of moral norms throughout the world over time geographically.

In the hundreds of thousands of years of modern mankind's existence....we've evolved very little physically. Very little.

So the mere suggestion that our morals are part of a rapidly evolving brain etc is pure nonsense.

Hmm
Id agree with the post you referred
to as ( lol ) nonsense.

And with your post which doesn’t seem
related.

 

[Chesterton]

His careful attitude determined that he wouldn't fall. His careless attitude determined that he would. But maybe a bird flew past and startled him. Maybe he had a dizzy spell. Maybe a car backfired and made him lose his grip. There are a gazillion antecedent conditions. All of which lead to whatever happened to him. They are all the reasons why he fell. Or why he didn't. All of them determined the event.

I agree that "stuff happens". Physical events which are out of our control happen. But I'm absolutely certain that 99% of the time, I'm in control of my thoughts. If it were otherwise I could not type this post.

 

[Chesterton]

You ever notice these claims of evidence are made but never offered up?

Ever consider that since there's no evidence, and none of this is falsifiable....free will and determinism are mere descriptions of human behavior?

Yeah, if I went to consult with a psychic, and I walked into the room wearing a blue shirt, and she says "I knew you were going to be wearing a blue shirt"...sorry, I'm not impressed by the unfalsifiable claim. I might be impressed if she had said that before she saw me wearing a blue shirt.

 

[Chesterton]

Go back far enough and we're a big brained hominid tribe with an alpha who has access to females and beta males. Our big brains allowed us to develop rudimentary language locally....and the betas hatched a plot to kill the alpha as a group to gain access to the females. The females essentially were just a resource and as such, needed to be shared in a manner by which all the betas could find agreeable.

If you negotiate the distribution of a highly valuable limited resource long enough....you're continually engaging in consideration of what others want....in addition to yourself. A sense of fairness.

I suppose that could happen, but I'm reminded of a video I saw once. As narrated by a scientist who was studying them, there was this pack of wild horses, and a male horse who was the leader of the pack. He had a harem of females, and also controlled the territory where there was water. An interloper from outside the pack came to challenge him, and when they started fighting, a free-for-all broke out. Every male started fighting every other male. Eventually one male came out on top. The story ended there, but I suspect the new leader was no more amenable to sharing and caring than the previous one was.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree that "stuff happens". Physical events which are out of our control happen. But I'm absolutely certain that 99% of the time, I'm in control of my thoughts.

Apart from a lot that goes on subconsciously, you generally are. If you weren't you couldn't make a conscious decision. But every decision is made for a reason. Those reasons, over which you had no control, determine the decision.

 

[Chesterton]

Apart from a lot that goes on subconsciously, you generally are. If you weren't you couldn't make a conscious decision. But every decision is made for a reason. Those reasons, over which you had no control, determine the decision.

I agree that there are reasons for decisions, but that in no way means the reasons determine the decisions. I rode a bus today, for the reason that it was faster than walking. Does that mean it was impossible for me to have walked, or asked a friend for a ride, or decided other things?

 

[Bradskii]

I agree that there are reasons for decisions, but that in no way means the reasons determine the decisions. I rode a bus today, for the reason that it was faster than walking. Does that mean it was impossible for me to have walked, or asked a friend for a ride, or decided other things?

No. You did what you preferred to do. You always do. That it was quicker than walking was the reason that you preferred it. If you were in no rush and it was a nice day you might have preferred to walk. This is something of a tautology, but you can't choose to not prefer something that you do prefer.

 

[Chesterton]

No. You did what you preferred to do. You always do. That it was quicker than walking was the reason that you preferred it. If you were in no rush and it was a nice day you might have preferred to walk. This is something of a tautology, but you can't choose to not prefer something that you do prefer.

You're right, it's tautological. I did what I did, I chose what I chose, I prefer what I prefer. That's in the past. There's nothing about that which can be used to deny that I have freedom in the present and in the future.

 

[Bradskii]

You're right, it's tautological. I did what I did, I chose what I chose, I prefer what I prefer. That's in the past. There's nothing about that which can be used to deny that I have freedom in the present and in the future.

You can't change the past. And it determines your choices.

 

[Chesterton]

You can't change the past. And it determines your choices.

Do you think that if a person fans out a deck of 52 playing cards and says "Pick a card, any card", the past has determined which of the 52 cards I will pick?

 

[Bradskii]

Do you think that if a person fans out a deck of 52 playing cards and says "Pick a card, any card", the past has determined which of the 52 cards I will pick?

Was there a reason for your choice or was it random?

 

[Chesterton]

Was there a reason for your choice or was it random?

There was a reason - the reason was "I" decided.

 

[Bradskii]

There was a reason - the reason was "I" decided.

No, you deciding was the event. I want to know if there was a cause. If there was a reason you chose.

 

[Chesterton]

No, you deciding was the event.

I agree it was an event.

I want to know if there was a cause.

Yes, I was the cause.

If there was a reason you chose.

Because he asked me to.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree it was an event.

True

Yes, I was the cause.

No, you are the agent. We are looking for a reason the agent made a choice.

Because he asked me to.

Warning...Dualism Ahead. Actually we want to know why he asked you.

 

[Chesterton]

No, you are the agent. We are looking for a reason the agent made a choice.

I think you might be misusing the word "agent" here. An agent is one who has the authority or power to freely act.

At this point I'm afraid I need to inject some of my religion. Not because it's the primary reason for my belief in free will, but because it does make sense. Bear with me.

In the beginning, God created man, and two things are noteworthy. He created man "in His image" and "breathed into him the breath of life". If you were to accept the idea of the Christian God, you would accept that He is the Prime Mover, the ultimate uncaused eternal agent. So God imparted some of himself into man, and I believe that includes a limited degree of free agency.

So when you say we're looking for the reason the agent made a choice, I don't have a problem with that. There is usually going to be a reason. I have a problem with the idea that you and I are programmed robots, when we both know we're not.

 

[Bradskii]

I think you might be misusing the word "agent" here. An agent is one who has the authority or power to freely act.

At this point I'm afraid I need to inject some of my religion. Not because it's the primary reason for my belief in free will, but because it does make sense. Bear with me.

In the beginning, God created man, and two things are noteworthy. He created man "in His image" and "breathed into him the breath of life". If you were to accept the idea of the Christian God, you would accept that He is the Prime Mover, the ultimate uncaused eternal agent. So God imparted some of himself into man, and I believe that includes a limited degree of free agency.

So when you say we're looking for the reason the agent made a choice, I don't have a problem with that. There is usually going to be a reason. I have a problem with the idea that you and I are programmed robots, when we both know we're not.

From Stanford: 'In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.'

That definition has been clarified someway upstream. An agent is the person carrying out the act.

As regards programmed robots, you can programme it to do a specific task. Do this, then do that. Or you can get it to act depending on the circumstances. Let's call that one Chester. Let's make it humanoid. Now if Chester needs to get somewhere and it wants to do it in the shortest possible time, should it decide to walk or take a bus? Yeah, it would 'prefer' to take the bus. And what happens if its sensors tell it it's low on power? Should it look for a way to take on energy? Yeah, it would.

The power needs to be paid for so it needs to find the means to pay for it. It has certain abilities programmed into it from an earlier model. So it'll look around for something suitable that pays well, doesn't involve too much travelling and allows him enough down time to chat online about philosophical matters so that it'll increase its knowledge about that subject.

See where I'm going?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm
Id agree with the post you referred
to as ( lol ) nonsense.

And with your post which doesn’t seem
related.

His last statement I quoted....

That which works we describe as being good.

Good in that context refers to moral good.

That’s not how we get morals.