Imagining Determinism

[EverlastingMan]

Well will may not be required to love, but christian theology says it is. And that is all I am saying.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well will may not be required to love, but christian theology says it is. And that is all I am saying.

Chrisitan theology is bunk anyway.

 

[elman]

You don't consciously choose to be loving or unloving. Love is an emotion, you don't choose your emotions.

Love is not an emotion. It is an action. At least the word love in the New Testament is action. See the story of the good Samaritan or Matt 25:31 and following. You do consciously choose to follow the command of Jesus to love your neighbor.

 

[elman]

Chrisitan theology is bunk anyway.

I us very difficult to argue with such a reasonable approach.

 

[elman]

No, according to christians Love is an act of the will. If there is no free will then there is no love, as they define it.

I don't know how you would define love if there is no free will. How would a tractor or piece of machinery love?

 

[elman]

That's weird. If anything, I'd say that emotions aren't a very good example of something that would require free will. Although, I guess one could define TRUE love as a willful act. Though I think it would still be completely indistinguishable from non-willed love.

There is no non-willed love. Love is not a feeling or emotion.

 

[Patzak]

What, roughly, are you thinking of outside the "help help I'm a puppet!" mentality then?

A situation where one doesn't realise they don't have free will - or rather, where it's impossible to figure out whether they have it or not. It just seems to me that people often consider determinism as somehow only applying to a part of them, maybe not always only the body (for the robot scenario) but still in a very limited way.

 

[Patzak]

I don't know how you would define love if there is no free will. How would a tractor or piece of machinery love?

You're oversimplifying things; nobody's talking about machinery; consider electrodes sticked into a brain instead. Now sure, love is a complex emotion and would probably be hard to stimulate but as far as I know it's already possible to induce certain feelings or sensations by stimulating the right parts of the brain. And if the brain is susceptible to such simple manipulation, don't you think that the totality of all the possible effects could stimulate it to something more complex like love?

Love is not a feeling or emotion.

What is it then? What is it about love that exists in any other way than by being felt, what's the part of love that exists outside of the mind of the one who loves?

 

[David Gould]

If love is the thing that we are using to tell a free will universe from a deterministic one, we need to present an argument for what would happen in universe f and what would happen in universe d.

In universe f, would we choose to love somebody or would we fall in love - in other words, come to love somebody because of what we see in them?

I would suggest that if we had free will we could choose to love or not love somebody.

So, in universe f we could choose who (and what) to love.

In universe d, we could not do this. Who and what we loved would arise in us with no choice in the matter. People would love people who were not good choices for them, simply because they would be unable to choose otherwise.


I do not think that love is a very good example for proponents of free will to use ...

 

[D McCloud]

Love is not an emotion. It is an action. At least the word love in the New Testament is action. See the story of the good Samaritan or Matt 25:31 and following. You do consciously choose to follow the command of Jesus to love your neighbor.

I know some christian often like to use the bible to twist the meaning of words in order justify their reasoning, but that's not going to work in this case. Look up the definition of love.

Love is an emotion, but it can only be expressed through an action, in that sense you're partly right. However, since the action is a result of that emotion being expressed, they do not exist independently of one another. Therefore one cannot act on a feeling one doesn't posses, and since feelings are not choosen, you never had the ability to choose to be loving or not anyway.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I us very difficult to argue with such a reasonable approach.

As if you had anything to argue for.

 

[elman]

You're oversimplifying things; nobody's talking about machinery; consider electrodes sticked into a brain instead. Now sure, love is a complex emotion and would probably be hard to stimulate but as far as I know it's already possible to induce certain feelings or sensations by stimulating the right parts of the brain. And if the brain is susceptible to such simple manipulation, don't you think that the totality of all the possible effects could stimulate it to something more complex like love?

No I don't think you can create love by stimulating someone else's brain and love is not an emotion.

What is it then? What is it about love that exists in any other way than by being felt, what's the part of love that exists outside of the mind of the one who loves?

Love is an act on behalf of someone other than one's self. To help someone in need is to love.

 

[elman]

As if you had anything to argue for.

As I said you are too smart for me.

 

[elman]

If love is the thing that we are using to tell a free will universe from a deterministic one, we need to present an argument for what would happen in universe f and what would happen in universe d.

In universe f, would we choose to love somebody or would we fall in love - in other words, come to love somebody because of what we see in them?

I would suggest that if we had free will we could choose to love or not love somebody.

So, in universe f we could choose who (and what) to love.

In universe d, we could not do this. Who and what we loved would arise in us with no choice in the matter. People would love people who were not good choices for them, simply because they would be unable to choose otherwise.


I do not think that love is a very good example for proponents of free will to use ...

Sex is not love. You are talking about sex. I am talking about love and we are not talking about the same thing.

 

[David Gould]

Sex is not love. You are talking about sex. I am talking about love and we are not talking about the same thing.

I am not talking about sex. For example, I fell in love with my cats.

 

[quatona]

I don't know how you would define love if there is no free will. How would a tractor or piece of machinery love?

1. We are not talking about tractors or pieces of machineries, but about self aware human beings without "freewill".
2. Above you have given the following definition:
Love is not an emotion. It is an action.
Actions don´t require free will.

 

[elman]

I am not talking about sex. For example, I fell in love with my cats.

You are still using the term in a sense that I am not talking about. We can become very attached to our pets. I am not talking about feelings or attachments. I am talking about actions on behalf of another. You can do that for a cat but it is not something you fall into.

 

[elman]

1. We are not talking about tractors or pieces of machineries, but about self aware human beings without "freewill".
2. Above you have given the following definition:
Love is not an emotion. It is an action.
Actions don´t require free will.

Loving actions do require free will. If you act without a choice, you do not act in love. An act that is compelled is not an act out of love. There are no self aware human beings without free will. That is what defines a human being, an entity capable of loving another or refusing to love another.

 

[quatona]

Loving actions do require free will. If you act without a choice, you do not act in love. An act that is compelled is not an act out of love. There are no self aware human beings without free will. That is what defines a human being, an entity capable of loving another or refusing to love another.

Your argumentation tends to get a bit too circular, for my taste.

 

[David Gould]

You are still using the term in a sense that I am not talking about. We can become very attached to our pets. I am not talking about feelings or attachments. I am talking about actions on behalf of another. You can do that for a cat but it is not something you fall into.

If I help another person but do so with no feeling whatsoever - in other words, I do not really care what happens to them but am just operating automatically (say it is my job, for example) am I acting in a loving way?

In other words, I cannot see the distinction that you make. If I love someone, I take actions that are loving. If I do not love someone, how can I take actions that are loving?