|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 08 2012 21:58 paralleluniverse wrote:
Now consider the activities that increase needless human misery and suffering, or that would cause an increase in direct human misery and suffering if left unrestricted and unpunished. Define this as Evil S, i.e. subjective evil.
So is adultery/abortion/speeding/pirate bay "Evil S"?
It is one thing to have a unique definition of good/evil. It is much, much harder to get everyone to agree with it.
|
On March 09 2012 00:16 Erack wrote:
Hi everyone, I made an account just to post on this topic because I feel it need be to share something with you all. I am am 22 Male Florida and I recieved the holy ghost in January this year.
I also had a god experience once, but it was the father, not the holy ghost (nor was is Jesus. One time I had the strong impression that Christ actually speaks to me through Luke, but it wasn't as strong as the aforementioned one.)
I had the experience as I went through a small forest and I felt that the father offers me belief. My body felt strangely tense as I detected something like a higher mind which communicated to me that it's true (the bible stories.) I was open (in fact, I still am) to that possibility.
However I did not turned christian. I further studied the bible and saw that it cannot tell the truth, because of several obvious contradictions to the reality. I did not made a claim about the creation of the universe based on a personal experience I had. I read most ancient greek tales about their gods, many books of the bible and the entire koran (all translated to German as I don't speek Greek, nor Hebrew, nor Arabic.) So I know the imagery and stories about different gods, which obviously plays a role in experiences I have. I also went to a christian secondary school. Some years ago I felt the impulse to attend a service, so I went to a church (it was a catholic one) and did.
But in the end, any activity regarding religion shows me that it cannot be true. Every religion makes very specific claims without proof. Reason tells me to not accept scriptural authority.
|
On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote:
So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions. A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless. I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose? Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different. If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post. I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world. I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not. I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points.
Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined!
If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do!
I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
|
On March 08 2012 21:00 run.at.me wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 19:38 shinyA wrote:On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:On March 08 2012 12:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote:
So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions. A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless. I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose? Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different. If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post. I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world. I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not. I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points. So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'. I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view. As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes. As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative. I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at...
This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad."
The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way.
Is killing bad?
Yes just like a rusty gear is bad.
Why is rust bad?
It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally.
So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally?
????
See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists.
Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application.
|
On March 08 2012 21:58 paralleluniverse wrote:
Screw Good O and Evil O. Good O and Evil O is unnecessary and irrelevant in practice, once we have defined Good S and Evil S.
Why are you so accepting of a subjectively based evil and so dismissive of a subjectively based free will?
Do you not see that as being inconsistent?
|
On March 08 2012 23:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 23:19 Felnarion wrote:On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision. There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it. Why? Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions? I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes? Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not? Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why? If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand. The reason it seems confusing is because you're not going quite deep enough. Think about it this way. Everything we know is set in stone. Physics is a universally predictable science. Now, you can talk all you want about quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about it to predict it yet. Everything else we see and work with is perfectly predictable, the question here is the biological aspect. From the beginning of time to the beginning of creatures, these things were guided by physics alone. If you rewind the clock, and do it all over again, the same rules will exist, and exactly everything that happened will happen again. The planets will form and move just as they do now, the sun will end up in just its spot, these things are all, unarguably, ruled by "simple" physics, which we can calculate, and which is predictable. So, I think we would both be in agreement that conditions up to the first life form would be the same, given the above. So, if conditions are exactly the same, then the first life forms would be exactly the same. If the first life forms are the same, and conditions are the same, then the actions of the life forms will be the same. They will do all the same things at all the same times for the same reasons they did the first time around. And this will hold true until humans. And since you make decisions based on reasoning, all your decisions will be exactly the same, because they will be made for the same reasons and under the same conditions as they were on the first time around. So, since your thoughts and decisions are based solely on what's around and influencing you, and we've established those will be the same, then you will make all the same decisions. If I rewind time and play it back for you 30 times, you will make the same decisions every time. Everything will be exactly the same. How does that play with the idea of true free will? How is it possible to reconcile that what you've done is the only thing you could have done, given the conditions? As I said before. I think purpose, and freedom are the obvious components of free will. Random movements do not denote will and predicted actions do not denote freedom. I think free will contains both. What we end up with, is the fact that we DO make decisions. We all have the ability to decide to act or not, and functionally, it's almost the same as true free will, and should be treated almost as such. But the problem is, the decisions you make, you cannot decide differently. Anything you do is for reasons, reasons that precede you, and do not originate from nothing. We can act, but only on a determined path. We're unique in the universe in that we, internally, decide our fate. I can decide to dodge a ball, but a planet cannot dodge an asteroid. In so far as this, we have a will, and our will is exerted on the universe. But given a thousand times the same ball in the same conditions is thrown at me, I will dodge every time. I can't reconcile that as truly free, in the classic sense. I agree with everything except your determinism. The leading theory of the universe in the first seconds after the big bang is inflation, which says during this short time, the universe expanded at an exponential rate so that the lumpiness of galaxies we see are quantum fluctuations magnified from the subatomic level to the cosmic scale by an exponential expansion rate. So if we ran the universe again, a different random fluctuation may happen, and the galaxies would be different. We would need the RNG to roll exactly the same numbers again in order to have the same universe. Of course, nowhere in this randomness is there room for free will.
Just because we don't fully understand an underlying causation doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it also doesn't mean it's just RNG or determined by chance (or random).
I also disagree with the quoted post's definition of free will regarding the presence of reason being a violation of free will which is a rather meaningless definition. Of course you won't have free will with that definition because EVERY action has a necessary cause behind it, even if we don't necessarily know what that cause is.
These passages from "of Liberty and Necessity" pretty much sum it up
For what is meant by liberty, when applied to voluntary actions? We cannot surely mean that actions have so little connexion with motives, inclinations and circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we can conclude the existence of the other. For these are plain and acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; this is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no subject of dispute.
It is universally allowed that nothing exists without a cause of its existence, and that chance, when strictly examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real power which has anywhere a being in nature.
|
Morality is simply humans trying to ascribe some exceptional meaning or importance to their desires.
That's all morality is, strong emotional desires regarding the behavior of other people. By even calling it something other than desire we imply it's somehow distinct from it.
But all of metaphysics is this error: the error of inventing a word and then supposing it has an objective meaning which can be debated or discussed.
|
On March 09 2012 03:11 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:On March 08 2012 12:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote:
So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions. A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless. I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose? Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different. If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post. I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world. I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not. I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points. Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined! If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do! I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
I will think about it for a day or two before I reply in verbatim. I don't know if this world is completely deterministic, but even if, I don't see the concept of good and evil rendered empty. But again, I will take some time before I reply.
|
On March 09 2012 03:22 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:00 run.at.me wrote:On March 08 2012 19:38 shinyA wrote:On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:On March 08 2012 12:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote:
So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions. A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless. I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose? Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different. If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post. I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world. I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not. I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points. So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'. I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view. As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes. As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative. I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at... This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad." The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way. Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad. Why is rust bad? It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally. So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally? ???? See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists. Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application.
Where did his logic assume a choice of whether to replace the gear or not? he said "should it be replaced and thrown away? yup". Which is the same as your machine, you just DO. Not cause rusty gears are "bad" but because otherwise the machine doesn't work. So you just do.
And do you not see that your own second point invalidates your first? You say "It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally." and "Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." but then right before say "If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better", but you have removed a bad part, you have improved the machine over its previous state. That's making something better.
And how do you make this jump? "you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined" why does one require the other? Maybe I'm not seeing an extra step?
And another small mistake, "Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." The killer is the rusty gear, and killING would be like rust. Is rust bad? No, it is rust. Is rust on a gear bad? Yes, because it prevents etc.... So is killing bad? No. But if killing is screwing with your machine then you best stamp it out. I don't care if the universe doesn't give a SHIT about whether rust is a cool guy or not, I don't like it so get the fuck outta my machine. We just have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to keep there OWN machine clean. If your machine gets killer rust (you would dislike being killed) then there should be a way to keep your machine clean. It will naturally stay clean, as you will naturally not die (at least in a day-to-day sense) so thats fine. The only way it will get rusty is if some fucker comes and rusts it up. Curse you oxygen! So you throw that shit in jail, or kill it, or whatever, so that it doesn't rust your machine again, or someone else's machine.
Two guys are banging their machines together? Hey, if their machines can withstand that than by all means continue. They aren't banging them into your machine. Your machine will similarily not bang naturally. So you don't need protection from these two guys banging their OWN machines together, but if you go break it up than they need protection against YOU (homosexuality is ok and should be protected, basically).
Your machine may just 'do' but that is still something that can be strived for. If a machine is not for doing then why be a machine at all? But it is, so do it does. Allowing machines to DO whatever it is they do could be morality, could it not?
|
On March 09 2012 06:48 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 03:22 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 08 2012 21:00 run.at.me wrote:On March 08 2012 19:38 shinyA wrote:On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:On March 08 2012 12:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:
[quote]
The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions.
A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word.
So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions?
Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless. I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose? Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different. If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post. I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world. I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not. I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points. So many problems arise with that stance though because you are still taking a subjective stance to good and evil. If we just considered good anything that benefits our survival and evil anything that threatens it you come up with questions of like 'is it good or evil to murder evil people?'. I'd be curious though as to how you would define good and evil if you are taking a deterministic view. As a previous poster mentioned the deterministic view would take this approach: (I dont know how to quote something from a different page so i copied and pasted it) -FalahNorei you could compare him to a gear wheel that becomes rusty, is it guilty of becoming rusty? no. should it be replaced and thrown away? yup, otherwise endangers the whole engine, like a murderer endangers other people. depending on how rusty the gearwheel is, it either gets thrown away or one tries to clean it, thats comparable to the different sentences and punishments for different crimes. As good and evil are just subjective terms based on the belief systems of the accuser, you can't really define them from any standpoint without being subjective. The deterministic view, imo, would just suggest that good and evil doesn't exist - not because it's subjective in nature, but because everyone is the same, just products of their environment and therefore cannot be held 'responsible' for their actions - positive or negative. I personally take the view of compatibilism which ill just copy and paste from google because I can't be bothered writin it out: ompatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[2] In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. The nature of the discussion that the OP is more about hard determinism. People seem to misunderstand what he is trying to say, especially about 'responsibility of actions'. This is not really the point hes getting at... This logic fails because it assumes the ability to choose to replace the "rusty" gear. You don't have that choice. If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined, because you are also part of the machine. You did not chose to replace it because it was bad, you had no choice in the matter. There is no outside engineer to replace faulty parts. There is only the machine. Whatever the machine does is simply what it does, it is not "good" or "bad." The analogy also fails on another level because it tacitly assumes a standard of good and bad. It is clear in a machine that rusty parts are objectively bad. You cannot use this assumption to prove that bad is bad. You are declaring it bad by definition. Think of it this way. Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad. Why is rust bad? It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally. So killing must the world from operating as designed and from running optimally? ???? See where we got? In order for the analogy to work, you must prove that killing is objectively bad for the universe as a whole, when clearly the life or death of a small piece of matter on a small planet orbiting a small sun doesn't affect the universe in the slightest. One might much more conclusively argue that humans killing each other is just part of "the way the world works." So in your "proof" of evil, you have really just assumed that evil exists. Determinism is the death of morality and meaning. If you are consistent in its application. Where did his logic assume a choice of whether to replace the gear or not? he said "should it be replaced and thrown away? yup". Which is the same as your machine, you just DO. Not cause rusty gears are "bad" but because otherwise the machine doesn't work. So you just do. Clearly the word "should" implies a choice between two options, one of which should be chosen and the other should not. In determinism, the machine always works, there are no rusty gears, so I won't bother to defend your other attacks on the analogy.And do you not see that your own second point invalidates your first? You say "It prevents the part from working as designed and prevents the machine from running optimally." and "Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." but then right before say "If you do replace it, you haven't made anything better", but you have removed a bad part, you have improved the machine over its previous state. That's making something better. I think you just misunderstood this argument, if you are part of the machine, and you think you removed a bad part, you haven't actually made the machine better, because you are simply doing your part of the machine. Make more sense?And how do you make this jump? "you haven't made anything better, you are just acting as you are determined" why does one require the other? Maybe I'm not seeing an extra step?
See above. You are part of the machine, acting deterministically. You are not acting critically to improve anything, you are acting without choice.And another small mistake, "Is killing bad? Yes just like a rusty gear is bad." The killer is the rusty gear, and killING would be like rust. Is rust bad? No, it is rust. Is rust on a gear bad? Yes, because it prevents etc.... So is killing bad? No. But if killing is screwing with your machine then you best stamp it out. I don't care if the universe doesn't give a SHIT about whether rust is a cool guy or not, I don't like it so get the fuck outta my machine. We just have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to keep there OWN machine clean. If your machine gets killer rust (you would dislike being killed) then there should be a way to keep your machine clean. It will naturally stay clean, as you will naturally not die (at least in a day-to-day sense) so thats fine. The only way it will get rusty is if some fucker comes and rusts it up. Curse you oxygen! So you throw that shit in jail, or kill it, or whatever, so that it doesn't rust your machine again, or someone else's machine. But you have to prove that killing someone affects negatively the functioning of the universe, which of course it doesn't, that's my point. By assuming that killing someone is a negative impact on the universe, you are in fact assuming that it is evil! But this is supposed to be the a "proof" that evil can exist! See how that's circular?Two guys are banging their machines together? Hey, if their machines can withstand that than by all means continue. They aren't banging them into your machine. Your machine will similarily not bang naturally. So you don't need protection from these two guys banging their OWN machines together, but if you go break it up than they need protection against YOU (homosexuality is ok and should be protected, basically). Your machine may just 'do' but that is still something that can be strived for. If a machine is not for doing then why be a machine at all? But it is, so do it does. Allowing machines to DO whatever it is they do could be morality, could it not?
The machine here is the universe, and no, just because it exists does not mean it has a purpose. And no, since you are part of the universe, allowing it to be the universe is not morality.
My replies in bold italics.
Also, by the way, I don't believe in determinism, but I think people who do should be consistent about it.
edit: formatting
|
On March 08 2012 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision. There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it. Why? Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions? I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes? Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not? Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why? If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand. To steer this post back on topic: It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect. As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends. The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences. While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him. On your point about prediction. Here's 2 papers Sam cites, showing experimenters predicting decisions by reading the brain before a person is aware they have made the decision: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486293http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain: Show nested quote +"The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control."
Looks very interesting.
Will respond to paralleluniverse's post once I get the time to read it 
However the Catch 22 argument applies in the context of the argument. I cannot prove whether I can make decisions for no reason, because its impossible to ever be in such a scenario, but you can prove that you make decisions with a reason. Therefore there is no way of arguing against this, its a fallacious argument, although I don't know which kind of fallacy it is.
It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong
I guess the best way to rebut is, you cannot prove whether you can or can't make a random decision without any influences or reason, therefore you cannot use this in your argument. Its not wrong because its a Catch22, but its not true, because its impossible to test such a scenario, its merely an assumption, and posing the question leads the responder into a trap. If its not true, then its wrong.
On March 08 2012 23:19 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision. There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it. Why? Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions? I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes? Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not? Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why? If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand. The reason it seems confusing is because you're not going quite deep enough. Think about it this way. Everything we know is set in stone. Physics is a universally predictable science. Now, you can talk all you want about quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about it to predict it yet. Everything else we see and work with is perfectly predictable, the question here is the biological aspect. From the beginning of time to the beginning of creatures, these things were guided by physics alone. If you rewind the clock, and do it all over again, the same rules will exist, and exactly everything that happened will happen again. The planets will form and move just as they do now, the sun will end up in just its spot, these things are all, unarguably, ruled by "simple" physics, which we can calculate, and which is predictable. So, I think we would both be in agreement that conditions up to the first life form would be the same, given the above. So, if conditions are exactly the same, then the first life forms would be exactly the same. If the first life forms are the same, and conditions are the same, then the actions of the life forms will be the same. They will do all the same things at all the same times for the same reasons they did the first time around. And this will hold true until humans. And since you make decisions based on reasoning, all your decisions will be exactly the same, because they will be made for the same reasons and under the same conditions as they were on the first time around. So, since your thoughts and decisions are based solely on what's around and influencing you, and we've established those will be the same, then you will make all the same decisions. If I rewind time and play it back for you 30 times, you will make the same decisions every time. Everything will be exactly the same. How does that play with the idea of true free will? How is it possible to reconcile that what you've done is the only thing you could have done, given the conditions? As I said before. I think purpose, and freedom are the obvious components of free will. Random movements do not denote will and predicted actions do not denote freedom. I think free will contains both. What we end up with, is the fact that we DO make decisions. We all have the ability to decide to act or not, and functionally, it's almost the same as true free will, and should be treated almost as such. But the problem is, the decisions you make, you cannot decide differently. Anything you do is for reasons, reasons that precede you, and do not originate from nothing. We can act, but only on a determined path. We're unique in the universe in that we, internally, decide our fate. I can decide to dodge a ball, but a planet cannot dodge an asteroid. In so far as this, we have a will, and our will is exerted on the universe. But given a thousand times the same ball in the same conditions is thrown at me, I will dodge every time. I can't reconcile that as truly free, in the classic sense. Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision. There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it. Why? Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions? I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes? Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not? Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why? If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand. To steer this post back on topic: It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect. As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends. The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences. While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him. On your point about prediction. Here's 2 papers Sam cites, showing experimenters predicting decisions by reading the brain before a person is aware they have made the decision: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486293http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain: "The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control." I don't think the experiments really have a place in such a discussion over the true nature of free will. It's easy to know that there are some things we don't decide. Our heart beats on its own despite being controlled by our brain, our eyes blink, we recoil from pain, these things happen without conscious thought, and this is obviously well known. It's not unreasonable to think that ideas originate before we're aware of them consciously, and then bubble to the surface. However, a free-willist will, correctly so, point out that we then have the ability to examine this decision and change it if necessary. Sometimes our first hunch isn't correct, and upon much thought, we change it.
You make some interesting points, but the overall example you base it on ruins it for me. We cannot rewind time, and how do you know that the act of rewinding time would not have us peer into a different dimension because I make a different decision upon the act of observation and inherent randomness in decision making, thus proving true free will exists. Again we cannot know.
I feel that there is a distinct lack of concrete non-trivial examples that are relevant to us.
|
Okay, lets see here...
I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want.
I don't think anyone has the right to chastise others for how they live their lives, because the chastisers believe that their religion's rules define moral correctness in society.
PLEASE SEPARATE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. All I fucking see on the news is republican (and democratic politicians) bringing their religious beliefs to the floor of discussion. A christian or catholic politician is SCARED TO AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION because they will lose support of other fellow christians. Really? Gtfo
|
On March 09 2012 10:42 LarJarsE wrote:
Okay, lets see here...
I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want.
I don't think anyone has the right to chastise others for how they live their lives, because the chastisers believe that their religion's rules define moral correctness in society.
PLEASE SEPARATE RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT. All I fucking see on the news is republican (and democratic politicians) bringing their religious beliefs to the floor of discussion. A christian or catholic politician is SCARED TO AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION because they will lose support of other fellow christians. Really? Gtfo
There is a separation of state and religion. The problem is lobby groups and their influence. I think a much bigger problem is how powerful rich lobby groups are (although this wouldn't be a problem if voters weren't dumb enough to believe them), they destroy the welfare of the country for their own personal gains.
|
On March 09 2012 00:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 08 2012 15:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 08 2012 00:42 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to quote the people from before, but I see a number of people asking what free will is, and I think this is really important to the entire conversation.
To me, free will is the sum of the words that comprise it. An action must be free: Caused entirely by the agent at no influence from another object or agent and an action must be willful: In that it must be purposeful.
I don't think an agent is free if it depends entirely upon other actions/happenings to make its decisions. Computers do not have free will, because they require input and then do things based on pre-determined rules.
I also don't think an agent is willful if it makes decisions completely randomly. There must be a goal, else it is not will, it is simply random happenstance.
I understand the concept that people think, normally, that their consciousness forces them to think in terms of self and being in total control. In that, I mean that telling someone "You don't have free-will" typically invokes varying levels of hostile response.
But, let me calm you for a moment, and invite you to think of a being that would have truly free will. This being would have the ability to make any choices, for no reason. If the being has a reason for a choice, their free will did not select it, it was selected "for them" in advance of their action, by the actions of others that preceded it.
Don't buy it? Imagine yourself choosing between reading this post or not reading this. I assume you chose read, since we're talking. Now imagine how you could have done otherwise? Why would you? If there's a why, then it wasn't free, it was guided, at best. You made your decision because of a decision made before that. Or a stimulus before that. Or a thought before that. The thought before it was guided by another thought, or another stimulus, or another decision, and it goes on into infinity.
I don't wanna believe in the no free will concept either, but I don't see a way out of it. That's why your brain contorts to try to understand the concept of true free will, but can't. Your brain only understands things in terms of "When this, do this." "Because this, do this" and nothing else. It doesn't originate ideas from nothingness. It simple takes previous stimuli and uses it in such ways that appear to be free, but always originate prior.
Even using quantum mechanics doesn't seem to get you out of it, as hard as I wracked for a solution, it always devolves to a random number, at best, and that's not free will, it's still a pre-existing condition that causes the decision. There are heaps of posts like this but I just don't buy it. Why? Its a Catch 22. It's the same as calling someone in-denial, and if they deny it well, its because they are in-denial. Your argument simply cannot be proved wrong, and is therefore a logical fallacy. For example, you can never ever be in an environment where there are no influences, therefore no matter what I say, you will say its because I was influenced. Also you'd never make a choice for no reason, why would you? not to mention its not even possible in a literal sense. However how do you use quantum physics to explain choices based on a hunch, and spontaneous actions? I'd like to see someone argue about things like career choice. What determines two identical twins brought up in the same environment to lead completely different lives. Often they will have different personalities too, there's always the evil twin. Can we determine where the person will end up in 40 years, given X environmental factors and Y genes? Let's give the example of a psychopath. Now we know not all psychopaths are serial killers, and some lead very successful business careers due to their extreme confidence, how come lack of empathy negatively affects some as much as they positively affect others? A "good" psychopath may not have any issues with killing someone, but what influences the barrier where many with the same disorder would kill and he would not? Is this free will? Why, why not? Can we assume the existence of a soul, and if two people swapped bodies, would they behave exactly the same? If so, why? If you look at my post history you will see that I'm arguing for both sides. I guess I'd like more relevant responses than quantum physics, because I'd like this to be explained to me in a way I can understand. To steer this post back on topic: It might be a Catch-22, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't arbitrarily claim that every thought and action is a consequence of the totality of actions or influences that have come before it. I claim it because it follows from the principle of cause and effect. As for the quantum physics point. You seem to say you don't understand it. You don't really need to. All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. Particles randomly pop in and out of existence (this is experimentally proven), randomly and unpredictably. Some people say that this gives us free will. The counterargument is if your actions are randomly determined, it's not free. That's where the story ends. The difference between twins and the difference between psychopaths and "normal" people is attributable to having different experiences and influences. While I expressed most of my thoughts on this topic already, I got Sam Harris' book yesterday, and interestingly it deals with your concerns quite well, so let me quote him. On your point about prediction. Here's 2 papers Sam cites, showing experimenters predicting decisions by reading the brain before a person is aware they have made the decision: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486293http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273On your point about a soul, he argues even if a soul exists, you are enslaved by the mechanics of your soul just as you are enslaved by the mechanics of your brain: "The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of the brain does. If you don't know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control." I've said this a few times in this thread. Quantum physics is not fundamentally random. This is an outdated idea in quantum physics. Though things make look random or probabilistic, this is due to our previous lack of understanding of how it worked. It is deterministic and in fact the same thing is happening every time.
On March 09 2012 00:45 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
All you need to know is that quantum mechanics says that the universe is fundamentally random. QM doesn't say things, we are limited to interpreting it. It seems odd to me that you would accept a fundamentally random interpretation ( Copenhagen?) given the hard determinism in your OP.
There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random.
Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequality
While it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random.
And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still.
|
I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
|
On March 09 2012 03:11 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 18:47 [F_]aths wrote:On March 08 2012 12:37 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 07 2012 23:20 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 23:12 seppolevne wrote:On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:On March 07 2012 11:06 gyth wrote:On March 07 2012 09:17 PaqMan wrote:
So what exactly is free will? The arguably illusory notion that we control our own actions. A collection of atoms just following physical laws isn't exercising control in any normal sense of the word. So why do we feel in control, and are we unfairly held responsible for our actions? Was Hilter evil, or just atoms being atoms? Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will. A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil. I think you need to spend a little more time realizing the consequences of no free will... Do you mind to explain why? No free will doesn't release you from being responsible. If we could demonstrate right here with absolute certainty that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can go around an kill people because it was just proven that you had no free will. It would be an evil act regardless. I think he means that you aren't really applying your belief in non free will very accurately. Even in your reply that I'm quoting, you speak as if going around a killing people was a choice. If we could demonstrate right now with absolute certainty that free will didn't exist, and then I went and killed people, it would not be because I chose to on the basis of your argument, as you just demonstrated I cannot chose! In the same way if by chance I didn't go and kill people, it would be because I didn't have the choice to. Either way, it's not my choice, so how are you talking about things as if I was choosing even with the presupposition that I cannot, in fact, choose? Evil really does become meaningless. If you punish me for killing those people, it's not because I am evil that you do it, it's because you are predetermined to punish me, it's not something you chose to do because I was "evil" it just was. If there is no free will, then all that we do is the same as a rock falling when we let it go, it simply happens. It is not good or bad in and of itself, it simply is. And it is because there is no way it could be any different. If this is what you believe, I may disagree with you, but I respect you, because you are consistent to your premises. If you want to play games and say that you can not have free will but still have good and evil, I think you are most likely deceiving yourself (knowingly or unknowingly). If you're offended, don't worry, you were just determined to be offended, just as I was determined to write this post. I see "good" and "evil" as a concept which is useful to describe and value certain actions. The lack of actual free will doesn't render the concept meaningless, I think. Even if the world could be proven to be 100% deterministic (if I understand quantum mechanics right, it is not, but lets assume that for the sake of the argument) we are still obliged, I think, to punish evil actions and increase the goodness in the world. I would see this as important part of the concept of good an evil: The "ought" in it. We can have that ought without free will, because if we act accordingly, we can reduce the misery and increase the well-being of conscious creatures. It is a good act regardless if we chose it by actual free will or not. I still have the feeling that we are discussing different points. Again you are using terminology: "Obliged" "if we act accordingly" "we can reduce..." etc that all implies we are making a rational choice. Be consistent! You don't have a choice, you can't act according to anything except what is determined! If we are 100% deterministic, then whether or not we punish someone for something they do is simply determined. We could be punishing them for something that is wrong, or for something that is right, we don't have a choice in the matter. We cannot try to reduce misery or increase well-being because to choose those values is to make a choice, which is exactly what we cannot do! I must re-iterate: good and evil become meaningless in a deterministic world, everything that is simply is because it cannot be any other way.
We do make (more or less) rational choices, however we do them subconsciously. To make choices doesn't require free will. Take a computer program which reacts to input. With the same input the program will provide the same output all the time, but it could have produced another output if the input would be different. It made a choice though the choice is determined only by it's actual program and the input. It does not have free will, yet it reacts to input with choosing different calculations depending on the input.
On a neuronal level our choice making it is even unconsciously as neurons itself are not conscious. We *do* react to our environment, it's just that we don't react with free will. If I touch a cup of coffee which is too hot, I pull my hand back. It's a choice I made, but it's not a choice of free will. While it maybe appears to me that the choice having Winona Ryder on my desktop background is from free will, it's still not. I can follow Harris's argument that choices which appear to be my conscious choices aren't my choices in the sense that I made them consciously.
The good/evil thing is separate from free will I think. What we do is what we do. Good things are things we should do, evil things are things we shouldn't do or even we should fight against. I am creating a realm of values here.
We need a good moral to have a good life for everyone, regardless if we have free will or not. When we are destined (let's say the world is deterministic, though I don't know if the world is deterministic) it's good if the determination leads us to a better life. This doesn't happen without our acts.
In other words, even if the world is provable deterministic, we still need to punish criminals and support goodness. We still need to develop a good moral code and follow it.
|
On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote:
I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times.
That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a marine accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this, yet still call themselves the religion of peace.
Not all religions are created equal.
The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder and intolerance is Islam.
|
On March 09 2012 18:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote:
I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times. That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace. The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam.
In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
|
On March 09 2012 18:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 18:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote:
I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times. That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace. The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam. In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will.
Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
|
On March 09 2012 18:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 18:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 09 2012 18:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 09 2012 18:07 churbro wrote:
I dislike Sam Harris purely because he is bias towards Islam. I my self as well as an Atheist, am also an Anti-Theist (I hate religion, in all forms), but his bigotry towards Islam is infuriating at times. That's because they riot and murder when a journalist draws cartoons, they riot and murder when a solider accidentally burned a Quran, they stone their women, they incite for someone to murder Salman Rushdie. They do all this call themselves the religion of peace. The religion of peace is Buddhism. The religion of murder is Islam. In their defense, they didn't do any of those things of their own free will. Neither did bin Laden then. No free will doesn't mean we should just take it. As I've already said, the world operates as if it has free will.
No, I get it. I get it. Free will doesn't exist when you want to disdain certain people based on their beliefs. Free will exists (or at least we get to pretend that it does) when you want to disdain certain people based on their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
