RestoringGuy

I think there is an odd helper verb. Few have considered what really is "getting to" do something, versus just doing. If there is a choice I make, I don't know if I get to do it, or if I must do it despite having more than one possible way to proceed. It may be determined that I have no choice whether a choice must be made, I can only influence the odds. When a lifeless atom is about to decay, I will call it a choice only because more than one outcome is possible. In my view, the free will position does not have to prove that people get to choose. It may only require multiple choices be rationally accessible to us, randomly accessible or otherwise. Illustrated by the Monty Hall problem, probabilities can have dependencies and they can become structured in ways that evade common sense. Free will is nothing more than random behavior that is heavily filtered and structured by the rules we call rationality. It is a subtractive process, starting with uniform randomness and then descending into structure as four forces of physics require. There is evolutionary exclusion of irrational states, and free will becomes revealed to us through the behavior of matter. This is the opposite from the determinists, who hold that solely the rules themselves can influence matter. To determinists, the universe starts out basically stupid, and the illusion of free will and morality is generated by the rules as a newly added feature of the universe. I know what you say. But determinism is more like God because God is an additive beast (a creator). I stay away from the psychological arguments because I know they won't work. I also spent decades clinging to determinism. But I realized, to have rules that make any sense, it must be purged from the subatomic realm and consequently from almost everything. The psychological and religious arguments I think distract us from the true arena of physics where the truth ought to be shown.

The appeal of hidden variables is strong, because science is revealed to us powerfully, and our psychology pushes us to conclude every little thing must be predictable. I take a different pathway than psychology, because I know the determinists will keep postulating hidden variables and I feel it's not their fault. To them, the unknowns are like cards, which when flipped over seem to reveal a state of nature that was previously unknown but determinate. They of course cannot be swayed by flipping over these cards, revealing to them the cards themselves are faulty. The free will argument is just made of atoms, which have no chance of convincing them if all of our atoms are anything like cards being flipped over. But there are energies and states which matter seems to misbehave, stuff like Bose-Einstein condensates, laws of physics appear to change. On the whole, only simple non-deterministic rules yield accurate predictions. They can invent wild hidden variable theories, and some of them seem to work. But then you have to ask what is more likely to be real? A simple set of laws with indeterminacy built into the system, or a gigantic complex set of deterministic rules which like a mirage seem to change only as you inspect them closer.

It seems a little bit like stargazing. A person could look at a group of stars, say you know that's a bear. How did that bear constellation get up there in the sky? What does the bear eat, and what kind of emergence gave us a bear made of stars? But of course somebody else does not call it a bear. It's some other animal, or nothing at all, depending on what is useful to them. I say this because, to compile a list of the brain's functions is a bit like stargazing. There a neuron here and a neuron there, and if it seems to be a combination that is useful enough, we call it a "function" instead of a constellation. Emergence may influence things, and give us some brain activity that is helpful (emotions), but ultimately all those little reactions are pieced together subjectively, we call it a name and put it on the list. It is not just that nobody know what emotions are, but perhaps nobody can know. Like constellations, we discuss a imaginary collective of real things, and it's only the collective that is made up to begin with. A computer program could work the same way, although in practice I suppose it is frowned upon to purposely design computers that get depressed or go crazy.

I sympathize with this view, because I am sort of the opposite --an atheist for reasons rarely argued. This cop-out idea has bothered me for a long time, and I found a solution. Yes I have argued against "believing only in the seen", which is flawed idea. I am a Platonist for this reason, so I accept there are real and existing things that are unseen and simply not present in the physical world. But the metric for reality is whether those things can be manufactured and exposed to us indirectly. For example, the element called oxygen is a collection of particles. There was once a time oxygen was not present in the universe. But even then, it was a viable construct. That is to say, the fact of whether or not the oxygen atom configuration could survive existed independently of it having been materially tried. It's a viable structure, based on its abstract design, and that makes it real. By similar reasoning, other "new" structures may exist, proven as viable (let's say by computer simulation you discover a new stable element). If our theories about physics are right, those things were viable long before humans thought to try it. Now I know some will say "2+2=4" sprang into existence only at the moment somebody tried it, or they will say numbers do not exist. But this is just a matter of vocabulary. Once the abstract rules are cast into physical motion, it seems obvious that some eternal truth is exposed. It's a reproducable truth anybody could have discovered, not just the inventor of a machine. It seems true that "believing only what is seen" is an error. But still, if not actual presence, truth must at least require potential presence. For me, God as most define it, is simply not one of those truths because there is no potential for God to become visible even indirectly.

That is an excellent summary of choice, that it's just having two or more possibilities. Those possibilities however, need not be intelligently selected. No rationality, or perhaps no life at all, may enable more than one possible outcome. I tend to see choice and free will as different for this reason, because free will seems to imply that you know a way to raise one possibility, rather than two possibilities merely being accessible. The debates on determinism are frustrating for those who accept free will, I think, mostly because they secretly wish determinism is true whenever rationality is absent. Otherwise there would be never be a mention of "rocks". We would just accept indeterminacy of all things, and accept that some things are smarter than others about influencing one possible outcome over another.

Yes it is possible, so is Cartesian denial of reality. Such attempts have failed so far. The point here is that determinism (by the standard assortment of definitions) is a stronger claim, which requires stronger proof. Causality, or Determinism-as-you-may-call-it, offers plenty of room for error. If you allow for even one particle to have uncertain position, the gravitational field is now also uncertain. So everything, including what I want to have for lunch, is slightly impacted by it. You have to swallow it all or nothing. I subscribe to the theory of objective reduction (something like Orch-OR), which allows that things such as Quantum-Zeno Effect to sort of happen naturally, depending on the gravitational field. This is, of course, almost as controversial as determinism. But it solves the problem of brains being qualitatively special actors in the land of wavefunctions.

Determinism, as a philosophy, seems to presuppose all things are bound by it. Determinism, as a quantum mechanical principle, presupposes only that certain specific states, which are rare in the universe, can be predicted absolutely. Most things, atoms, brains, and so forth, are subject to scientific analysis by way of necessary statistics. By necessary, I do not mean we are too dumb or our instruments too insensitive. I mean the very nature of reality is an approximate endeavor. If we say there is only "some" determinism, as stated by scientific definitions, there is philosophically no determinism at all. There is only causality of a stochastic nature, the kind of causality philosophers do not want to discuss. To have causality, you only need objective influence on experiments, as judged by repetition. If some determinists want to redefine the word determinism, making it non-absolute (covering the Stern-Gerlach apparatus for example), then they are not speaking of the kind of determinism that is off-limits. They are just coining a new word with an old spelling. I am OK with that, but everybody should try to be explicit about their word substitutions.

Causality is not determinism. Uncertainty makes the position of an electron rather nonspecific, and intro quantum mechanics explains why very few things are deterministic (even hydrogen atoms cannot exist, since electrons will spiral into the nucleus). The only oddity is why determinism exists in special cases. These are all old arguments. Life is just atoms doing the uncertain things that atoms do. Determinists believe they are "right" because life has no special physics. Behind the scenes, free will is right because not even atoms do things with certainty. There is no reason that I see to deny the attribute "choice" even to a coin toss. You may argue it is a stupid choice, unaided by any complex intellect. But if there is sensitivity to initial conditions (chaos), and some of those conditions are sub-planck-constant (sufficient energy to make microscopic position and momentum a deciding factor), the coin toss defies prediction even in principle. Add enough coin tosses and foundational rules to guarantee dependent probabilities, using selection to weed out rules with irrational implications, and I suppose you can make a free-willed brain out of coins just as you can with atoms. We don't need the full religion of determinism to do science. We only need causality.

While objectification is a sad pathetic word almost without meaning, there is no outrage over women circumcising their sons deliberately because they are male. But there is frequent inquisition as to why women are objects because they won't eat their food or else some photo was digitally edited. I think the pick up artist thing is mostly just denial. It seems more men would choose to be women than vice-versa. To use the object metaphor, desirable objects are pursued and undesirable objects are avoided. Few people mention the other side of the coin.

There are other ways to cope that he could have done instead. I do not allow excuses like that from my mother. To feel unsafe is I think better than achieving half-forgiveness. If an apology includes "because" or explanations to say why, then it is only to boost their emotions instead of yours. We know these parents were terrorized in their youth, but to me, forgiveness is a bad result if it leaves doubts whether it was earned.

I am sure we can all agree nothing is wrong with peaceful government or peaceful parenting. I would only want to ask people if their definition of "peaceful" is identical for those two categories. I aim to treat them the same as far as word definitions and saying what constitutes peace.

This makes sense about ability to reason being sometimes hard to detect, but the non-sentience does not count for much with NAP. Building a machine that is harmless is not violation of NAP. Building a machine that is harmless for 200 years and then arms itself to blow up people, well the sentience that built it is long gone. There is no NAP violation for 200 years because of harmlessness, and no NAP violation after because there is no existing sentience? The only way around this is to extend the idea of "harm" and "aggression" to events beyond your own lifespan. If extension is made, a chimpanzee could be well-reasonable in 1000 years, we would murder its great^25 grandma. It is just as planting a landmine that only kills somebody who is not even born yet. Non-extended NAP would say nobody is responsible for any of this.

This sounds like the opposite of the word friend.

Three scenarios: Siamese twins, human chimeras, people with split-brain condition. Answer one self or two.

I am shocked. You say a role is not a fiction, but it is a name? I will insist that names are fictional. We are not born with names tattooed. If anything is fictional, is not a name fictional that is strictly conjured in our minds? And there is certainly no such thing as a "name we place" on things because we jointly share no speaking or writing organs. The name you place differs from the name I place, as proven by our differing use of words. The Sears Tower is still named by me "Sears Tower", I do not care what the new owner says. There is certainly cause for somebody to feel guilt about committing a necessary wrong. To me it is far less confusing than making wrong a context-based word. If I kill in self-defense, I will regret killing and feel guilt. I will only take slight comfort in the necessity, not the morality. Your system of naming seems to exonorate people who seek out conflict (or at least do not try to avoid) until they must act out in violence, and you seem to call it right. I am comfortable blaming but not punishing people who do wrongful things out of necessity. But you seem to be saying there is no such thing as necessary evil.

I am glad you point that out concerning physical reality. I do not subscribe to the theory that "real" is equivalent to material presence. Quite the opposite, I am a Platonist. On the other hand, there are logical bounds and we can only measure those bounds using materialistic tools. Whether or not roles are viable indicators of morality shows me whether they are real, and if the roles are social fictions I tend to doubt their viability. I suppose the victim can also decide what the purpose is, maybe better than the person who is in the role. The point I make is when people talk about roles or the state, they are not talking about context as you describe. Why do you try to make context determine what is right? Why can't any context of the same act be "wrong" but at the same time be a contextually necessary wrong? It is cases like self-defense where people always try to make context magically make violence right. It seems simpler to leave violence wrong, and when self-defense arises, it is still wrong but necessary to accomplish a goal (survival, etc). That is were context matters to me, in goals, not morality. It is maybe only our difference in vocabulary, but my thinking maybe allows fewer sentences with the idea "it's wrong except". You make good points though.

I had not heard of this before. It does not seem like strict prohibition, but it says it is a waste. I do not know how you can have philosophical discussion without some attention to determinism. Even Stef has taken a determinist position in some podcasts with regard to nonliving matter. That is a kind of determinism I find problematic and it indirectly feeds the determinists delusions. As I understand the problem, the wasteful discussion involves the kinds of determinism that negate free will, or describe it as a sort of an illusion. To avoid all determinism, you'd almost have to avoid science entirely.

Why are roles real? Maybe they are just mentally constructed words for implied promises a person may or may not keep. The fiction of roles is why male American babies get their foreskins chopped off, because a surgeon is exceptionally considered right. To me, moral roles are lies aimed at covering up hatred.

Right! No change of subject. The standard answer is always essentially "adults and children are biologically different, but politically powerful and powerless people are biologically the same". That is why I mention the alien thing. If politicians had tulips growing out their ears, they are now biologically different. So I ask more specifically, why the double-standard, now that biology is all that is used to set the standards?

As a Platonist, I might have more in common with you than most atheists. What is given as evidence of a designer is also carried over to the designer himself. That is, God is too perfect and must have had a creator, if indeed perfect things are, as you suggest, designed. I probably differ with you on whether there is such perfection or "insane" complexity in this world. As far as definitions, you do not seem to state yours. The word "exists" is always a problem. To me, it means nothing by itself. God must not only exist, but by my definitions, God must be "present" in order for theism to seem worthy. Only things that are present can be tested for inside your created plane. A green rock buried on Neptune's smallest moon might "exist". But it's not present in the temporary plane you are observing. It does not affect your life. Are you allowing for God to be absent, like the green rock, yet existing in only some distant unreachable way? By the way, I like your "law of evolution" thing. It needs work.

I think it is not universal, but it's a matter of who asserts their will to live. The deer tries to run away, a sign of survival effort. At the same time, animals also die naturally and what is the difference if they are killed in order to be our food? Consider if a hitman comes for me, but it turns out I was surely going to die of heart attack anyway in about 10 seconds. Their violation of NAP is simply not relevant to me. My imminent death is the main problem. I have a lot of patience for the animal rights people only because I think they are right about intrinsic value, and there seems to be some overlap with the non-aggression principle. But if many deer will starve to death anyway, I do not think hunting for food is essentially wrong. Since death is unavoidable, everything is just a debate about how their death is timeshifted.

I would like to say I think you're on to something. This is a matter of scale. Consider if big space aliens landed and took us over, treating us all like children. They might demonstrate a way of living that's vastly superior to ours, yet at the same time they must bind us and punish us because we are biologically simply too weak and dumb to carry out their better way of living without their direct and forced guidance. Now you can rebel, and use self-defense and say freedom trumps the perceived need for us to live in this better way. Even if successful it may shorten our lives because we break away from their alien tech. So I hear things like government is different because "children need their parents to survive". No. That's simply not true in absolute terms, because children do not die instantly when their parents die. Children may need parents to survive a bit longer. But that is almost the same way people think about cops and the fire department. It seems to me there are hidden assumptions when we say parents and government are fundamentally different. There is an assumption of the way things ought to be. Basically governments ought not try to pretend they can forcibly extend lifespan of others, but parents ought to be able to try. So if an entity from space comes along to benevolently control us, not that it would ever happen, is it logically correct to assume their restraint is allowed as a legitimate excuse?

But hiring the hit-man is just handing over money and speaking words, constructs of language. These things are cultural precursors, apparently not objective initiation in itself. It can be cloaked behind symbols, they can say to the hit-man "don't kill" followed by a wink. The state is big on cloaked directives, saying things like you voted for it. This is why I get confused by "initiated" because there is frequent flip-flop between initiating a personal act (which is perceived one-on-one as if in isolation) and initiating a social act (as a matter of downrange cultural consequence). If downrange influence counts, then we must also hold everyone responsible: those who cook their meals, sell them a car, taught them how to speak. Without these things they would not be healthy and mobile enough to do evil.

It is all circular, because without choice to ponder or not, we already are committed to one way even if committed to saying it's all useless (and accepting that argument is suddenly useful for completing the discussion). The determinists should suck it up like the rest of us. The pure determinist cannot technically explain why an electron does not spiral into a hydrogen nucleus. We can say all fun and games, like some people say about buying into astrology. I think it's more because, brain or no brain, atoms do useful stuff within a known probabilistic distribution, and that random stuff is not automatically useless because it can be predicted within useful bounds. We all know brains are just atoms. Please enough rolling rocks. Deterministically a rock can't even exist, much less do exactly the same thing twice. Thinking dead matter is fully predictable is just as troubling as placing the brain in a new category of matter. These supposedly deterministic minerals and water eventually turned into a caveman. And if you freeze the caveman solid, he is deterministic again. It's not a good system.

Many bad assumptions. It happens all the time. Atoms absorb energy to move their electrons to different orbitals, or atoms move relative to one another, taking in kinetic energy from the surroundings. That subsequently makes some reactions more likely than others. It makes many inorganic compounds possible, like water for example. "Living organisms" just do this in a way you are more likely to recognize and label "functional". Atoms do not care if they constitute living matter and suddenly realize it and change how energy flows around them. It is not true there is living "structure maintained" in a techical sense, because our cells are replaced routinely, and we just call them the same. It is much as rainfall may replenish a puddle and you can call it the "same" puddle if you wish. It is a linguistic convention and that is all.