Free will and the NAP

[Joker]

In his 3-part video about free will, Stefan said that if we don't have free will (which I don't believe we do, but that's another discussion), then the non-aggression principle would be meaningless. Why is that? Aren't the consequences of our actions the defining part? So if a man has an outset of schizophrenia and he catches a very contagious and dangerous disease, and he's living in his own fantasy world where he thinks he's perfectly healthy, isn't he violating the NAP by walking among other people, probably contaminating them? Don't they have the right to lock him in some sort of safehouse where he can't contaminate people?

[PatrickC]

So if a man has an outset of schizophrenia and he catches a very contagious and dangerous disease, and he's living in his own fantasy world where he thinks he's perfectly healthy, isn't he violating the NAP by walking among other people, probably contaminating them? Don't they have the right to lock him in some sort of safehouse where he can contaminate people?

 

If he truly was mentally ill, then yes.. Particularly if he was wondering around on private property. Although I'm certain you are going to tell me the catch.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

In his 3-part video about free will, Stefan said that if we don't have free will (which I don't believe we do, but that's another discussion), then the non-aggression principle would be meaningless. Why is that? Aren't the consequences of our actions the defining part? So if a man has an outset of schizophrenia and he catches a very contagious and dangerous disease, and he's living in his own fantasy world where he thinks he's perfectly healthy, isn't he violating the NAP by walking among other people, probably contaminating them? Don't they have the right to lock him in some sort of safehouse where he can contaminate people?

It's meaningless because because there are no acts of aggression without free-will. 

[cynicist]

In his 3-part video about free will, Stefan said that if we don't have free will (which I don't believe we do, but that's another discussion), then the non-aggression principle would be meaningless. Why is that? Aren't the consequences of our actions the defining part? So if a man has an outset of schizophrenia and he catches a very contagious and dangerous disease, and he's living in his own fantasy world where he thinks he's perfectly healthy, isn't he violating the NAP by walking among other people, probably contaminating them? Don't they have the right to lock him in some sort of safehouse where he can contaminate people?

 

Without free will there is no choice (since everything is predetermined by history/environmental factors outside of your control) and without choice you can't have responsibility. Without that you can't be responsible for acts of aggression, so morality becomes meaningless. Your example is tricky, but if he's insane and not able to process reality correctly then he can't be held responsible, so no NAP violation. If he is simply ignorant, despite having the internet and access to doctors, then he is certainly responsible for the effects of his choice on others. I think that persuading him to get medical attention is preferable but if he continues to try and endanger others then locking him up is an act of self-defense on the part of others.

[Mike Fleming]

Determinism does not mean people are not responsible for their actions, imo.

 

If you were looking at a deterministic system from the outside, then yes, you would say the actors inside are not responsible.  Like for example, if you had a bunch of robots in a closed environment.  

 

But we aren't outside it, we are inside it.  And our actions do have consequences.  

 

We may be in a deterministic universe but there is no way to predict the future from inside a deterministic universe completely.  We can have rough approximations but that's all we'll ever have.  It's important to understand that it is a deterministic universe so we can look at the past and see reasons behind people's actions.   To use the classic FDR example, we can look at the reasons for violence and abuse and trace them back to bad environment's people had as a child.  We can then use that information to improve the future.  

 

I think for people who do hurt others, we should look at them as basically people who are malfunctioning.  They are detrimental to the system as a whole and need to be assisted in becoming productive members of society.   It's because I am a determinist that I think the justice system should be more focussed on rehabilitation than punishment.   The ultimate goal, of course, should be prevention which is why I am so interested in Stef's work.

 

I like to say that Stef is my favourite determinist on the web.    If he doesn't want to put that label on himself, well, whatever...  No biggie.

[DGB]

Without free will there is no choice (since everything is predetermined by history/environmental factors outside of your control) and without choice you can't have responsibility. Without that you can't be responsible for acts of aggression, so morality becomes meaningless. Your example is tricky, but if he's insane and not able to process reality correctly then he can't be held responsible, so no NAP violation. If he is simply ignorant, despite having the internet and access to doctors, then he is certainly responsible for the effects of his choice on others. I think that persuading him to get medical attention is preferable but if he continues to try and endanger others then locking him up is an act of self-defense on the part of others.

Do determinists actually say "pre determined", as I don't see any evidence for free will, but the idea that things are predetermined seems to be to assume some kind of thing "knows" what will happen but this is not the case. What will happen tomorrow has not been determined. It WILL be though, once we get there.

[cynicist]

Determinism does not mean people are not responsible for their actions, imo.

 

If you were looking at a deterministic system from the outside, then yes, you would say the actors inside are not responsible.  Like for example, if you had a bunch of robots in a closed environment.  

 

But we aren't outside it, we are inside it.  And our actions do have consequences.  

 

It doesn't matter if you are looking from the outside or inside or whatever. If human actions are predetermined then they can't be held responsible, in the same way that someone with a heart defect due to the genetics in his family is not responsible for said health condition.

 

Do determinists actually say "pre determined", as I don't see any evidence for free will, but the idea that things are predetermined seems to be to assume some kind of thing "knows" what will happen but this is not the case. What will happen tomorrow has not been determined. It WILL be though, once we get there.

 

Well they would say that with the correct knowledge of the relevant data you would know, similar to how given enough data on the movement of a comet you can determine where it will be at a given point in time. 

 

I'm seriously starting to see determinists in the same light as agnostics, who make the argument that we will never know if god exists or not because he might be over in some unexplored part of the universe...

[steve_]

It's meaningless because because there are no acts of aggression without free-will. 

 

Why?

 

Without free will there is no choice (since everything is predetermined by history/environmental factors outside of your control) and without choice you can't have responsibility. Without that you can't be responsible for acts of aggression, so morality becomes meaningless. Your example is tricky, but if he's insane and not able to process reality correctly then he can't be held responsible, so no NAP violation. If he is simply ignorant, despite having the internet and access to doctors, then he is certainly responsible for the effects of his choice on others. I think that persuading him to get medical attention is preferable but if he continues to try and endanger others then locking him up is an act of self-defense on the part of others.

 

But there is choice, it's just not free from the laws of the universe which we observe.

 

Well they would say that with the correct knowledge of the relevant data you would know, similar to how given enough data on the movement of a comet you can determine where it will be at a given point in time. 

 

I'm seriously starting to see determinists in the same light as agnostics, who make the argument that we will never know if god exists or not because he might be over in some unexplored part of the universe...

 

 

No, you cannot predict what will happen since with this knowledge you could change the outcome, so it would be impossible to predict in the first place.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why?

To commit an act of aggression requires some measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Without free-will there is no measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Therefore one cannot commit an act of aggression without free-will.

Aggression would be an illusion.

[cynicist]

But there is choice, it's just not free from the laws of the universe which we observe.

 

No, you cannot predict what will happen since with this knowledge you could change the outcome, so it would be impossible to predict in the first place.

 

Causality means a clear cause and effect relationship between two things, in that one brings about the other. So the idea determinists have is if every action is a link in the causal chain, meaning that everything is set in motion by some prior event, then if you understand the nature of those events you can predict what will occur. (since everything has been predetermined by said prior events) So to their minds there is no choice, because everything you do has been set in motion by everything preceding that action in your life. If you know what will happen and "change" it, to them it is fated that you would do so, and is not really change at all, since every experience that you had before that moment was slowly nudging you in that direction.... 

 

What do you mean impossible to predict btw? Weren't you just saying that nothing is free from the laws of the universe? Are they not predictable?

[DGB]

He's referring to a paradox which people claim exists where I could punch into the determobot "what's cynicists next post going to be?" and it will tell me, then I could tell you what it said and you could just do something differently.I do not think this is a paradox, it's just a bad experiment, as the computer is also subject to causality, and is part of the information which guides our choices. If we are told "X will happen", that information is then used to produce choices. In order for this theoretical 'determobot' experiment to be valid, the determobot would need to exist outside the realm of cause and effect (outside the universe or whatever), it would need to be in a true "observer" position (we are not, we are actors), it would then need all the information (and an understanding) of all within it. I think this computer would then be more complex than our universe, since it contains it (plus some!).This computer could make predictions, but it couldn't tell a single human being about it. It couldn't influence our environment at all. As soon as it does, it's a failed experiment.I also don't think this only applies to determinism, however.This computer is essentially an omniscient thing. Would an omniscient thing not be able to predict actions within a free will paradigm?If you say it couldn't, what part of our decision making is operating outside causation? What would this computer that has every piece of information in the universe within it be missing? What does the human mind have that does not exist within the universe?

To commit an act of aggression requires some measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Without free-will there is no measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Therefore one cannot commit an act of aggression without free-will.

Aggression would be an illusion.

Why is initiating aggression immoral?

[steve_]

To commit an act of aggression requires some measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Without free-will there is no measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Therefore one cannot commit an act of aggression without free-will.

Aggression would be an illusion.

 

If you do not accept that animals have free will, do you believe they cannot commit an act of aggression?

 

I don't think the definition of the word includes anything to do with free will, it just describes an action?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you do not accept that animals have free will, do you believe they cannot commit an act of aggression?

 

I don't think the definition of the word includes anything to do with free will, it just describes an action?

No, animals cannot commit an act of aggression in any moral sense. That's why holding them morally responsible is irrational. Animals are incapable of evil. They can certainly attack violently and you can call that aggression but you have to be careful not to equivocate with the word "aggression". Animals are causally responsible to some degree but not morally responsible. For the determinist (just referring to causal determinists as that seems to be the majority) humans are similarly just causally responsible. Aggression does not just describe an action, otherwise violent self-defense would also be aggression. Aggression and self-defense would be indistinguishable; Just force. Under determinism everything could be considered aggression because everything simply causes another thing to happen. So the definition of the word "aggression" has everything to do with free-will because without free-will the word and the concept it refers to is redundant if not meaningless.

BTW, I think it's worth adding that even if animals have no free-will then it does not necessarily follow that that are like weather or rocks or plants. I do not know if some kind of proto-free-will exists in many animals. Most animal "choices" seem to be driven entirely by impulse and instinct but sometimes in the more intelligent creatures there are inklings of something more advanced. Many animals have an very limited capacity to perceive the future (a dog will know when food is coming or instinctively project the trajectory of the Frisbee, etc) so something LIKE choice may exist in a very primitive sense. 

Why is initiating aggression immoral?

Because there can be no moral justification for initiating force that does not collapse into contradiction. You have the choice to initiate force if you like but you will do so with the understanding that no rational moral justification can be given.  

[DGB]

You've made some pretty extraordinary claims here. Aggression in the context of the NAP is simply the initiation of force. While determinist may not believe an individuals will is "free", we still possess will. We still want and desire things. We still have preferences, etc. We can still be forced "against our will", which is the problem with initiating force.

[ThomasDoubts]

Is determinism falsifiable?  Is there a test that could be done to prove determinism isn't true?

[DGB]

Is determinism falsifiable?  Is there a test that could be done to prove determinism isn't true?

 

I can't think of one.

You'd need to demonstrate someone acting outside causality, I think, don't know if that works or not. No idea how you would attempt to demonstrate that either.

[Kawlinz]

You've made some pretty extraordinary claims here. Aggression in the context of the NAP is simply the initiation of force. While determinist may not believe an individuals will is "free", we still possess will. We still want and desire things. We still have preferences, etc. We can still be forced "against our will", which is the problem with initiating force.

 

Any will that we possess would be reactionary, in the same way that when you kick a ball and it moves. Kinda defeats the purpose of calling it will. If I kick a ball at someone's face as hard as i can, you may attribute that to will. But if kicking a ball into someone's face is just a reaction to my surroundings, memories, feelings and senses, then I have as much will as the ball, just doing what I'm doing because of outside forces - no more no less. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You've made some pretty extraordinary claims here. Aggression in the context of the NAP is simply the initiation of force. While determinist may not believe an individuals will is "free", we still possess will. We still want and desire things. We still have preferences, etc. We can still be forced "against our will", which is the problem with initiating force.

I agree that aggression in the context of the NAP is the initiation of force. But the NAP itself is also just matter and energy, subject to exactly the same deterministic forces as everything else. Nothing escapes. In reality an act of aggression is one that is initiated by someone. They did it and to some extent and in some sense could have done otherwise. Under determinism there is no logical possibility that anyone could have done otherwise.

Being forced against your will (assuming we label preferences and desires "will") cannot be the only problem with initiating force. That's incomplete because weather or falling rocks or anything without a will of it's own (in the sense you're using will - I'm assuming you don't think rocks have desires or preferences) can force you against your will. But that could not conceivably be called an act of aggression by the rocks or the thunder-storm. None of those things can initiate anything.

A person who rapes you, for example cannot logically be the aggressor. They are determined by their preferences and desires. Your resistance would also have to be aggression as you would be forcing them against their will by refusing to comply. It is one rock bouncing into another rock. There is no rock that initiates the force. The concept of aggression / initiating force detonates under determinism.

I can't think of one.

You'd need to demonstrate someone acting outside causality, I think, don't know if that works or not. No idea how you would attempt to demonstrate that either.

This assumes that the free-willer is arguing that free-will must necessarily be outside causality. The problem with that is that causality is actually a very vague concept and it can be argued that it does not exist at all but is rather just a useful concept to describe our perceptual experience. It's also likely that causality and determinism are in tension with each other and may actually conflict.

If you think determinism is just "causality" and that free-willers must be proposing a-causality then why not drop the word "determinism" and just say "causality"? 

Is determinism falsifiable?  Is there a test that could be done to prove determinism isn't true?

This is an important question because there are a great many determinists who believe that determinism (no free-will) is a fully supported scientific theory when actually it's still a hypothesis. Look at someone like Sam Harris who states that "science" (a consensus of academic scientists) must eventually conclude that such determinism IS true. These people seem to forget one important thing: Science has rules.

[DGB]

I agree that aggression in the context of the NAP is the initiation of force. But the NAP itself is also just matter and energy, subject to exactly the same deterministic forces as everything else. Nothing escapes. In reality an act of aggression is one that is initiated by someone. They did it and to some extent and in some sense could have done otherwise. Under determinism there is no logical possibility that anyone could have done otherwise.

Being forced against your will (assuming we label preferences and desires "will") cannot be the only problem with initiating force. That's incomplete because weather or falling rocks or anything without a will of it's own (in the sense you're using will - I'm assuming you don't think rocks have desires or preferences) can force you against your will. But that could not conceivably be called an act of aggression by the rocks or the thunder-storm. None of those things can initiate anything.

A person who rapes you, for example cannot logically be the aggressor. They are determined by their preferences and desires. Your resistance would also have to be aggression as you would be forcing them against their will by refusing to comply. It is one rock bouncing into another rock. There is no rock that initiates the force. The concept of aggression / initiating force detonates under determinism.

This assumes that the free-willer is arguing that free-will must necessarily be outside causality. The problem with that is that causality is actually a very vague concept and it can be argued that it does not exist at all but is rather just a useful concept to describe our perceptual experience. It's also likely that causality and determinism are in tension with each other and may actually conflict.

If you think determinism is just "causality" and that free-willers must be proposing a-causality then why not drop the word "determinism" and just say "causality"? 

This is an important question because there are a great many determinists who believe that determinism (no free-will) is a fully supported scientific theory when actually it's still a hypothesis. Look at someone like Sam Harris who states that "science" (a consensus of academic scientists) must eventually conclude that such determinism IS true. These people seem to forget one important thing: Science has rules.

I asked earlier what is free will, specifically what is "will" and what are you saying it is "free" from?

 

If "free will" happens within causation, why do we call it "free will" and not simply "will"?

 

Is free will falsifiable? How would we go about disproving free will?

 

"I agree that aggression in the context of the NAP is the initiation of force. But the NAP itself is also just matter and energy, subject to exactly the same deterministic forces as everything else. Nothing escapes. In reality an act of aggression is one that is initiated by someone. They did it and to some extent and in some sense could have done otherwise. Under determinism there is no logical possibility that anyone could have done otherwise."

 

I don't see where the possibility to do otherwise enters into this. In your free will paradigm if someone is mentally ill and rapes someone did the womens rights not get violated because he couldn't have done otherwise? I don't understand the argument you're making here.

 

"Being forced against your will (assuming we label preferences and desires "will") cannot be the only problem with initiating force. That's incomplete because weather or falling rocks or anything without a will of it's own (in the sense you're using will - I'm assuming you don't think rocks have desires or preferences) can force you against your will. But that could not conceivably be called an act of aggression by the rocks or the thunder-storm. None of those things can initiate anything."

 

I never said that's all that was wrong with it. I don't know what your definition of will is. But I have the feeling your definition of free will is basically going to be what I consider determinism to be.

 

"A person who rapes you, for example cannot logically be the aggressor. They are determined by their preferences and desires. Your resistance would also have to be aggression as you would be forcing them against their will by refusing to comply. It is one rock bouncing into another rock. There is no rock that initiates the force. The concept of aggression / initiating force detonates under determinism."

 

I have never argued that the NAP is about allowing people to pursue their will. I have simply argue that because we possess will, for example I like bananas, I desire them and want them. I want to eat bananas (will). Somebody else can stop be from eating bananas, against my will. All I said is that - that example, is an example of force.

 

You believe it is not force, because they couldn't have done otherwise. I don't understand how this makes it any less an act of force.

 

A rock falling on my head is not an act of aggression. Cause a rock doesn't act. I can't reason with a rock. Rocks don't feel emotions, or empathy.

 

We are clearly a different pile of matter, than a rock.

 

Any will that we possess would be reactionary, in the same way that when you kick a ball and it moves. Kinda defeats the purpose of calling it will. If I kick a ball at someone's face as hard as i can, you may attribute that to will. But if kicking a ball into someone's face is just a reaction to my surroundings, memories, feelings and senses, then I have as much will as the ball, just doing what I'm doing because of outside forces - no more no less. 

You chucked a word "outside forces" in there, I don't think that is correct. Our desires, wants, preferences, memories, feelings, sense perceptions, etc, are all a part of us, quite literally.

[Kawlinz]

You chucked a word "outside forces" in there, I don't think that is correct. Our desires, wants, preferences, memories, feelings, sense perceptions, etc, are all a part of us, quite literally.

 

I chucked it in because I think it's accurate. saying that our feelings are a part of us is like saying the forces of inertia are a part of the ball. the outside forces gives the ball inertia and the ball moves in a direction directly proportional to the outside force. the outside forces give a person desires (and a bunch of other stuff) and the person moves in a direction directly proportional to that outside force.

[DGB]

I chucked it in because I think it's accurate. saying that our feelings are a part of us is like saying the forces of inertia are a part of the ball. the outside forces gives the ball inertia and the ball moves in a direction directly proportional to the outside force. the outside forces give a person desires (and a bunch of other stuff) and the person moves in a direction directly proportional to that outside force.

I don't see how this contradicts the position that our wants and desires and emotions etc etc are part of us. We're conditioned for those things, certainly, but when someone does or says something to me, the reaction occurs within our heads.Where do you think our wants, desires, emotions come from?

[Kawlinz]

I don't see how this contradicts the position that our wants and desires and emotions etc etc are part of us. We're conditioned for those things, certainly, but when someone does or says something to me, the reaction occurs within our heads.Where do you think our wants, desires, emotions come from?

 

When a ball has inertia, where does the inertia come from?

Edited December 14, 2013 by Kawlinz

[DGB]

I don't know, why don't you explain your point instead of asking me to do it?I'd compare emotions, wants, desires, to an objects (humans) mass, charge, etc. Not to for instance, gravity, or another person holding my shirt.

[RestoringGuy]

I don't know, why don't you explain your point instead of asking me to do it?I'd compare emotions, wants, desires, to an objects (humans) mass, charge, etc. Not to for instance, gravity, or another person holding my shirt.

As another viewpoint I suggest emotions cannot be measured or even defined as precisely as mass or charge.  I am confused why it is worthwhile to argue about what is called a real thing or attribute as opposed to a real behavioral consequence given a name for pure convenience.  Nobody should really care whether the sky officially possesses the color blue, it is just whether certain light rays are scattered or not.

[DGB]

As another viewpoint I suggest emotions cannot be measured or even defined as precisely as mass or charge.  I am confused why it is worthwhile to argue about what is called a real thing or attribute as opposed to a real behavioral consequence given a name for pure convenience.  Nobody should really care whether the sky officially possesses the color blue, it is just whether certain light rays are scattered or not.

Nobody defined emotions as such. I don't really understand what you have issue with here.All I'm saying is that our emotions, desires, wants, needs, etc.. They are part of us. They are "properties" of the individual. The other guy thinks they are something external to us, I don't understand this argument. If those things are external from an individual, I have no idea what an individual is then.If you're saying we shouldn't talk about "properties" because emotions don't exist they're chemical reactions or whatever, then I'd reply that we use abstract concepts to describe these things for the sake of communication.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I don't really know for sure what free-will is. That's part of the point. I can point to the evidence that humans appear to have a unique ability to compare their opinions and beliefs to ideal and universal standards (Stef's defintion)and choose. They appear to be able to have done other than what would be entirely determined. I can point out that humans have moral responsibility which requires free-will to some degree and that free-will is required as an assumption in order for much of our logic and language to make any sense. If the empirical evidence of a fundamental difference between humans and everything else isn't enough for you then I'll go with Stef's definition - The ability of humans to compare what's in their head to ideal / universal standards. 

Saying free-will may not necessarily be saying it's "free" from something. It's a way to differentiate those actions that we choose from those that someone or something else chose. 

 

"If "free will" happens within causation, why do we call it "free will" and not simply "will"?"

 

Why would I call it that even IF it "happens within causation"? I call it free will to differentiate it from other things one might call will or whatever. Some things might be called "will" that I have no choice over (like hunger, desire, certain preferences) so it makes no sense to conflate that with things I DO choose by labeling them with the same word. Rather than being simple it would actually complicate things.

 

"Is free will falsifiable? How would we go about disproving free will?"

 

It's a scientific question. We are not arguing that science has demonstrated it. We're agnostic but we have philosophical arguments that argue that free-will is necessary and that without it you fall into contradiction. As some assumption is required in order to proceed then we must choose the logically consistent one. 

 

"I don't see where the possibility to do otherwise enters into this. In your free will paradigm if someone is mentally ill and rapes someone did the womens rights not get violated because he couldn't have done otherwise? I don't understand the argument you're making here."

 

Without any possibility of doing otherwise there can be no moral responsibility. For someone's rights to be violated there must be a person or persons who are morally responsible for the violation. If he could not have done otherwise then he can have no moral responsibility so NO, the women's rights did not get violated any more than if she was struck by lighting.

 

"I never said that's all that was wrong with it. I don't know what your definition of will is. But I have the feeling your definition of free will is basically going to be what I consider determinism to be."

 

You said  "We can still be forced "against our will", which is the problem with initiating force." So it's perfectly reasonable for me to assume you meant was the only (or at least the major) problem with it. I can't read your mind and have to make assumptions based on the language and phrasing you use.

Your definition of determinism as stated is "cause and effect" (or perhaps "causality") so it's nothing like my definition of free-will. Cause and effect tells me almost nothing. Could you even define what a cause IS in a way that's not circular?

 

I have never argued that the NAP is about allowing people to pursue their will."

 

What? Did I argue that YOU argued that? I'm so confused. 

 

"I have simply argue that because we possess will, for example I like bananas, I desire them and want them. I want to eat bananas (will). Somebody else can stop be from eating bananas, against my will. All I said is that - that example, is an example of force"

 

Okay fine you seemed to be arguing within the context of the NAP but I guess you weren't. So now you're saying that being prevented from pursuing your "will" (eating the banana) by a person is an act of force. Fine. So what? Under determinism it's no different from anything else preventing you from eating the banana. As I argued, under determinism everything is force. It's just one thing causing another. It happening to be a person is irrelevant. A person would have no more control over preventing you from eating the banana than a strong gust of wind would. 

 

"You believe it is not force, because they couldn't have done otherwise. I don't understand how this makes it any less an act of force."

 

No I argued that under determinism AND free-will it is force. I argued that under determinism that that force is not aggression. I argued that only with free-will is the NAP valid. Under determinism the person has absolutely no control or choice and what happens cannot possibly be any other way. Anything can apply force against your will, doesn't mean it's morally responsible. It is a particular KIND of force that's being discussed here called aggression. Make sure you're not equivocating on "force".

 

" A rock falling on my head is not an act of aggression. Cause a rock doesn't act. I can't reason with a rock. Rocks don't feel emotions, or empathy.

We are clearly a different pile of matter, than a rock.

 

Under determinism that doesn't matter. The person who uses aggression against you has no more choice than the rock. The fact that you can reason (possibly) with them is no different than the fact that you can block the rock (possibly). Saying we are clearly a different pile of matter is completely irrelevant. All piles of matter would be subject to exactly the same deterministic forces and at no point, no matter how fantastically complex the pile of matter ever became would that change. Complexity would create nothing but more complexity. 

 

"Our desires, wants, preferences, memories, feelings, sense perceptions, etc, are all a part of us, quite literally."

 

What's "us"?

[DGB]

This got pretty muddled, my fault, I see why you thought I was making said claim, sorry about that. I'm going to try and make my posts more to the point.

 

My main issue is that I don't understand free will. You say:"We are not arguing that science has demonstrated it. We're agnostic but we have philosophical arguments that argue that free-will is necessary and that without it you fall into contradiction. As some assumption is required in order to proceed then we must choose the logically consistent one."My problem is I don't see this idea of free will as logically consistent, because I don't know what it is. You even say you don't know what it is.I think our brains are governed by the laws of physics, if they're not, how do they work?I understand the point you're making about moral responsibility but I'm not sure given what you have provided me how your concept of free will justifies moral responsibility.If our actions/thoughts are the result of cause and effect, then you say they aren't really our choices (we have no choice) so there is no moral responsibility.So we need free will, but we don't know what free will is or how it works.I see a few possibilities for what free will is:a) Actions that happen for no reason (random / outside causation)b) Actions that happen because of a mechanism we don't know anything aboutc) OtherA, and B cannot be justifiably held morally responsible, surely you need to understand your behavior to be held responsible?So what am I missing?If the NAP cannot be valid without free will, I think it's important we know what it is.. I can't even figure out what it NEEDS to be, in order to make the NAP valid (given your criticisms of determinism that is).Our ability to compare our opinions and beliefs to ideal and universal standards is awesome but I don't know what it has to do with free will.

[HasMat]

I think free-will  has 2 basic meanings, both are direct assertions about identity

1. (universally accepted--atleast as foundational-- but definition disputed)

     your matter is your own, your identity is your body, this space-time version of you belongs to you and you alone, your behavior is controlled by your matter. since you own your matter you are culpable for the behavior of that matter. (this starts getting hanky when atheists and homosexuals think this thru: obviously only omnipotent beings would have true culpability in a purely physical universe)

2. (reality disputed but definition understood)

     your identity exists independent/simultaneously with your matter. you have another existence on a different level than the physical universe, and your other plane of existence has causation (atleast partly) over your behavior in this locale

 

identity is a metaphysical concept. for an atheist to even consider the question he leaves home turf.

 

If you believe in #2 you are automatically 'religious'. Which is why it can be confusing that non-theists can disagree on this subject being as there is only 1 other defintion after ruling out metaphysical. Stefan believes in free-will of category 1. Predeterminism believes in category 1, but they think they have different positions about physical reality. they dont. the different is about fancy ideas, aka metaphysics and modalities like shouldawouldcoulda.

 

Stefan's disagreement with theists is over physical operational content, Stefan's disagreement with determinists is over definition/semantics. They both think causation is physical universe based, they just disagree whether that constitutes moral responsibility. Stefan hasn't thought thru the (non)omnipotence angle of gays yet i suppose. who supposedly simultaneously 1) exist (as beings with identity who is responsible for actions) and 2) not culpable (cuz victims of own nature/nurture).

 

i would think getting down to the nuts and bolts of what uniquely identifies you as yourself would be quite unnerving for an atheist. when the mystery is gone maybe we will be able to prove we don't actually exist. Ever see Arnold Schwarzeneger's movie "6 days"? what an bizare identity to wake into.

 

In one of Stefan's books he says a tree exists, but not forests, cuz a forest is just a collection, a theoretical construct. could it be that we are the same thing? that the perception of existence, conscousness, is just an illusion?

 

if trees but not forests, why not cells but no trees? why not atoms but not cells? why not quarks but not atoms? why not quanta but not quarks? it seems very arbitrary to say trees but no forests. which theoretical grouping has any real meaning?

 

the conception of identity DEMANDS mystery or some property of infinity. an extra-planar spirit/ghost satisfies this, but a whimsical identity as "quantum-group known as Joe" does not. i think the average person is considered to be made of less than 10^50th quanta/strings. its a lot, but basically the same as the number zero when compared to infinity. this is the atheist version of reality. but they wanna just call the grouping of matter 'Joe', as a discrete unambiguous identity. if no forest, no joe either. not to say the matter doesnt exist, just no identity joe. obviously the forest's matter is still there.

 

The communication of neurons in your brain creates a perception of mind. would it be possible for some atoms on the surface of the sun to message each other, and bounce off each other with the exact same data you are thinking right now? would that constitute emergent life? would that qualify as identity? its a grouping of matter, just like a tree, just like you. say it was able to do this, from random chance, for 3 seconds. Would that change anything? what if that collection of atoms modelled your thoughts, exactly, with exact same stimuli/choice, for your entire lifetime? would it be you? would your identity no longer be unique? what if there is an identical parallel universe with ofc you in it. is that you? if identity is not information based (sun replicant), it must be matter-based. so then what happens to the notion of identity when you meet a self from an identical parallel universe? identity goes flying out the window once more.

 

the concepts of free-will, consciousness, culpability, and identity are all wrapped up together. without metaphysical constructs its all hogwash. some atoms on the sun have as much identity as you. how we interpret reality doesnt say so, but remind me again why our view has any intrinsic worth...we're not the offspring of god right? how is your life any more meaningful that an inert rock on the moon who day in and day out exerts forces, reflects light, etc. Is the left side of the rock an identity? what about the whole thing?

 

the conception of identity in a purely physical universe is pure fantasy. without identity no free-will. without free-will no morality. identity needs a property of infinite quality. quanta groupings in this reality do not suffice. joe the atom group is just a basic chemical robot aka autonamaton, which is itself a fantasy collection. he needs identity to be anything more.

 

imo identity is itself a metaphysical conception. free-will definition #1 is the scientific method applied on that fantasy. THIS is the rabbit hole of atheism. straight to nihilism and oblivion, which is cool, just dont get raised on the remnants of puritan fanaticism during childhood and then tell me atheism leads a person to NAP or kindness or anything except nihilism. thats your upbringing talking.

 

determinists position has the intelligence of the implications behind [being no more meaningful than a moon rock], [having no more identity than a sun spot]. stefan doesnt have this wisdom. i guess he is just convinced "tree but no forest" is a sane logical distinction for an atheist to make. why? cuz he believes in life as a meaningful and discrete thing. awesomely funny. tell me more about identity when life begins or ends. no metaphysical eh? but identity is real...haha

 

not saying he is wrong on metaphysical, but he cant be right on both metaphysical and identity. identity is a metaphysical concept. in short: if no god, no us. imo a type of indestructibility is also essential to identity.

 

consider the case of a souled being visiting a soulless planet of the apes. is there any immorality in murdering everyone? they were all gonna die anyway, old age, whatever cause. BUT if someone was to murder the astronaut, it causes a change on an others permanent existence. infinitely more immoral than killing a robot. thus, only actions on eternal beings can have any moral implications. hurting a finite being will cause at most 100 years of personal suffering and shorten their life by at most 100 personal years.

 

i would suggest atheists abandon this topic, but if not look into the system of accountability. its 3 subsystems are control, duty, and consequence. control is impossible without freewill. duty is impossible without awareness. The story of Adam and Eve deals with these concepts, and every time a blank slate baby grows up to be an accountable adult their freewill and knowledge grow.

 

The concepts of NAP are not dependent on the existence of any identities with free-will, but its moral jurisdiction can only claim those types of beings: NAP isnt exactly meaningless without free-will or knowledge of good and evil, it just has no moral claim/application. if a baby is 6 foot tall and 300 lbs and beating you to death you have a right to kill it in selfdefense, just not with moral prejudice.

[RestoringGuy]

All I'm saying is that our emotions, desires, wants, needs, etc.. They are part of us. They are "properties" of the individual. The other guy thinks they are something external to us, I don't understand this argument. If those things are external from an individual, I have no idea what an individual is then.If you're saying we shouldn't talk about "properties" because emotions don't exist they're chemical reactions or whatever, then I'd reply that we use abstract concepts to describe these things for the sake of communication.

You could also say the Moon is part of the sky.  I have found in many discussions that it's confusing to talk about what is internal or external.  It all depends on what you want to define as a boundary.  The brain is not a closed system, and anybody can say a property is internal or external merely by placing a boundary in the right place.  I am not arguing properties are external to the individuals like some kind of disembodied ghost.  I am arguing all properties influence the environment however slightly, and you can always draw a boundary that let's you identify the property as exposed externally, so it's counterproductive to add internal and external to the discussion (or the similar idea that properties are possessed rather than just present).  Emotions are influencing people to do things, externally do things, if you want to call it that, and you make a vocabulary choice to accept only the mental bit.  If somebody else says written words convey emotion, they are just making a different choice of what to include.  Like inertia, we don't need to argue about whether emotion is a part of us.  Desires, wants, needs, etc. also become shown as part of behavior.

[DGB]

You could also say the Moon is part of the sky.  I have found in many discussions that it's confusing to talk about what is internal or external.  It all depends on what you want to define as a boundary.  The brain is not a closed system, and anybody can say a property is internal or external merely by placing a boundary in the right place.  I am not arguing properties are external to the individuals like some kind of disembodied ghost.  I am arguing all properties influence the environment however slightly, and you can always draw a boundary that let's you identify the property as exposed externally, so it's counterproductive to add internal and external to the discussion (or the similar idea that properties are possessed rather than just present).  Emotions are influencing people to do things, externally do things, if you want to call it that, and you make a vocabulary choice to accept only the mental bit.  If somebody else says written words convey emotion, they are just making a different choice of what to include.  Like inertia, we don't need to argue about whether emotion is a part of us.  Desires, wants, needs, etc. also become shown as part of behavior.

I don't find it at all confusing to say that emotions desires etc happen in our brains which is part of our biological structure, if I see something that "makes me angry" the thing doesn't make me angry, my brain makes me angry. My brain reacts, the reaction is in my brain. I'm not confused in the slightest by this.If we do it this way then humans don't have free will because you've created an arbitrary boundary called "human", I can say the universe has free will or atoms have free will.

[RestoringGuy]

I don't find it at all confusing to say that emotions desires etc happen in our brains which is part of our biological structure, if I see something that "makes me angry" the thing doesn't make me angry, my brain makes me angry. My brain reacts, the reaction is in my brain. I'm not confused in the slightest by this.If we do it this way then humans don't have free will because you've created an arbitrary boundary called "human", I can say the universe has free will or atoms have free will.

You're not confused by your own definitions.  It makes discussion confusing.  I have no desire to say emotions are some mysterious thing, extending outside the brain.  But I accept some people will say there are angry words or sad stories.  I will need to fit the word emotion to that context.  Reading words is always doing a them-to-you dictionary translation.  Just as you say anger is in your brain, the meaning you connect to your words is also in your brain.  I will give your words different meaning until I find a problem, and then I will revise my mental picture of your meaning of words.  But you do not appear to revise your mental picture of words others use, or recognize them at all.  Why are you typing stuff unless you expect others to do what you will not?I do not recall creating boundary called human.  But I guess you can also say ice cream comes in strawberry, so the universe is strawberry and atoms are strawberry.  My answer seems kind of odd, but I am not really sure I get your point of how the word human fits in.  I do not put any trust in human as a viable definition.  A conscious gorilla probably has more free will than a sleeping human. 

[DGB]

You're not confused by your own definitions.  It makes discussion confusing.  I have no desire to say emotions are some mysterious thing, extending outside the brain.  But I accept some people will say there are angry words or sad stories.  I will need to fit the word emotion to that context.  Reading words is always doing a them-to-you dictionary translation.  Just as you say anger is in your brain, the meaning you connect to your words is also in your brain.  I will give your words different meaning until I find a problem, and then I will revise my mental picture of your meaning of words.  But you do not appear to revise your mental picture of words others use, or recognize them at all.  Why are you typing stuff unless you expect others to do what you will not?I do not recall creating boundary called human.  But I guess you can also say ice cream comes in strawberry, so the universe is strawberry and atoms are strawberry.  My answer seems kind of odd, but I am not really sure I get your point of how the word human fits in.  I do not put any trust in human as a viable definition.  A conscious gorilla probably has more free will than a sleeping human. 

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what the problem is here.I don't feel I've misunderstood what anybody has said here.

[RestoringGuy]

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what the problem is here.I don't feel I've misunderstood what anybody has said here.

Everything you said except stuff related to "outside forces" was awesome: The Determobot, the implications of messing up on what constitutes "aggression", the physics of the brain.  Everything except on Dec. 15th with "this guy thinks emotions are external to us".  I did not see that as the intent.  You can say "the reaction occurs inside our heads", but there is influence from food eaten, people talking, sunlight, etc.  You decided what constitutes "reaction".  It is another toxic word because physicists say "action and reaction", but it is often very much just an opinion which is which.  There is recoil from a gun, but bullet and gun recoil from each other.  Basketballs in the air pull "up" the Earth with force equal to the force the basketball is pulled down.  And I would say, if the word emotion is used to include its causes and effects, that is not the same how you understood it because that does not seem to divorce emotion from the brain.  Maybe you did understand it all and you can set me straight.

[HasMat]

Everything you said except stuff related to "outside forces" was awesome: The Determobot, the implications of messing up on what constitutes "aggression", the physics of the brain.  Everything except on Dec. 15th with "this guy thinks emotions are external to us".  I did not see that as the intent.  You can say "the reaction occurs inside our heads", but there is influence from food eaten, people talking, sunlight, etc.  You decided what constitutes "reaction".  It is another toxic word because physicists say "action and reaction", but it is often very much just an opinion which is which.  There is recoil from a gun, but bullet and gun recoil from each other.  Basketballs in the air pull "up" the Earth with force equal to the force the basketball is pulled down.  And I would say, if the word emotion is used to include its causes and effects, that is not the same how you understood it because that does not seem to divorce emotion from the brain.  Maybe you did understand it all and you can set me straight.

if you cannot define identities (existence and boundary) you cannot give them properties and ownerships. you would be unable to own your body. ownership is only possible if you exist, as a thing (with participation in moral dimension). and once an identity is defined, what includes it in the moral dimension? AI are identities as much as humans, what are the ethical considerations here?

 

triviality of current arbitrary definition of self

finding the right place to make a boundary is essential. you could define each human cell as a closed identity. if you make a blood pact you would be violating the NAP when you sacrificed some blood cells. You could also define a 'self' as larger than 1 person, maybe a whole society. the whimsical destruction of 1 member of society would not violate NAP because the group, as an identity owned itself and could dispense with its resources by choice.

 

life as "meaning"

the deeper question here is why should life equate to a selfenclosed unique identity? its an honest question. then would a virus be an identity? would a nanobot enhanced corpse (zombie) be an identity? life is morally meaningless without a metaphysical worldview. its just a sequence of events (that happens to be selfperpetuating like a fire). does a fire have ownership of itself? what about nonperpetuating events? does a birthday party own itself? A War?

 

if you want to pretend its 'consciousness' that bestows identity (and not life), then why is identity created and destroyed at birth and death? does a person in a vegetative state have no identity? of course not. consciousness does not create the human conceptiion of identity. life does. life only has significance on metaphysical level. here come the robots and transhumanists! is it life?

 

here yall busy using concept of self which is an arbitrary designation unless inclusion of metaphysics. ive often suspected autistics are just rabid atheists who refuse to acknowledge the self, since it does not exist in atheist universe. it appear stefan's apple of religion was eaten much sooner than we thought. babies start believing in a self within the 1st year of life.

 

RestoringGuy, your admission that emotions can be construed as internal or external (no objectively and singularly true locus of perception, all relative) is tacit admission that identity does not exist. without identity there can be no morality, no NAP, no right nor wrong, no ownership no initiation.

 

free-will requires identity, human conception of identity requires life, sanctity of life is a metaphysical construct. life is merely a scientific process. processes have no moral significance. its the metaphysical implications of the term that magically sparks into existence and causes beliefs such as thinking its wrong to murder an innocent person. true unadulterated atheism cannot make that claim. there logically is no 'person' to begin with. its a conceptual thing like a forest, a govt, a fire, or a birthday party. put out a campfire and you violate NAP? There is some kind of metaphysical bestowal that the life process creates in the human mind, above and beyond 'sequence of events'. Yet its an arbitrary distinction. All the more so if you dont believe in a metaphysical aspect to the universe.

[Extraintuitive]

Has anyone looked at probabilistic determinism?

 

classical determinism states that everything is linked in one continuous cause and effect chain from a single first cause.

 

Probabilistic determinism is the idea that causality is only probabilistic not 100% deterministic. on a macro scale everything seems to have absolute certainty, but on the quantum scale the uncertainty is greatly magnified.

 

Even the smallest amount of indeterminism is enough for free choice to be possible without a metaphysical non-explanation.