michaelfcp Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 We have perfect knowledge that these constants will always be the same and we can compare or beliefs and possible actions against them. What have tautologies got to do with this? I'm pretty sure animals can't do it but even if they could it would just mean animals can do it too and we've yet to discover that. I'm aware that animals show something that could be called moral behavior but it's not rational. We could not hold an animal morally responsible, only causally responsible for something bad it did. I'm talking about rational morality, knowing the difference between right and wrong. Humans naturally uses these ideals. Children for example start using rational standards early on. Some of the most logical people may not actually know anything about logic or philosophy. We have evolved to process it and follow it. Some humans may NOT have free will but all functional humans may have the capacity. We are the rational animal. Yeah... I see that. And I myself have similar concerns. Thank you for stating that so eloquently. But on the other hand, the standard that we all subscribe I think, is the Truth. So we have to make sense of the evidence. And there are different interpretations, but the results of some experiments are disturbing, to say the least.
Kevin Beal Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 That is not true . If determinism is true debates happen because of prior causes. But on the other hand, if free will is true, yes. And it is important to notice that we don´t know with complete certainty. It´s not like we can syllogistic prove free will. So, maybe not all determinists are insane. No, I'm sorry, yes it is insane if determinism is true because all of that is illusory. Believing delusions is insane. You don't get to believe or do anything you want if you're a determinist, do you? If yes, then we really ought to stop this discussion because it's meaningless and thus insane. If not, then it is even more crazy. Determinists are crazy in either scenario. Whether determinism is true or not. And I'm completely certain. Maybe unfairly or prematurely, but I'm absolutely 100% convinced that I have free will. And I'm not bothered in the slightest that I don't have syllogistic proof. I'm not sure why it would be necessary. We believe things all day long without syllogisms. And even more than that, I've presented plenty of arguments. I would feel pretty resentful if none of them mattered simply because they don't constitute syllogistic proof. That would only serve to prevent any progress from being made.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 It's like the calculator versus myself doing a math problem. The calculator doesn't hold a position that 2 + 2 = 4, it just is. But if I put two reeses pieces next to another 2 reeses pieces I count 4 reeses pieces and the meaning of the operation becomes clear to me. I understand how and why 2 + 2 = 4. But determinists can't claim this same capacity for meaning and understanding since they are just calculators. I believe the difference between a calculator and a human is consciousness, not free will. Consciousness is what is required for the type of understanding you described.
Kevin Beal Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Why can't reasoning through to a conclusion be a deterministic process? Because it's not reasoning that's happening in that scenario, but the illusion of it. I believe the difference between a calculator and a human is consciousness, not free will. Consciousness is what is required for the type of understanding you described. And the free will to cause the understanding to occur linearly. Consciousness causes it to occur as a phenomena, like how water molecules gather to produce liquidity.
michaelfcp Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 What if the determinist position is psychological in origin and is used to justify self deception? Consider the following: If free will is an illusion, but it's a biological illusion to achieve some dumb blind end, then something delusional "I have causal powers over my own life" is just a lie the homunculus in our heads tells us so that we can continue to live life and keep moving. This takes the same form a nasty emotional defense does. One I have some experience with. What might the psychological consequences be of believing that there is no free will? Well, that people are not responsible. That I do not have to feel remorse and neither do I need to confront people that I don't want to confront, since I am just the way I'm programmed to be, and so are they. The emotional defense is fatalism. Things are much less painful if we think that they couldn't be any other way. In other words, it's not that my mother was bad, it's that she was programmed by the culture and her parents into being shallow and indifferent. She can't be responsible if that's just her programming. It's why people who have shitty opposite sex parents end up having a shitty outlook on the dating and the purpose of a love relationship generally. It's why people who get angry and recognize their abusers as evil are the people least likely to repeat cycles of abuse. Fatalism also provides us with a false sense of control and predictability since we have a causal account of things. "My mother is petty because X". And we resent people who endure X, but decide to do something about it instead of waste away into the fatalistic abyss of suppression and avoidance. Because the causal description is no longer determined. And they just generally resent people who show them that it's not fatalistic. How many times have you reasoned something logically and made a logical case to someone only for them to get hostile and say absurd things all the while projecting their own incapacity / unwillingness to reason logically onto you? The anti-thought masses refusing to face their own ignorance and the lies they were told, but instead take it out on you for showing them that reason is possible. It doesn't matter if it's an illusion for these people since what they call "reason" is just blind bigotry. They just keep moving. The emotional investment that I have and probably most free willers have is that the consequence of determinism is that no one is morally responsible. The emotional investment for determinists is what? If it's all determined how the debate is going to turn out or whether or not I ever end up considering myself a determinist again, then why would they possibly care? And maybe even more fundamentally, why should they ask themselves that if no one is responsible? Yeah... I see that. And I myself have similar concerns. Thank you for stating that so eloquently. But on the other hand, the standard that we all subscribe I think, is the Truth. So we have to make sense of the evidence. And there are different interpretations, but the results of some experiments are disturbing, to say the least.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Why can't reasoning through to a conclusion be a deterministic process? What standard is the deterministic process using to reason through to a conclusion?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 What standard is the deterministic process using to reason through to a conclusion? It results from neurons behaving in a deterministic way.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 It seems this is one of the great unanswered questions of physics. Sure, but doesn't that contradict your claim that "all things appear to be the effects of causes and causes of effects". The causal determinist position requires that a first cause exist. Unless you wish to posit that this first cause is supernatural wouldn't you have to concede that non-causal events can occur that are within the laws of reality? It results from neurons behaving in a deterministic way. What standard are the neurons using?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 What standard are the neurons using? What do you mean by standard? And why must it have a standard?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 What do you mean by standard? And why must it have a standard? If you are reasoning to a conclusion then you must have some standard by which you can compare that reasoning and the conclusion. We are both using a standard of reason, evidence, truth. It's not just rank opinion, right? So the neurons in our brains must have some knowledge of this objective standard because they are going through a process that is, in principle, supposed to move closer or arrive at the standard. So what standard are the neurons using to reason through to a conclusion?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 If you are reasoning to a conclusion then you must have some standard by which you can compare that reasoning and the conclusion. We are both using a standard of reason, evidence, truth. It's not just rank opinion, right? So the neurons in our brains must have some knowledge of this objective standard because they are going through a process that is, in principle, supposed to move closer or arrive at the standard. So what standard or the neurons using to reason through to a conclusion? These standards such as reason, evidence and truth, are a part of consciousness, and consciousness is dependent on neurons.
Kevin Beal Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 These standards such as reason, evidence and truth, are a part of consciousness, and consciousness is dependent on neurons. What difference does it make if consciousness is dependent on neurons? I don't see how that is any kind of counter argument.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 These standards such as reason, evidence and truth, are a part of consciousness, and consciousness is dependent on neurons. Therefore the standards are dependent on neurons and neurons are following a deterministic process. So the standards are determined by the neurons and just like consciousness they are subjective and/or illusory, right?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 Therefore the standards are dependent on neurons and neurons are following a deterministic process. So the standards are determined by the neurons and just like consciousness they are subjective and/or illusory, right? What is wrong with these standards being subjective? What difference does it make if consciousness is dependent on neurons? I don't see how that is any kind of counter argument. I will elaborate. Consciousness is not just dependent on neurons, it is completely determined by it.
Kevin Beal Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I will elaborate. Consciousness is not just dependent on neurons, it is completely determined by it. No it's not. When I feel a pain, have a belief, desire etc, it causes more neuronal activity. So in that way neuronal activity is also affected by consciousness. Otherwise you need to explain away the causal effect that desires, pains etc have as illusory, that it's really something else, which doesn't work because consciousness is irreducible.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 What is wrong with these standards being subjective? If the standards are subjective then they are not objective. Objective standards are required to determine (ha ha) truth or falsehood. Therefore because the standards by which you base your conclusion that determinism is true are subjective, your conclusion that determinism is true cannot be true. It is subjective opinion with no truth value. Do you see what's wrong with that?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 If the standards are subjective then they are not objective. No. If everyone shares the same subjective experience, then it becomes objective. If everyone sees the same tree, then that tree's existence is objectively true in addition to being subjectively true to each individual person that sees it. No it's not. When I feel a pain, have a belief, desire etc, it causes more neuronal activity. So in that way neuronal activity is also affected by consciousness. Otherwise you need to explain away the causal effect that desires, pains etc have as illusory, that it's really something else, which doesn't work because consciousness is irreducible. I don't have a problem with feeling a pain, having a belief, desire etc causing more neural activity. The problem is that having a pain, having a belief, desire etc, are determined by neural activity, thus determinism.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 No. If everyone shares the same subjective experience, then it becomes objective. If everyone sees the same tree, then that tree's existence is objectively true in addition to being subjectively true to each individual person that sees it. So if everyone believes in Allah then the presence of Allah becomes objective? If NOT everyone shares the same subjective experience then those experiences cannot be objectively true? I don't have a problem with feeling a pain, having a belief, desire etc causing more neural activity. The problem is that having a pain, having a belief, desire etc, are determined by neural activity, thus determinism. So consciousness can cause neural activity but consciousness is solely determined by neural activity?
Kevin Beal Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I don't have a problem with feeling a pain, having a belief, desire etc causing more neural activity. The problem is that having a pain, having a belief, desire etc, are determined by neural activity, thus determinism. Blah blah blah, thus free will. Sooooo laaaaazy!
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 So consciousness can cause neural activity but consciousness is solely determined by neural activity? yes. So if everyone believes in Allah then the presence of Allah becomes objective? If NOT everyone shares the same subjective experience then those experiences cannot be objectively true? If everyone actually sees him and everyone gives consistent descriptions to what he looks like where and what he is then yes. The only alternative is that everyone is insane.
greekredemption Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 It is irreconcilable actually. "Determinism is true" takes free will to conclude, because if the belief that determinism is true is held, then in order to be consistent, it is just simply held independent of any truth value. Your belief just is, and is not reasoned thru to the conclusion because the act of reasoning is free will. Rocks don't reason, people thinking about things, comparing propositions against standards and causing themselves through their own volition to accept a conclusion is free will. It's like the calculator versus myself doing a math problem. The calculator doesn't hold a position that 2 + 2 = 4, it just is. But if I put two reeses pieces next to another 2 reeses pieces I count 4 reeses pieces and the meaning of the operation becomes clear to me. I understand how and why 2 + 2 = 4. But determinists can't claim this same capacity for meaning and understanding since they are just calculators. If you try to sustain determinism as a true and valid belief, then you've already contradicted yourself. Determinists have to deny everyone free will but themselves in order to debate. It's insane. "Why can't you people see that language has no meaning?!" My favorite part is how determinists claim that this is somehow the scientific position. It's funny. I discussed earlier why I think the performative contradiction is not a relevant rebuttal, so I won't go over that again. However, regardless of demonstrating the complexity of human experience, the point still stands. Your definition of free will simply is determinism! You describe it as an emergent property of simpler particle interactions, one part of a causal chain, which is exactly what it must be if it is to be consistent with the rest of the universe. Free will is not apparently the genesis of causal chains, therefore it is part of existing causal chains (read: the universe) and therefore we are merely partaking in a deterministic universe*. Sure, but doesn't that contradict your claim that "all things appear to be the effects of causes and causes of effects". The causal determinist position requires that a first cause exist. Unless you wish to posit that this first cause is supernatural wouldn't you have to concede that non-causal events can occur that are within the laws of reality? It doesn't contradict it, it just means we don't know the first cause; to be honest, not being a cosmologist, I can't even be sure that's a relevant question. * re: Non-causal events... well according to Lawrence Strauss this does occur at a quantum level (i.e. shit pops in and out of existence without any apparent cause). So it may be that the universe is not deterministic but is random. Maybe. In any case, I would suggest the argument is between 'free will' and 'not free will', where the latter could imply either determinism of randomness. Or supernatural explanations, perhaps.
Kevin Beal Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I discussed earlier why I think the performative contradiction is not a relevant rebuttal, so I won't go over that again. However, regardless of demonstrating the complexity of human experience, the point still stands. Your definition of free will simply is determinism! You describe it as an emergent property of simpler particle interactions, one part of a causal chain, which is exactly what it must be if it is to be consistent with the rest of the universe. Free will is not apparently the genesis of causal chains, therefore it is part of existing causal chains (read: the universe) and therefore we are merely partaking in a deterministic universe*. You're right. We are going in circles. Let me know when you have an answer to my challenges
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 yes. If everyone actually sees him and everyone gives consistent descriptions to what he looks like where and what he is then yes. The only alternative is that everyone is insane. Yes? Okay so consciousness is both a 100% effect of the neurons activity but also a partial cause of the neurons activity? If you're only other alternative is that everyone is insane then that IS an alternative so what would be the difference between being objectively true and insane? Another alternative is that everyone is mistaken because in my view there must be an external standard of truth and that standard is not simply generated by neurons but is apprehended and derived from the consistency of reality. But in your view the standard of truth is subjective and purely generated by neurons and things are true if everyone believes them and gives consistent descriptions. By that standard you must agree that determinism is not true, right?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 Yes? Okay so consciousness is both a 100% effect of the neurons activity but also a partial cause of the neurons activity? If you're only other alternative is that everyone is insane then that IS an alternative so what would be the difference between being objectively true and insane? Another alternative is that everyone is mistaken because in my view there must be an external standard of truth and that standard is not simply generated by neurons but is apprehended and derived from the consistency of reality. But in your view the standard of truth is subjective and purely generated by neurons and things are true if everyone believes them and gives consistent descriptions. By that standard you must agree that determinism is not true, right? I don't know what you mean by standard of truth. truth is just a concept that is applied to propositions.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I discussed earlier why I think the performative contradiction is not a relevant rebuttal, so I won't go over that again. However, regardless of demonstrating the complexity of human experience, the point still stands. Your definition of free will simply is determinism! You describe it as an emergent property of simpler particle interactions, one part of a causal chain, which is exactly what it must be if it is to be consistent with the rest of the universe. Free will is not apparently the genesis of causal chains, therefore it is part of existing causal chains (read: the universe) and therefore we are merely partaking in a deterministic universe*. It doesn't contradict it, it just means we don't know the first cause; to be honest, not being a cosmologist, I can't even be sure that's a relevant question. * re: Non-causal events... well according to Lawrence Strauss this does occur at a quantum level (i.e. shit pops in and out of existence without any apparent cause). So it may be that the universe is not deterministic but is random. Maybe. In any case, I would suggest the argument is between 'free will' and 'not free will', where the latter could imply either determinism of randomness. Or supernatural explanations, perhaps. Sorry but it DOES contradict. If you say that everything appears to have a cause then you face the problem that something must not have a cause. The cosmology is not relevant to the point, only the logic. Logically you have to concede that not everything appears to have a cause. The human mind has only evolved to perceive cause/effect/cause/effect... . So to say the only alternative to determinism is random is to project your limited human perception onto the nature of reality and consciousness. What IS a "causal chain" in reality? What IS a cause? Determinists use these terms so loosely yet arrive at the most precise claims. If free will DID exist and our minds had the capacity for self-generated choice then there would still be antecedent events but it would not be determined in the sense you seem to mean. You need to define "cause" in a way that is not circular, otherwise you're using a term that we can gain no purchase on. I find it a little strange that you being more on the deterministic side are willing to consider supernatural explanations whereas I, on the free will side, am not. Would you really consider the supernatural?
Openeye Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Just wanted to say that this is probably one of the best threads I have read on this site so far. Keep it up guys I'm having such a blast watching this intellectual battle be waged.
michaelfcp Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Just wanted to say that this is probably one of the best threads I have read on this site so far. Keep it up guys I'm having a such blast watching this intellectual battle be waged. Yeah, let´s continue in positive mode
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 Some questions I have for those on the free will side: If you somehow discovered that free will did not exist, how would that change how you live your life? If you found out that certain animals had free will, how would that change how you live your life? If a deterministic robot could experience consciousness the same way we humans can, would we be morally obligated to treat it a certain way?
june Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Just wanted to say that this is probably one of the best threads I have read on this site so far. Keep it up guys I'm having such a blast watching this intellectual battle be waged. agreed. there are lots of ideas to dance with in this thread also i want to re-iterate the definition "michaelfcp"' provided for free will, which was:"We were free to behave differently than we did in the past"i don't think you can put it more succinctly than that
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I don't know what you mean by standard of truth. truth is just a concept that is applied to propositions. Your proposition is that determinism is true and that free-will is an illusion (more or less). You hold this as true and so you are applying a concept of truth to that proposition. You must have a standard by which you measure the truth or falsehood of that proposition. If, as you say, the standards by which you determine truth and falsehood are subjective and generated by your neurons then your conclusion that determinism is true is also subjective. It is opinion. The proposition which is generated by your neurons only conforms to a standard of truth generated by your neurons. In order for a proposition to have objective truth value it must conform to an objective standard. Your proposition does not (and cannot) conform to an objective standard, therefore your proposition cannot be true. Some questions I have for those on the free will side: If you somehow discovered that free will did not exist, how would that change how you live your life? If you found out that certain animals had free will, how would that change how you live your life? If a deterministic robot could experience consciousness the same way we humans can, would we be morally obligated to treat it a certain way? These are great questions and I really like to talk about this aspect of things but I am a little worried that now that we're getting somewhere in the debate about the truth of determinism / free will it might derail things a bit to start a side discussion about the emotional or ethical consequences of it. Just a thought.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 I think we need to clarify what we mean by subjective and objective. The existence of the color red, is this objective or subjective.If nobody can see red, then does red still exist? Edit: I did some quick research on objectivity, and this may be as complicated as free will. agreed. there are lots of ideas to dance with in this thread also i want to re-iterate the definition "michaelfcp"' provided for free will, which was:"We were free to behave differently than we did in the past"i don't think you can put it more succinctly than that This definition of free will could possibly apply to quantum particles.
june Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 This definition of free will could possibly apply to quantum particles. can you elaborate on that?
Rainbow Dash Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 can you elaborate on that? Some scientists believe that quantum particles behave randomly. If that is true then at any given moment a quantum particle could have behaved differently then it did in the past.
Rainbow Dash Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 Those videos still don't answer the main problem I have with free will, which I am sorry if I haven't explained it well enough before. I will explain: Everything that happens fits in to one of two categories: either I knew for certain beforehand that it would happen, or I didn't know for certain beforehand that it would happen. If I knew for certain beforehand then it must have been deterministic. If I didn't know beforehand, then from my perspective it was random. For example, since I can't calculate the result of a coin flip before it hits the ground, coin flips are random to me, even though coin flips are considered physically deterministic. Since all actions must fit into one of these two categories I described, and you already explained that free will and determinism can't coexist, that only leaves the possibility that free will is random from an individual's perspective. Is free will actually a form of randomness (by how I described it), or did I make a mistake?
Recommended Posts