Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Age]

On a personal note, Age caps because he must. He has no choice about it.

If he doesn't cap, it's also because he must. He has no choice about that, either.

Okay, and when people say and CLAIM things, which are False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, like 'you' continually do "walker", then 'you' and them MUST do this, correct?

[Age]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

I personally think it goes deeper than our learned religious beliefs, metaphysics and customs.

The human mind has the ability to attribute the existence of other minds, where no actual direct perceptual ability is capable. That is, we infer other minds, and we do this implicitly through the observation of behaviour which appears directed, goal oriented and intentional. We infer an “agent” which is the source of and author of all actions produced by a particular body.

Especially where the attribution of behaviours isn’t directly perceptible, I.e. the reason behind the behaviour, we attribute those behaviours as being “created” out of nothing. The truth is, we are simply ignorant to the causes of the behaviour, we see behaviours occurring, and inferring the source of those behaviours to a projected agent, residing somewhere inside the organism.

Because we also feel ourselves to be this same kind of agent, existing separate from the projected world it inhabits, yet able to enact and cause change through the body we inhabit, we also project this same implicit understanding upon all inferred agents.

The truth of what the agent is, is hidden from us, seemingly. It is hidden only through a misunderstanding of the truth, and a projecting of a pragmatic construction of freely produced and uncaused action (action with a source in a subject with no causes) which attributes our actions and those of other projected agents to them as the source.

The reason this misunderstanding can persist is through misdirection of the mind, and the hiding of truth in plain sight. Nature assumes that, the agent existing (sic) in the mind will not investigate its own origins, and its own fundamental existence, it will not try to understand what it is. It knows that the agent is very distracted by objects, because those objects are viewed as providing pleasure and pain which the agent perceives to be either attained or avoided, and thus, as long as novelty exists within the world of objects, the truth of the subject or agent remains safely hidden.

Dimebag,

Yes indeed it does go deeper than indoctrination of church and culture. I think the ability to identify one's self with the self in other creatures is a metaphysical insight. It is not a theory for it just grabs you that you and the other self are indeed one, that you know that other creature like you is suffering. It is as I've stated previously the seed of compassion and compassion is the source of morality. It really does not matter what else you believe it is innate unless of course, you are a psychopath. It is the basis of our humanity, and disturbingly enough the halls of power are well stock in government and business with an abundance of psychopaths, the industrial military complex devoid of humanity. Another aspect one might consider is this, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, all creature are reactionary creatures and this is the first principle of evolutionary development. It is also key to understanding how we are in and of the physical world. We are cause in the physical world and to our fellows, so in trying to understand them we must ask, what are they reacting to.

According to your preceding sentence, before this last sentence of yours here, would we not be 'effect' instead of 'cause'?

And, if ALL creatures are just 'reactionary' creatures, then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which is doing the 'action/s', or 'causing' the 'reactions'?

[BigMike]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

I personally think it goes deeper than our learned religious beliefs, metaphysics and customs.

The human mind has the ability to attribute the existence of other minds, where no actual direct perceptual ability is capable. That is, we infer other minds, and we do this implicitly through the observation of behaviour which appears directed, goal oriented and intentional. We infer an “agent” which is the source of and author of all actions produced by a particular body.

Especially where the attribution of behaviours isn’t directly perceptible, I.e. the reason behind the behaviour, we attribute those behaviours as being “created” out of nothing. The truth is, we are simply ignorant to the causes of the behaviour, we see behaviours occurring, and inferring the source of those behaviours to a projected agent, residing somewhere inside the organism.

Because we also feel ourselves to be this same kind of agent, existing separate from the projected world it inhabits, yet able to enact and cause change through the body we inhabit, we also project this same implicit understanding upon all inferred agents.

The truth of what the agent is, is hidden from us, seemingly. It is hidden only through a misunderstanding of the truth, and a projecting of a pragmatic construction of freely produced and uncaused action (action with a source in a subject with no causes) which attributes our actions and those of other projected agents to them as the source.

The reason this misunderstanding can persist is through misdirection of the mind, and the hiding of truth in plain sight. Nature assumes that, the agent existing (sic) in the mind will not investigate its own origins, and its own fundamental existence, it will not try to understand what it is. It knows that the agent is very distracted by objects, because those objects are viewed as providing pleasure and pain which the agent perceives to be either attained or avoided, and thus, as long as novelty exists within the world of objects, the truth of the subject or agent remains safely hidden.

Dimebag,

Yes indeed it does go deeper than indoctrination of church and culture. I think the ability to identify one's self with the self in other creatures is a metaphysical insight. It is not a theory for it just grabs you that you and the other self are indeed one, that you know that other creature like you is suffering. It is as I've stated previously the seed of compassion and compassion is the source of morality. It really does not matter what else you believe it is innate unless of course, you are a psychopath. It is the basis of our humanity, and disturbingly enough the halls of power are well stock in government and business with an abundance of psychopaths, the industrial military complex devoid of humanity. Another aspect one might consider is this, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, all creature are reactionary creatures and this is the first principle of evolutionary development. It is also key to understanding how we are in and of the physical world. We are cause in the physical world and to our fellows, so in trying to understand them we must ask, what are they reacting to.

I must say, this discussion is taking a fascinating and exciting turn. All three of the authors mentioned above have clearly thought a lot about the issue at hand. Because I don't want this conversation to head in a less critical or irrelevant route at this stage, I'm going to focus on something that they've all alluded to that I believe is essential.

I'd like to bring Darwin and Maslow into the conversation about what makes people do the things they do, no matter what their morals and values are at the moment. Darwin shows us that people are "driven" by the urge to live and pass on their genes, as described by Spencer's "survival of the fittest" term. I believe that the primary motivation for the evolution of the brain was to give its possessor an advantage over the competitors in terms of survival and gene transmission. We are, in a sense, hardwired to do so.

Maslow's theory is a great place to start if you want to learn more about what drives people at a more granular level. Even though it might not have everything that's important and might have things that aren't necessary, it's a good place to start. He says that our bodies, our need for safety, our need to love and be loved, and our need for esteem are what drive us. If these needs aren't met, it could lead to physical or mental illness or even death.

Taking this as the starting point for how we should act, no matter who we are, seems to me to be the basis for moral behavior and caring about other people. When we realize that other people have the same basic needs as us, we may be more willing to help those who can't meet their own basic needs, especially if we have more than enough to do so. In fact, I think it's possible to say that such a response is in our own best interest and, therefore, fits perfectly with the idea of "survival of the fittest."

[Iwannaplato]

I think there are a lot of ways we could change the way we punish criminals and the rationale for doing so. But I'm certainly not an expert in that field at all. From a neurological point of view, though, I think the ultimate goal must be to stop crimes from happening again, not just lock people up and hope for miracles to change them.

I do think incarceration of some can deter others. It doesn't seem very effective at deterring recidivism, though sometimes it does. I wouldn't rule that out of whatever ideal society I would make if I had that much hubris. But I do think the current system is a monstrosity.

Definitely some helping them transition to a life without crime should be a larger part of prisons or non-prison solutions.

[BigMike]

I think there are a lot of ways we could change the way we punish criminals and the rationale for doing so. But I'm certainly not an expert in that field at all. From a neurological point of view, though, I think the ultimate goal must be to stop crimes from happening again, not just lock people up and hope for miracles to change them.

I do think incarceration of some can deter others. It doesn't seem very effective at deterring recidivism, though sometimes it does. I wouldn't rule that out of whatever ideal society I would make if I had that much hubris. But I do think the current system is a monstrosity.

Definitely some helping them transition to a life without crime should be a larger part of prisons or non-prison solutions.

Some experimental prisons have had some good results so far, even though they are still in their early stages. For example, take "the nicest prison in the world," Bastøy, Norway. https://allthatsinteresting.com/bastoy-prison

There, prisoners live together in nice homes. Each man has his own room, and he and the other men share the kitchen and other facilities. The inmates also make about $8 a day doing jobs like growing food, taking care of horses, fixing bikes, making things out of wood, and keeping Bastøy Island's buildings in good shape. In addition, every prisoner has access to high-quality education and training programs that help them get better at what they do.

Even in the US, this has been tried, and it seems to have gone well. https://www.yahoo.com/video/pennsylvani ... 7jUKQio8KL

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

I thought the whole point of 'determinism' or of being a 'determinist' is that there are NO people who are FREE TO CHOOSE. BUT ONLY those who CLAIM to be so-called "determinists" can INFORM me of what they think and/or BELIEVE here.

ALSO, I thought that ALL people, no matter what they think or believe, 'choose what to do', relative to their, current at the time, knowledge and understanding. I am NOT sure how ANY person 'could choose what to do' WITHOUT their current knowledge and understanding.

Are 'you' able to explain how ANY one could 'choose what to do', which would NOT be relative to their knowledge and understanding "belinda"?

The reason I don't spend time on asking you exactly what you mean is that the connection between freedom and responsibility has been dealt with by better philosophers than you or I. RS Google 'freedom and responsibility'.

Determinism is a lot more than you describe in your first sentence.

Nobody, whether they endorse Free Will or whether they endorse determinism, knows what will happen next. The best choice we can make is the choice based on knowledge, reason, and sympathy, or sympathy, reason, and knowledge.
If you choose based on belief in Free Will your choice is based on the self as opposed to the choice of the determinist who prefers to be as objective as possible.

Determinism means that every event that was, is, and shall be necessarily was, is, and shall be. Determinism does not imply prediction. Free Will does not imply prediction.

[popeye1945]

I personally think it goes deeper than our learned religious beliefs, metaphysics and customs.

The human mind has the ability to attribute the existence of other minds, where no actual direct perceptual ability is capable. That is, we infer other minds, and we do this implicitly through the observation of behaviour which appears directed, goal oriented and intentional. We infer an “agent” which is the source of and author of all actions produced by a particular body.

Especially where the attribution of behaviours isn’t directly perceptible, I.e. the reason behind the behaviour, we attribute those behaviours as being “created” out of nothing. The truth is, we are simply ignorant to the causes of the behaviour, we see behaviours occurring, and inferring the source of those behaviours to a projected agent, residing somewhere inside the organism.

Because we also feel ourselves to be this same kind of agent, existing separate from the projected world it inhabits, yet able to enact and cause change through the body we inhabit, we also project this same implicit understanding upon all inferred agents.

The truth of what the agent is, is hidden from us, seemingly. It is hidden only through a misunderstanding of the truth, and a projecting of a pragmatic construction of freely produced and uncaused action (action with a source in a subject with no causes) which attributes our actions and those of other projected agents to them as the source.

The reason this misunderstanding can persist is through misdirection of the mind, and the hiding of truth in plain sight. Nature assumes that, the agent existing (sic) in the mind will not investigate its own origins, and its own fundamental existence, it will not try to understand what it is. It knows that the agent is very distracted by objects, because those objects are viewed as providing pleasure and pain which the agent perceives to be either attained or avoided, and thus, as long as novelty exists within the world of objects, the truth of the subject or agent remains safely hidden.

Dimebag,

Yes indeed it does go deeper than indoctrination of church and culture. I think the ability to identify one's self with the self in other creatures is a metaphysical insight. It is not a theory for it just grabs you that you and the other self are indeed one, that you know that other creature like you is suffering. It is as I've stated previously the seed of compassion and compassion is the source of morality. It really does not matter what else you believe it is innate unless of course, you are a psychopath. It is the basis of our humanity, and disturbingly enough the halls of power are well stock in government and business with an abundance of psychopaths, the industrial military complex devoid of humanity. Another aspect one might consider is this, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, all creature are reactionary creatures and this is the first principle of evolutionary development. It is also key to understanding how we are in and of the physical world. We are cause in the physical world and to our fellows, so in trying to understand them we must ask, what are they reacting to.

I must say, this discussion is taking a fascinating and exciting turn. All three of the authors mentioned above have clearly thought a lot about the issue at hand. Because I don't want this conversation to head in a less critical or irrelevant route at this stage, I'm going to focus on something that they've all alluded to that I believe is essential.

I'd like to bring Darwin and Maslow into the conversation about what makes people do the things they do, no matter what their morals and values are at the moment. Darwin shows us that people are "driven" by the urge to live and pass on their genes, as described by Spencer's "survival of the fittest" term. I believe that the primary motivation for the evolution of the brain was to give its possessor an advantage over the competitors in terms of survival and gene transmission. We are, in a sense, hardwired to do so.

Maslow's theory is a great place to start if you want to learn more about what drives people at a more granular level. Even though it might not have everything that's important and might have things that aren't necessary, it's a good place to start. He says that our bodies, our need for safety, our need to love and be loved, and our need for esteem are what drive us. If these needs aren't met, it could lead to physical or mental illness or even death.

Taking this as the starting point for how we should act, no matter who we are, seems to me to be the basis for moral behavior and caring about other people. When we realize that other people have the same basic needs as us, we may be more willing to help those who can't meet their own basic needs, especially if we have more than enough to do so. In fact, I think it's possible to say that such a response is in our own best interest and, therefore, fits perfectly with the idea of "survival of the fittest."

I am familiar with Darwin but kind of vague on Maslow but yes, basic needs being met is probably responsible for the formation of community in the face of the harsh reality of nature. Nature not being indifferent but unaware and cares not for the individual but only for species in evolutionary development. This is where the principle of reaction first establishes itself, for evolutionary development/the physical world to cause adaptation all creatures must of necessity be reactionary creatures. It is my belief that reaction is the foundation of consciousness itself and obviously elemental to adaptation.

Some people might disagree here and hold that consciousness only developed with the later development of the brain but this is not so. We know the brain developed from the inside out and feelings being the earlier development but I contend the R complex/ the emotional center or the reptilian part of the brain is a form of consciousness. The entire multicellular organism as what we are is consciousness and every cell and organelle is reactionary consciousness. I believe that this metaphysical realization of identifying ourselves with the selves in others is taking place at that more fundamental level, that of feelings/consciousness. The biological historical nature of symbiosis of the individual members of the bodily community could only have adapted through a reactionary process within the body. We know the powerhouse of the cell the mitochondria was such an example probably a parasite invading the body at one time but finding a way to function to the betterment of the bodily community, we think this because the mitochondria has a different DNA from the rest of the community/body. I am laboring this aren't I, but my point is when we identify ourselves with the selves in others we are excessing our more primordial natures.

[BigMike]

I am familiar with Darwin but kind of vague on Maslow but yes, basic needs being met is probably responsible for the formation of community in the face of the harsh reality of nature. Nature not being indifferent but unaware and cares not for the individual but only for species in evolutionary development. This is where the principle of reaction first establishes itself, for evolutionary development/the physical world to cause adaptation all creatures must of necessity be reactionary creatures. It is my belief that reaction is the foundation of consciousness itself and obviously elemental to adaptation.

Some people might disagree here and hold that consciousness only developed with the later development of the brain but this is not so. We know the brain developed from the inside out and feelings being the earlier development but I contend the R complex/ the emotional center or the reptilian part of the brain is a form of consciousness. The entire multicellular organism as what we are is consciousness and every cell and organelle is reactionary consciousness. I believe that this metaphysical realization of identifying ourselves with the selves in others is taking place at that more fundamental level, that of feelings/consciousness. The biological historical nature of symbiosis of the individual members of the bodily community could only have adapted through a reactionary process within the body. We know the powerhouse of the cell the mitochondria was such an example probably a parasite invading the body at one time but finding a way to function to the betterment of the bodily community, we think this because the mitochondria has a different DNA from the rest of the community/body. I am laboring this aren't I, but my point is when we identify ourselves with the selves in others we are excessing our more primordial natures.

Extremely intriguing. I've always suspected that consciousness, whatever it is, is the result of some interaction between cells in our multicellular body, most likely in the brain and possibly involving hormones carried by the bloodstream. However, I have no idea how this occurs. Recent research has suggested that feedback loops in or between brain regions may be engaged in consciousness-related activities, which seems to align nicely with your concept of "reaction" on a cellular level.

As fascinating as this is, and it may be the most crucial question to be addressed in our lifetime, I believe it should have its own topic heading because it is much more sophisticated, involved, and uncharted than the straightforward free will question. Simply put, pursuing it in depth here would open a floodgate that can only be managed by professionals, leaving me out in the cold.

But then again, there may be no way around it. I have struggled to see how moral behavior could be unavoidable; it doesn't seem to me to follow by necessity from deterministic principles. I can see how ethical behavior may follow by logical necessity provided everyone agrees to live by a "social contract". But this agreement will not be effective unless society can enforce it and punish individuals as required to prevent "hawks" from dominating "doves" (ref hawk-dove game theory). But this would need nearly universal acceptance and commitment and, unfortunately, the rejection of the concept of free will. I say "unfortunately" because I fear it will not occur as long as religion's claim to moral monopoly based on the fallacy of free will maintains such a firm hold on society. I'm hopeful, however, that discussions like these will permeate society and perhaps change that.

[CHNOPS]

BigMike, go deep.

What are the patrons before the patrons of the human body?

All what we do as humans or as a "living being", is just consequence of a more generics pattrons in the universe.

We are all moved acording to 3 laws of physics. We are all moved acording to the movement of atoms.

That movements are the ones who are making this "moral behaviour".

If you want to define Good and Bad, you must to go deeper to this level. If you no agree tell me why.

All thinking people seems to not understand this... so try to not judge and try to see something new in what I am saying, ok?

All movements have a root in the first pattron of the universe: Unite and Separate / 1 and 0.


So, all what we do, like discussing about abortion, prostitutes, charges, movies, etc, are just a product of this 1 and 0 of the particles that unite and then separate, particles that exists and then dont exist anymore...


Now, we can define "Good" as "a movement that Unite", and "Bad" as "a movement that Separate".


I am not simplifing something too complex, is just that it is too simple. Ours minds usually moves in complex pattrons, complex ways, so it is dificult to think simple.


Do you understand this?

[BigMike]

What are the patrons before the patrons of the human body?

I don't know, but it is thought that all forms of life came from the first prokaryotes, a minuscule single cell organism that lacks other specialized organelles and a distinct nucleus with a membrane, which lived about 3.5–4.0 billion years ago. The chemical and physical conditions of the early Earth are used to explain how life got started. Before life started, organic chemicals started changing through chemical evolution.

All what we do as humans or as a "living being", is just consequence of a more generics pattrons in the universe.

We are all moved acording to 3 laws of physics. We are all moved acording to the movement of atoms.

If you're thinking of Newton's three laws of motion, you're right that they explain how things move. But there are other laws that describe forces that apply to his second law, F=ma. There are four different types of fundamental forces, or as experts like to call them, fundamental interactions.

That movements are the ones who are making this "moral behaviour".

This is what Leucippus said, some 2,500 years ago: "Naught happens for nothing, but all things from a ground and of necessity". That was the start of determinism. He also came up with the idea of atoms and said that all things, even our thoughts and ideas, consist of atoms that move around due to constant interactions.

If you want to define Good and Bad, you must to go deeper to this level. If you no agree tell me why.

All thinking people seems to not understand this... so try to not judge and try to see something new in what I am saying, ok?

All movements have a root in the first pattron of the universe: Unite and Separate / 1 and 0.

You could argue that this is what determinism is all about with a little bit of good will. I do believe in a deterministic world view, if the six conservation laws of physics are the foundation upon which determinism is built. So, I don't think I need to be told that physics is the basis of everything in our world. I don't believe in ghosts or anything like that. It's all physics.

So, all what we do, like discussing about abortion, prostitutes, charges, movies, etc, are just a product of this 1 and 0 of the particles that unite and then separate, particles that exists and then dont exist anymore...

Now, we can define "Good" as "a movement that Unite", and "Bad" as "a movement that Separate".

I am not simplifing something too complex, is just that it is too simple. Ours minds usually moves in complex pattrons, complex ways, so it is dificult to think simple.

Do you understand this?

I'm not sure.

[CHNOPS]

I mean the fundamentals force of physics, there are 3.

Ok, what I said is simple, so, why you dont understand?

What "Good" or "Bad" means to you?

If you have a definition that talk about X complex matter movement, like the "human movements" or "social movement", then, you are defining in a too superficial way.

[Age]

Age wrote:

I thought the whole point of 'determinism' or of being a 'determinist' is that there are NO people who are FREE TO CHOOSE. BUT ONLY those who CLAIM to be so-called "determinists" can INFORM me of what they think and/or BELIEVE here.

ALSO, I thought that ALL people, no matter what they think or believe, 'choose what to do', relative to their, current at the time, knowledge and understanding. I am NOT sure how ANY person 'could choose what to do' WITHOUT their current knowledge and understanding.

Are 'you' able to explain how ANY one could 'choose what to do', which would NOT be relative to their knowledge and understanding "belinda"?

The reason I don't spend time on asking you exactly what you mean is that the connection between freedom and responsibility has been dealt with by better philosophers than you or I. RS Google 'freedom and responsibility'.

And yet although this connection has SUPPOSEDLY ALREADY, according to 'you', been DEALT with here, 'you' and "others" are STILL fighting and quarrelling OVER this very EXACT SAME 'thing'.

Some might also be concluding now that the real reason you actually do NOT spend time to enquire into what I mean, exactly, is because you just have NO real interest in learning what I actually do mean.

Determinism is a lot more than you describe in your first sentence.

Nobody, whether they endorse Free Will or whether they endorse determinism, knows what will happen next. The best choice we can make is the choice based on knowledge, reason, and sympathy, or sympathy, reason, and knowledge.

Yes, I have ALREADY gone through this.

If you choose based on belief in Free Will your choice is based on the self as opposed to the choice of the determinist who prefers to be as objective as possible.

LOL

Determinism means that every event that was, is, and shall be necessarily was, is, and shall be. [/quote]

And that IS what I SAID.

Determinism does not imply prediction. Free Will does not imply prediction.

I NEVER said they did.

So, WHERE is this coming from, EXACTLY?

[CHNOPS]

Age, you are wrong, but you know what I think about you.

Too much Ego that quit the desire to explain to you what you have understanding wrong.

[CHNOPS]

Age, you are wrong, but you know what I think about you.

Too much Ego that quit the desire to explain to you what you have understanding wrong.

[Age]

Age, you are wrong, but you know what I think about you.

Too much Ego that quit the desire to explain to you what you have understanding wrong.

The REAL reason 'you' QUIT is because 'you' are just NOT ABLE to EXPLAIN WHY, nor even WHERE and WHAT I am SUPPOSEDLY understanding "wrong" here.

And this is BECAUSE that EGO is getting in the way and just BELIEVES what 'it' does although 'it' has NO ACTUAL PROOF, AT ALL.

That EGO just ONLY WANTS 'me' to be WRONG.