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

[Age]

But that's true regardless of whether it is positive or negative. A person who can never kill would be less free than someone who could choose to not kill or to kill. To be empathetic or not be empathetic. To educate themselves (on something) or not to do that.

I would tend to agree with this, but again, this need not be dependent on kindness, empathy and other generally thought of as positive qualities. Further a sociopath is generally not encumbered by guilt. So, they can choose without this added obstacle.

Though this word 'free' can mean different things. In any given moment, the person who is more versatile is no more free than someone who is not. It's just that over time they will display a wider range of reactions and actions. They have utterly determined but more nuanced responses to events/people. And also initiate a wider range of 'things'. But at the level of ontology, they are no more free.

At the level of ontology nothing happened that did not necessarily happen. We don't choose from the level of ontology, we choose from the level of possibility from where we make probabilistic gambles. There is always an element of chance and there is always an element of choice; however the person who knows more and has better judgment adds a higher degree of choice to their choice: chance ratio.

Not in determinism. All that person does is have more types of response over time. But in the moment they make the choice they make just like the person who knows less.

Person who knows less will always make choice c at that one moment x.
Person who knows more will always make choice d at that one moment x.

There is absolutely no more freedom in any given moment.

What we can say about the person who knows more is that their action/reaction stands a better chance of fitting the situation. Since they have a wider variety of responses.

But in 'determinism' or in a 'deterministic only world' that 'person' has NO ACTUAL ability to make choices, and this is simply because there can only EVER BE just ONE reaction made.

But in any given interaction they have no more choice than someone with less knowledge. They are utterly compelled, if determinism is the case, just like the ones with less knowledge.

Unless, of course, someone here wants to CLAIM that in 'determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' ACTUALLY do have the ability to make CHOICES. And, if ANY one here wants to CLAIM this, then SPEAK UP now.

It's a bit like two robots. Robot A has a hammer and it has two responses, hit with hammer if a dark object approaches. Don't hit with hammer if a light one approaches.
Robot B has three tools. Dark objects it pokes with a screwdriver. Colored ones it bashes with the hammer. Objects that make sounds it dusts with a rag.

Robot B has more types of reaction, but both robots are utterly determined in their 'choice'.

But, both robots would have to be 'pre-programmed' WHEN to do WHAT they have been 'programmed' to do.

And, in your example above are the robots ACTUALLY 'choosing' or are they just going to REACT to WHAT colored object is approaching them?

[Age]

Freedom from WHAT, you are a reactionary creature the same as every other creature on the planet as your fight or flight instincts indicate, your behaviors are forever linked to a changing physical reality you are not in charge!! There is no such thing as human action there is only human reaction again the same as every other organism on the planet. The development of your larger brain has given you a wider range of choice reactions to any given situation, but react you must, that is the nature of your being in the world at all.

Has ANY one, in this forum anyway, said ANY thing that opposes this view that 'you', human beings, are just 'reactionary' creatures/beings?

If yes, then who was that, exactly?

You are no more important than any other organism on the planet but only in the way of your self-interest, which again is common to all organisms. You are a functional aspect of the larger whole and reaction is the part you play, as your reactions affect/cause reactions in the physical world. Do you wish to call your wider range of choice of reactions to the physical world free will? If so, it is a little, just a little egocentric of a reactionary creature to do so, and a little problematic for the world at large.

If you say so.

[BigMike]

Why do those 'you' who BELIEVE that there is only a 'deterministic world' also BELIEVE that 'you' can CHOOSE to behave in ways, or are ABLE to CHANGE things, which in turn would make 'this world' a better place?

Consider what it means to make a choice. To choose anything means, at its most fundamental level, to select the most desired option among a number of alternatives. This implies that the alternatives must be able to be ordered transitively from least to most preferred. By transitively, I mean that, given two options, one option is at least as good as the other in one's view; when x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This permits the ordering to occur. Without this, you wouldn't be able to choose. When you encounter a tie, the objective is changed to break the tie. For example, you could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," flip a coin, or do something else.

The main point is that choosing is like solving an optimization problem within a feasible domain. It's about finding the answer that maximizes one's preferences while still being realistic. You can use different words to describe choice, but in the end, your definition will probably be the same as the one I sketched above. This definition was first made by Nobel laureate John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern in their excellent book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior." Moreover, comparisons such as "x is at least as good as y" are simple for the brain to do, and consequently, so are choices.

This process results in there always being a single "best" option; the determined one. Clearly, one may ask what "best" means, "in what way is it the best?" But this doesn't change the fact that there is only one best choice in every situation and context, no matter "in what way it is the best." So, your physical brain decides what your body should do, and there is only one option, the one it figures is best based on logic. Of course, your brain might have made a different choice in hindsight, but it didn't have that hindsight at the time. As one acquires more and more hindsight, one's goal selections and subsequent decisions tend to become increasingly well-suited to meeting one's needs, and the needs of those closest to us.

If you are going to respond to my questions and writings with MORE rubbish like this here, then I suggest you put me back on your for list, and IGNORE absolutely EVERY thing I say, write, and ask here

I am pleased to inform you that your request has been granted with immediate effect.

[Iwannaplato]

Freedom from WHAT, you are a reactionary creature the same as every other creature on the planet as your fight or flight instincts indicate, your behaviors are forever linked to a changing physical reality you are not in charge!! There is no such thing as human action there is only human reaction again the same as every other organism on the planet. The development of your larger brain has given you a wider range of choice reactions to any given situation, but react you must, that is the nature of your being in the world at all. You are no more important than any other organism on the planet but only in the way of your self-interest, which again is common to all organisms. You are a functional aspect of the larger whole and reaction is the part you play, as your reactions affect/cause reactions in the physical world. Do you wish to call your wider range of choice of reactions to the physical world free will? If so, it is a little, just a little egocentric of a reactionary creature to do so, and a little problematic for the world at large.

In a deterministic universe someone's egocentricity and the world at large's problems are inevitable and your fight and judgment reactions to someone using the phrase 'free will' are then, well, just reactions and egocentric.

[popeye1945]

Freedom from WHAT, you are a reactionary creature the same as every other creature on the planet as your fight or flight instincts indicate, your behaviors are forever linked to a changing physical reality you are not in charge!! There is no such thing as human action there is only human reaction again the same as every other organism on the planet. The development of your larger brain has given you a wider range of choice reactions to any given situation, but react you must, that is the nature of your being in the world at all. You are no more important than any other organism on the planet but only in the way of your self-interest, which again is common to all organisms. You are a functional aspect of the larger whole and reaction is the part you play, as your reactions affect/cause reactions in the physical world. Do you wish to call your wider range of choice of reactions to the physical world free will? If so, it is a little, just a little egocentric of a reactionary creature to do so, and a little problematic for the world at large.

In a deterministic universe someone's egocentricity and the world at large's problems are inevitable and your fight and judgment reactions to someone using the phrase 'free will' are then, well, just reactions and egocentric.

Iwannaplato,

Yes, in a sense we are all the center of our own universe, which could be termed egocentric, but it is necessitated by the survival instinct, it being a necessity for moving and reacting in the world. We are however reactionary creatures just like every other organism on the planet, argue against that if you like. Free will infers control that humanity takes action, there is however no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, humanity is not in control, not even in control of it's reactions. By the state of the planet presently, humanity cannot even gear its reactions when the consequences of its former reactions are reflected by to it, thus we have a dying planet.

[phyllo]

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:21 pm
But in any given interaction they have no more choice than someone with less knowledge. They are utterly compelled, if determinism is the case, just like the ones with less knowledge.

Unless, of course, someone here wants to CLAIM that in 'determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' ACTUALLY do have the ability to make CHOICES. And, if ANY one here wants to CLAIM this, then SPEAK UP now.

'Determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' have the ability to make choices and they do make choices. They use their brains to think about the situation and then they select what they think is the best option.

They do exactly what free-willers do.

The only difference is that determinism people' realize that the choices and decision does not spring out of nothing. They realize that what is happening has a history which is unavoidable.

And from this 'determinism people' can potentially recognize who or what is pushing the choices and decisions ... people, governments, corporations ... events from their childhood ... current events as reported in media. Recognition is the first step to understanding and choosing how to respond to it.

[Iwannaplato]

Iwannaplato,

Yes, in a sense we are all the center of our own universe, which could be termed egocentric, but it is necessitated by the survival instinct, it being a necessity for moving and reacting in the world. We are however reactionary creatures just like every other organism on the planet, argue against that if you like. Free will infers control that humanity takes action, there is however no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, humanity is not in control, not even in control of it's reactions. By the state of the planet presently, humanity cannot even gear its reactions when the consequences of its former reactions are reflected by to it, thus we have a dying planet.

Which, if you are right, was 'ordained' in the Big Bang or before that. The egocentricity of people believing in free will isn't causing the end of the planet. That was determined billions of years ago. I understand that in a deterministic universe you are just, according to your explanation here, merely reacting negatively to those people and this was also determined (that you would do this) billions of years ago. I just find it ironic.

[BigMike]

This topic opened by asking four questions. Here I will give my response to the first one:

1. Do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

In philosophy and science, free will is that people can make decisions and act without being affected by what has happened in the past or how the universe is right now. People who think this way say that their minds or inner selves make all their decisions. So, physical laws don't affect their decisions in their view.

A determinist believes that human behavior, including the human will, is entirely determined by physical laws. So, they think that since the will is also bound by physical laws, it can't be free. But many determinists, if not most, agree that it seems like we have free will in everyday life, just as they agree that it looks like the earth is flat in everyday life. Sam Harris, a strong opponent of free will, has said publicly that he sometimes has to remind himself that he is a determinist.

Because of this cognitive dissonance, many determinists look beyond the immediate question of whether or not we have free will, which they consider solved. Instead, they try to figure out why we feel like we have free will and what we really have instead.

One thing they struggle with is how to decide what is right and wrong. If people don't have free will, they can't be morally responsible for what they do. Thus, determinists need to find a more insightful basis for moral conduct that is consistent with the laws of nature. We must be humble, bring our inflated egos down a notch, and tread carefully on the narrow path of honesty.

We have at least two options, or guiding principles, for our moral conduct, which unavoidably entails human contact, known as social interactions. We can go it alone and be primarily responsible for ourselves, or we can surrender our independence and go as a group, watching out for one another. Or anything in between. This is ultimately a political decision.

But I think it is more than "just" a political decision; it is a decision we all intend to make in our best interest. But what we think is best for us depends on a lot of things, like whether we want immediate gratification or long-term gains and whether we trust each other or not. But determinists also believe something that people who believe in free will don't, and this belief probably significantly affects how they see the world.

They think that things outside themselves make them act the way they do. Those external things include all other people. They see themselves as part of an extensive social network where each person affects everyone else, like through six degrees of separation. Yet, none of them are the cause of their own actions. The transition from this to democratic sentiments appears to be a small step. I believe this drives determinists to be more accepting of social rules than believers in free will, on average.

[phyllo]

Just "following rules" is not a good thing in itself.

There has to be an evaluation of the merits of a rule.

[BigMike]

Just "following rules" is not a good thing in itself.

Breaking the rules is not a virtue in and of itself either. In a democratic society, not everyone can have their way. If everyone only lives by the rules they like, I believe society is doomed.

There has to be an evaluation of the merits of a rule.

Isn't this the purpose of democratic elections?

[Iwannaplato]

They think that things outside themselves make them act the way they do. Those external things include all other people. They see themselves as part of an extensive social network where each person affects everyone else, like through six degrees of separation. Yet, none of them are the cause of their own actions. The transition from this to democratic sentiments appears to be a small step. I believe this drives determinists to be more accepting of social rules than believers in free will, on average.

It's possible. But I would hesitate to trust deduction on something this complicated. But first: your first sentence here is not something determinists should believe, or at least, they should believe it is incomplete. It is not just nature and experience that lead to our actions, thoughts, feelings, attitudes. We also have our natures.

As far as them following social rules more, we would 1) need to figure out a way to test this, and 2) as I mentioned in my first response, since most people think free will means being able to overcome external influences, not having to merely give in to them, and most people are not thinking or taking a real stand on a kind of causeless action, we don't really know who believes in free will as is meant as something contrasted with determinism. Determinists would certainly believe that a Nelson Mandela or whoever can overcome and resist outside influences and causes. 3) a person who believes in determinism might feel less motivated to do things. WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Before you tell me this does not make sense, a) I know that and b) we are talking about humans, and humans can be affected by things in non-logical ways. If people believe that what they do, think, feel are determined, they may feel like they are not responsible and also that since 'things' were already decided billions of years ago, they are more like witnesses than active participants AND this could lead to not giving a shit in the effects of their actions or a kind of malaise or not caring about rules.

That's the problem with hubris in deduction. At this level of complexity, and determined or free human minds are the most complex things we know of so far, we can deduce (in the air, in the abstract, without research) all sorts of things.

[Iwannaplato]

'Determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' have the ability to make choices and they do make choices. They use their brains to think about the situation and then they select what they think is the best option.

It depends what we mean by 'make choices'. The had to choose the option they chose, whatever the process of utterly compelling chains of molecular pachinkoing in their neuronal systems. It is not like they could have chosen A or B, though it may feel like it. They were always going to choose or 'choose' A. They are chosing A in the same way a leaf chooses to land on a certain spot when it falls in Fall off a tree.

Now of course humans will be compelled to fall in a lot more places than a leaf will be. You throw a marble at a drum top it will make one sound more or less every time. You throw it at the inside of a piano more possible sounds will be 'chosen' by the piano.

[phyllo]

Just "following rules" is not a good thing in itself.

Breaking the rules is not a virtue in and of itself either. In a democratic society, not everyone can have their way. If everyone only lives by the rules they like, I believe society is doomed.

There has to be an evaluation of the merits of a rule.

Isn't this the purpose of democratic elections?

The purpose of democratic elections is to select a political representative.

It's not a vote on a specific rule. That would be a referendum.

I don't know why you suddenly bring up democracy. It doesn't seem to be necessary element in the discussion. In every society, not everyone can have their way. But some people get a lot more of "their way" than others.

[iambiguous]

In a free will world as most understand it, Mary gets new knowledge from a friend about her unwanted pregnancy. And this prompts her to change her mind. She chooses of her own volition not to abort Jane. But in a determined universe as many understand it, if Mary aborts Jane all of the variables in her life leading up to that were just so many dominoes toppling over onto each other only as they could have.

Where does your thinking fit in here? What crucial point do I keep missing?

Is there a contradiction or paradox in there somewhere that I'm missing? What's the big deal?

Again, let's run this by Jane. In a wholly determined world where Mary was never able not to abort her, she's not around to run anything by. Never could be.

But in a free will world where Mary is convinced not to abort Jane, she is around to run things by.

Uh, what's the big deal? To Jane?

Click.

Explain to me how you would explain that to her had Mom [of her own volition] changed her mind and chose to give birth to her instead.

[phyllo]

'Determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' have the ability to make choices and they do make choices. They use their brains to think about the situation and then they select what they think is the best option.

It depends what we mean by 'make choices'. The had to choose the option they chose, whatever the process of utterly compelling chains of molecular pachinkoing in their neuronal systems. It is not like they could have chosen A or B, though it may feel like it. They were always going to choose or 'choose' A. They are chosing A in the same way a leaf chooses to land on a certain spot when it falls in Fall off a tree.

Now of course humans will be compelled to fall in a lot more places than a leaf will be. You throw a marble at a drum top it will make one sound more or less every time. You throw it at the inside of a piano more possible sounds will be 'chosen' by the piano.

I don't disagree with that.

I don't think that there is any sort of problem with what is happening.

This is the part that you're probably not going to like:

I compare what determinists are doing what free-willers are doing. And I conclude that free-willers must be using their brain in exactly the same way. They are also constrained by their neural systems. They will also choose exactly the same thing in the same situation. Why or how could they choose any differently? They think that their choice is the best choice.

Which is to say that if I had free-will, I would not be acting any differently than I did not have free-will.