Philosophy Now Forum

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:48 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:26 am I don't know how you get out of bed when you wake up, but I have decisions to make. I even have duties such as feeding the dog who will be hungry. There is no way to make decisions unless I believe I can.

We all have choices to make. But none of them are made freely; they are motivated by some "problem". If you skip breakfast in the morning, you can expect to suffer hunger pain later on. Therefore you decide to have breakfast. Similarly, unless you feed your loving dog, you will indirectly cause it pain or even death.

Yes. However I seldom if ever start the day by reminding myself that my choices are all necessarily what they are. For one thing, I have a duty to the dog and to my own feelings of having done the right thing, and set out to make the most of my day, but if I were continually to forgive myself for dereliction of my responsibility I'd not be expressing myself. Isn't pretending we have free will needed to stop us being sociopaths?

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:12 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:48 am We all have choices to make. But none of them are made freely; they are motivated by some "problem". If you skip breakfast in the morning, you can expect to suffer hunger pain later on. Therefore you decide to have breakfast. Similarly, unless you feed your loving dog, you will indirectly cause it pain or even death.

Yes. However I seldom if ever start the day by reminding myself that my choices are all necessarily what they are.

You don't have to. Both you and the dog will get hungry regardless. Your body and your dog will surely make sure you get it.

For one thing, I have a duty to the dog and to my own feelings of having done the right thing, and set out to make the most of my day, but if I were continually to forgive myself for dereliction of my responsibility I'd not be expressing myself.

That duty is self-imposed. As I said earlier today, "Being moral, to me, is to help people who can't meet their basic needs, as long as they're willing to accept my help and it doesn't get in the way of meeting my own basic needs." It appears to me that you adhere to this single moral principle, extending it even to your dog and other animals, I am sure. You do this, I am convinced, because you know that going hungry is painful and in extreme cases even deadly.

Isn't pretending we have free will needed to stop us being sociopaths?

I don't believe so. Being sincere and honest strikes me as being significantly less sociopathic than engaging in dishonest behavior such as telling lies and fooling oneself as well as other people.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 8:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 7:48 pm What does subtle mean to brains wholly compelled to think, feel, say and do everything only as the laws of matter compel them?

What other types of brains are there?

And if some get the distinction while others do not how is that not in turn wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

I cannot recall ever saying that it is not in sync with the only possible reality. In fact, I stated that "Everything that takes place is, in fact, inevitable."

Okay, then, a "condition" it is.




Note to Nature:

Thanks for pointing that out.

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 8:43 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 7:48 pm Note to others:

You tell me how you imagine that he imagines that he is not a free will determinist.

He has grasped something about the non-existence of free will.
But he continues to reason as if free will existed.

In other words, assuming determinism is true as some understand it, he grasped only what he was never able to not grasp about the non-existence of free will. And his brain compels him to reason as if free will existed.

Ever and always going back to how he, like all the rest of us, are confronted with what we still don't know definitively about this:

...all of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 8:43 pmThis happens because he evaluates the thing only from the physical point of view, which he considers absolute.
As a stranger to himself.
And he still does not see the desert of values.

He says that existence has no meaning, but he does not live what it claims.
In fact, he has not yet come to consider the consequences for himself.
Nor does he see the ethical implications.

I believe that, albeit unknowingly, he does not want to see them.
And so he is in contradiction, between affirming the non-existence of free will and reasoning as if it existed.

Not sure what this means. So, what I do is to bring all of this "philosophical/intellectual" stuff "down to earth" and explore it in regard to Mary aborting her unborn fetus.

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so. Which only makes sense to me if we are all compelled to make sense of things per the laws of matter in a wholly determined universe.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:25 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 7:48 pm Note to others:

You tell me how you imagine that he imagines that he is not a free will determinist.

It's simpler than that. He's just being irrational and inconsistent. He has no grasp of what Determinism entails, and you can tell because he continually talks about what we can and should do about things he ought to believe, as a Determinist, we can't possibly change anyway.

He's out of his depth and over his head at the moment. That's all.

Of course, there's no such thing as a "free-will Determinist." There's only rational and irrational.

Of course, simpler still is the argument that you too are no less compelled by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to post what you do.

That you too are no less included in regard to those who are unable to definitively resolve this deep, deep mystery:

...all of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Instead, your brain has compelled you to posit the Christian God. Only it has [so far] not been able to compel you much beyond "the videos", to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to view them and conclude in turn that they prove the Christian God does in fact exist.

Prompting my brain to compel me to suspect that you too may have a "condition".

That perhaps you belong on a Christian discussion forum and not here at the Philosophy Now forum given your hopelessly circular premise that...

1] The Christian God must exist because it says so in the New Testament of the Christian Bible
2] The New Testament of the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:28 pm Not sure what this means. So, what I do is to bring all of this "philosophical/intellectual" stuff "down to earth" and explore it in regard to Mary aborting her unborn fetus.

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so. Which only makes sense to me if we are all compelled to make sense of things per the laws of matter in a wholly determined universe.

Once the non-existence of free will is taken for granted, in the face of Mary having an abortion we can only feel compassion.

Because once we understand that free will is an illusion, the painful world can only arouse compassion in us.

There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

However, compassion reveals a different and total responsibility.

Because it is not you who have compassion, but compassion takes you.
And so you find yourself at the origin of all things.

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so.

Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Why would you treat Mary any differently? You hold her responsible for her acts as well.

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pm There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

It's not because there are no people that no one is responsible. To be responsible for an act or inaction, one must have at least been able to have acted differently. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something they could not have avoided. We do not absolve individuals of responsibility by denying their existence. You must attempt to eliminate that ridiculous notion from your mind.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:42 pm That you too are no less included in regard to those who are unable to definitively resolve this deep, deep mystery

Ain't a "mystery," and ain't "deep." It's just untrue.

Sorry. It's just self-contradictory. That's not the same as being subtle, wise or profound. In fact, it's the opposite.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:21 pm

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so.

Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Or simply dealing practically with a problem. If person X does, then they may need to be removed from society. With certain causes invovled, this person kills or killed at least. So, we try to prevent more such acts. Also, if it were true that seeing others get put in prison for certain crimes makes others think twice or not do it at all, this would make deterministic sense. A justice system doesn't need to decide about responsibility. It can black box that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:54 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:21 pm

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so.

Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Or simply dealing practically with a problem. If person X does, then they may need to be removed from society. With certain causes invovled, this person kills or killed at least. So, we try to prevent more such acts. Also, if it were true that seeing others get put in prison for certain crimes makes others think twice or not do it at all, this would make deterministic sense. A justice system doesn't need to decide about responsibility. It can black box that.

Exactly. Having caused something does not imply responsibility for it, as the cause was determined. We must seek alternative, more rational approaches to wrongdoing. Here, Iwannaplato illustrates a few of them.

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:28 pm Not sure what this means. So, what I do is to bring all of this "philosophical/intellectual" stuff "down to earth" and explore it in regard to Mary aborting her unborn fetus.

Now, the compatibilists seem to argue -- at least to the extent I understand them -- that even though Mary was never able not to abort her fetus, she was still morally responsible for doing so. Which only makes sense to me if we are all compelled to make sense of things per the laws of matter in a wholly determined universe.

Once the non-existence of free will is taken for granted, in the face of Mary having an abortion we can only feel compassion.

Given how many hardcore determinists are compelled to think [and sometimes I'm one of them and sometimes I'm not], human emotion is not the exception here. We can only feel compassion or not because we can only feel compassion or not. It's not an option that we choose freely.

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pmBecause once we understand that free will is an illusion, the painful world can only arouse compassion in us.

Again, though, it's not like we freely choose to understand anything here. Same with compassion. You sound to me here like one of those free will determinists i.e. compatibilists. Free will is an illusion except when it comes to arousing compassion. That we can do of our own volition

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pmThere can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

Click.

You lose me here.

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pmHowever, compassion reveals a different and total responsibility.

Because it is not you who have compassion, but compassion takes you.
And so you find yourself at the origin of all things.

Here I'm really lost. It's as though compassion itself is an entity taking control. Of what...your brain?

Is there a God in here somewhere? Or the pantheistic equivalent of the universe itself as God?

Either way, if Mary is compelled to abort Jane*, her unborn fetus, Jane is never around to weigh in on all this. Whereas if Mary has free will, she may well be around.

* Why Jane?

Because the Mary/John debacle is based on a true experience that I had. John wanted Mary to give birth. If it was a girl, he wanted to call her Jane. But Mary aborted the fetus.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:02 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:54 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:21 pm
Are you going to lock up a serial killer for doing what he did?

If yes, then you are holding him responsible for his acts.

Or simply dealing practically with a problem. If person X does, then they may need to be removed from society. With certain causes invovled, this person kills or killed at least. So, we try to prevent more such acts. Also, if it were true that seeing others get put in prison for certain crimes makes others think twice or not do it at all, this would make deterministic sense. A justice system doesn't need to decide about responsibility. It can black box that.

Exactly. Having caused something does not imply responsibility for it, as the cause was determined. We must seek alternative, more rational approaches to wrongdoing. Here, Iwannaplato illustrates a few of them.

And for not so different reasons, one would also need to drop words like 'evil'. Especially when it comes to beliefs that may not lead to any negative actions at all. Different people do different things and have different feelings and attitudes from other people with the same beliefs. They are not programmed like computers, even if one thinks they are programmed. You do not have to have the same chains of causation. Evil meaning profoundly immoral and wicked and with definite religious overtones.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:25 pm
Even though they don't have a choice, people who believe they have free will are intrinsically evil.

How can a domino be intrinsically evil.
Why one would decide to eliminate a term (resposible) used commonly in EnligHtenment and after ideas of justice and morality and go back into a term used in religious moraL AND METAPHYSICAL contexts, directly pulled from religious metaphysics, I have no idea.

Apart from the problem of assuming that anyone with a belief in free will will behave and relate following some rigid deduction. There are people with all sorts of beliefs who act radically different from each other. It is a radical oversimplification of how ideas relate to human nature, behavior and relations.

So, both in terms of ontology and then how ideas lead to actions and attitudes in the real world, use of this term does not fit with determinism at all.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:22 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pm There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

It's not because there are no people that no one is responsible. To be responsible for an act or inaction, one must have at least been able to have acted differently. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something they could not have avoided. We do not absolve individuals of responsibility by denying their existence. You must attempt to eliminate that ridiculous notion from your mind.

In my opinion you have not yet elaborated enough on the implications of the non-existence of free will.
Perhaps because you are too conditioned by the determinism that you consider indisputable "truth".

The non-existence of free will has other and more important reasons.

Focus on what the non-existence of free will really means.
And then you can see how there is no thing for itself.
No one thing is distinct from the other.

All is One.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:22 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:58 pm There can be no individual responsibility, for the simple reason that there is no one.

It's not because there are no people that no one is responsible. To be responsible for an act or inaction, one must have at least been able to have acted differently. It makes no sense to hold someone responsible for something they could not have avoided. We do not absolve individuals of responsibility by denying their existence. You must attempt to eliminate that ridiculous notion from your mind.

It's not that the bodies do not exist. It's not like Jane Doe does not exist. But in a deterministic universe there are no separate individuals. You simply have an inevitable unfolding of the entire mass of the universe. There are no separate things, just all of this mass moving forward in time. It's like a petal of a flower thinking it is some isolated entity, when it is merely part of the bloom, of the flower, of the field of the earth, of the universe unfolding. It makes no individual decisions, nor do we. It has all been decided in advance.

And then, given that we are made of matter, Ship of Thebes issues also come in and destroy the notion of a persistant self.

The self is an illusion given modern physicalism.

But it's not like Mike isn't there. Like that part of the whole mass is not there as one portion of the unfolding mass.