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

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

What effects ALL 'beliefs' have, is that they STOP and PREVENT one from SEEING, HEARING, ACCEPTING absolutely ANY 'thing', which opposes that BELIEF.

What Age calls beliefs, I call stupid intransigence.

We have to believe otherwise we could not compare what we believe with what someone else believes. What goes wrong is when someone lacks the imagination to see the other point of view.

His definition of belief is not the typical one. That's fine of course, but when other people tell him they believe something he interprets this through his definition not the way other people mean. If I say a believe X, it means that I think X is true. That doesn't mean I can't see other evidence or that nothing would change my mind. Hardly.

What you quoted above that he said is utterly ridiculous. Even very stubborn people who cling to their beliefs and hate cognitive dissonance still change their minds about some things or could if their experiences were strong enough to break through.

And it is bizarre that he assumes that his definition of belief is what other people mean when they use that word.

And, obviously, that idiotic sentence that you quoted of his, is a belief he has.

That said, I realized that it seemed like he may have a serious problem and this extreme belief and positioning he takes above everyone else is much more fragile that he comes across. I don't know. But it started to feel unkind to take him at face value. So, I avoid him now.

Age may change his mind.Why would Age not change his mind? He asks searching questions so he may apply these to his own ideas too.

[iambiguous]

No, the "spirit" or "soul" narrative revolves around assumptions made by the "I believe in God" members here. What I mean is that "somehow" matter in the form of the Big Bang and galaxies and stars and planets and moons and all the elements from the Periodic Table became living biological matter...single cells all the way up to us.

Click.

Are we clear on that? Given free will, I don't attribute it to a "spirit" or a "soul". I attribute it to what neither you nor I fully grasp 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.

What you actually claim here is knowledge that, lucky for you, you don't have to know. Seriously, other than in a world where your brain did compel you to post that, how can that be construed as anything other than preposterous?

Most scientists, if I may say so, agree with me that "alive stuff" is just matter that is subject to the laws of nature. Physical and biochemical events in the human body (like sense organs, nerve impulses, and muscle contractions) are the only cause of mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). Subjective mental events, whatever they are, can't happen without matching physical and biochemical events happening in the body. When the body dies, all mental activity dies too. However, subjective mental events can't change physical events.

That's my point. "Subjective mental events, whatever they are..."

We still don't know what they are. Definitively. Going back to how they fit into an equally definitive understanding of existence itself.

My point revolves around exploring the extent to which what you think they are includes your own arguments themselves. The very things that you post here being or not being entirely embedded in the only possible reality in turn. How on earth would we even go about pinning that down when that involves the brain explaining itself.

Given Rummy's Rule..."but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

I don't know where to start or if I should even try to answer. But let me start by saying that physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. That means that we will never know anything with absolute certainty; we can only improve our understanding by adding more and more observations to our fact basis upon which we try to derive specific "knowledge," i.e., educated guesses with a high degree of probability of being reliable. When I speak of scientific truths and facts, it is to be understood that they are based on evidence that has not been proven, nor can it ever be, but that it has also never been disproven.

Let's start here: given your own understanding of determinism is there ever the possibility that you could start somewhere other than where your brain compels you to start?

And if you/we can never know anything with absolute certainty, how can you/we know that with absolute certainty? Are you actually telling us that you believe that a comprehensive understanding of questions like this...

* Why something instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the complete understanding of existence itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
* Does God exist?

...is not necessary to establish that what you, "an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the staggering vastness of all there is", think is true on this thread should ever be doubted by anyone as anything other than the objective truth?!!

So, my answer to your question ("how much my own arguments are included in what I think are subjective mental events?") is "all of them". To be more precise, I think every thought, every perception (for example, blueness and heat sensation), and every word I speak and think, in short, every subjective mental event, is just semantics (in the first-order-language sense): interpretations of the spoken and the body's natural language that try to capture the primitive idea of entailment, deduction or implication. In fact, I think that's what subjective mental events are all about, that's all there is, but I'm not sure; I can't be. Lucky for me, I don't have to be.

Anyone here know of any neuroscientists engaging in empirical research on the human brain? Please take this "general description intellectual contraption" to them and come back to us with their own reaction to BigMike's assessment of "subjective mental events"...and how it might be made applicable to Mary aborting Jane. To those determinists who argue that if Mary aborted Jane, she was never able to opt not to abort her. And then those compatibilists who accept this but argue that she was still morally responsible for "choosing" it.

Given how you understand determinism, is how I define things and conflate things an actual manifestation of my capacity as an autonomous human being? Could I have opted freely to define and conflate things differently?

You could not. However, if you get new knowledge today that influences your conduct, you may "define and conflate things differently" in the future.

But: Wouldn't I "get" this new knowledge in the only possible reality as well? And isn't how I "react" to that knowledge, embedded -- destined/fated -- in that very same "only possible reality"?

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 my explanation of "living matter" above wholly determined by my brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter...or not?

I must have overlooked your "explanation of "living matter"" because I cannot find it anywhere. Have you neglected to post it?

I posted that above:

What I mean is that "somehow" matter in the form of the Big Bang and galaxies and stars and planets and moons and all the elements from the Periodic Table became living biological matter...single cells all the way up to us.

As for why that happened, many insist it's all about God. As for the scientific community, they still don't know how it happened. Let alone why. Some argue that biological life never actually started on Earth itself. Rather it arrived on Earth from the heavens...from an asteroid or a comet impact.

We just don't know.

But my question was, to use your terminology, "Will the way your brain is programmed make you more inclined to follow society's rules if it is conditioned to believe it is regulated by the laws of physics?" In other words, if we don't believe that we and others have a free choice, will we tend to look for other guiding principles than the illusion we call "free will"?

Again, either you are making an important point here that I am simply unable to grasp [and I certainly acknowledge that may be the case] or I am making an important point that you are unable to grasp.

My point being this: that given determinism as my material brain compels me to understand it here and now, what either one of us believe or do not believe and what either one of us look for or do not look for is an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality. A fated/destined reality going back to whatever set into motion the laws of matter themselves.

This is true, but only in the present. Because we can remember, we can think about what has happened in the past, look for patterns, and come to logical conclusions that help us figure out what will happen in the future. Memory and reason let us know what will happen before it does. This is a unique skill that both people and some animals have, and the wisest people tend to use it whenever they can.

Again, from my frame of mind, you speak of this as though in regard to the future, the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise. Just as the libertarians will argue about the present and the past as well.

How exactly does that work...chemically, neurologically? Link us to the neuroscientists who in turn have arrived at this conclusion about the human brain grappling with the future.

This, of course, seems to hurt the fatalist view that everything is "a fated reality that goes back to whatever set the laws of matter in motion," even though it doesn't in reality. Memory and reason are part of the physical universe and follow the same physical laws as everything else, so let's make the most of them.

Yes, let's make the most of them because we are free to opt not to.

Something like that?

[BigMike]

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?

[BigMike]

popeye1945, almost everything you say here makes sense to me. I do have some small problems with it, though.

All creatures are reactionary creatures, one can apparently make choices between the possibilities of numerous reactions but one cannot, not react to one's environment. When one does not know what one's next thought is going to be or where it comes from, how on earth does one conclude that they have free will, they have a feeling of having free will perhaps, but that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Even identification with others thus the arising of compassion comes from a more primordial source that consciousness has no access to.

I think this certainly applies to relationships with our children and close relatives, which also seems to be true of all mammals. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense. However, for more distant relatives and complete strangers, this innately empathetic response appears to be waning. This does not preclude the possibility of having compassion in those circumstances that is grounded on reason rather than instinct. For many people, it may make more sense to look for allies than adversaries, and in this case, I believe one's acceptance or denial of free will plays a role. My hypothesis is that those who believe in free will are more inclined to perceive strangers as possible foes and have a lesser inclination to trust allies, either in terms of their character or their capabilities. But the correlation, if there is one, is most certainly not one-to-one; both camps in the discussion over free will contain members who are empathic by nature and those who are less so.

Egocentrism is the mother of the belief in free will, it is the belief in self-control that does not exist. If that concept is to much for society to deal with, it does not make it wrong, just unpopular.

I would argue that it is the belief in free will that tends to give rise to egocentrism, not the other way around. My reasoning is as follows: the belief in free will is an inflated belief in one's own delusional godlike qualities. It places believers at the command center, the driver's seat, and the center of the action, where they are the ones pulling the strings. This self-centered and narcissistic mentality tends to give rise to egocentrism, in my view.

[BigMike]

Again, from my frame of mind, you speak of this as though in regard to the future, the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise. Just as the libertarians will argue about the present and the past as well.

Let me put it this way: if you have unfulfilled needs, you will suffer pain or discomfort. This is communicated by the sensory nerve system or hormones secreted by glands into the bloodstream. If your needs are not met, you may become physically or mentally ill, or even die. Biology has evolved to encourage survival and the propagation of your genes. Individuals that do not survive and reproduce are really a dead end: a waste of time, space, and precious energy. They provide no contribution and are hence biological failures in the grand scheme of things.

Particularly, the brain has evolved the capacity for short- and long-term memory, as well as learning, so that its owner can be at or near the front of the pack and be the most fitted for survival. When the body responds to physical or emotional pain in a way that alleviates the pain, the brain strengthens the synapses involved by developing new axon terminals to improve neurotransmitter transmission, making it more likely to repeat that response the next time. This is how learning occurs; by the development of new axon terminals. It enhances a person's response to any scenario.

Your brain is programmed and conditioned to accomplish what it calculates best for you, and it does so by learning how to meet your physical and emotional requirements (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs), so ensuring the least amount of pain and the greatest amount of happiness and contentment. Additionally, the learning tells you what results to anticipate from particular behaviors. Naturally, ignorance in a certain field may end in the opposite: maybe more misery and anguish, or at best, becoming a victim of chance. Learning is the window into the future, and in your words, how “the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise.”

How exactly does that work...chemically, neurologically? Link us to the neuroscientists who in turn have arrived at this conclusion about the human brain grappling with the future.

I recommend Nobel prize winner Eric R. Kandel's In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. You can get it here: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Memory-Em ... 8&qid=&sr=

[popeye1945]

popeye1945, almost everything you say here makes sense to me. I do have some small problems with it, though.

All creatures are reactionary creatures, one can apparently make choices between the possibilities of numerous reactions but one cannot, not react to one's environment. When one does not know what one's next thought is going to be or where it comes from, how on earth does one conclude that they have free will, they have a feeling of having free will perhaps, but that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Even identification with others thus the arising of compassion comes from a more primordial source that consciousness has no access to.

I think this certainly applies to relationships with our children and close relatives, which also seems to be true of all mammals. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense. However, for more distant relatives and complete strangers, this innately empathetic response appears to be waning. This does not preclude the possibility of having compassion in those circumstances that is grounded on reason rather than instinct. For many people, it may make more sense to look for allies than adversaries, and in this case, I believe one's acceptance or denial of free will plays a role. My hypothesis is that those who believe in free will are more inclined to perceive strangers as possible foes and have a lesser inclination to trust allies, either in terms of their character or their capabilities. But the correlation, if there is one, is most certainly not one-to-one; both camps in the discussion over free will contain members who are empathic by nature and those who are less so.

Egocentrism is the mother of the belief in free will, it is the belief in self-control that does not exist. If that concept is to much for society to deal with, it does not make it wrong, just unpopular.

I would argue that it is the belief in free will that tends to give rise to egocentrism, not the other way around. My reasoning is as follows: the belief in free will is an inflated belief in one's own delusional godlike qualities. It places believers at the command center, the driver's seat, and the center of the action, where they are the ones pulling the strings. This self-centered and narcissistic mentality tends to give rise to egocentrism, in my view.

Excellent post, an interesting flip of the coin, the belief in free will being the seed of egocentrism. It is a common belief, this free will, but perhaps if it was not, it might make a positive change in the way we live in the world. I going to play with that one for a while.

[Age]

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?

[CHNOPS]

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?

[popeye1945]

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?

Age,

Good point, but I think the overall complexity of the world makes free will suspect. That and the fact that no one knows what one's next thought is going to be, or where it has comes from. One can have many choices about the way one is going to react to a situation and why one makes a particular choice is so steeped in the complexities of past, present, and one's biological state which is far from understood by science or the individual. The one thing that is certain is that one cannot, not react to one's environment, for even a decided non-reaction would be a reaction to one's environment. Then there is one's internal environment ,the triggers of past positive or negative experiences, babbling a bit here but, it is so so complex, that to think there is real self-control is impossible to believe. The collective mind isn't ready for this realization, think what it would do to the concept of sin, or to the administration of criminal law, collectively I don't think society would be able to function if determinism was acknowledged, yet to be a just world I believe it would need to be embraced.

[Walker]

Okay, but to just clarify, to 'you', is EVERY one FREE to make CHOICES or NOT?

Age: For everyone, including you ...

You’re free to do whatever it is you must do, within the limitations of a situation*, and those situational limitations include your own physical limitations. For example, if you find yourself restrained for whatever reason, and you must scratch your nose, you're free to do that within your limitations, which means you're likely going to be scratching your nose with something other than your dirty finger nails.

If you’re confused about how to scratch and must choose, you’re free to do that. If your limitations only allow you to ask questions to get your nose scratched, you’re free to ask, unless your captor has gagged you. But, there are still ways to communicate without voice. A throat whine will attract attention. While asking it’s best to keep in mind that your need to ask does not automatically create a need in another to answer, but a good question indeed might create that need, in another.


* Even if you're living under a totalitarian thumb.

[Walker]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... statue.jpg

[Age]

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?

Here is MORE and FURTHER PROOF of how the ones who make CLAIMS, like the ones here have, are when QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED over their CLAIMS INSTEAD of just ANSWERING OPENLY and Honestly they RUN AWAY and HIDE behind things like this upload, INSTEAD.

They WERE SO LOST and CONFUSED that by just asking them one, OBVIOUSLY, VERY SIMPLE and OPEN QUESTION, they, and their BELIEF, FALL to ABSOLUTE PIECES, and they can do NOTHING but HIDE.

[BigMike]

I have added Age to my foe list in order to avoid seeing his posts. Since some of you have copied and responded to his most recent comments/questions, I would like to invite Age to explore how, in his own words, memory may distinguish humans from, for instance, a billiard table ball. I shall temporarily remove him from my list of foes while I await his conclusions. I am also interested in the responses of others to this issue.

I am confident that a thorough examination of the implications of long-term memory and learning (which are identical at the molecular and cellular level) will yield surprising and eye-opening insights. Unless, of course, one completely rejects the existence of memories.

[Age]

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?

Age,

Good point, but I think the overall complexity of the world makes free will suspect.

To me;

The 'world' is NOT complex AT ALL. And,

The actual reason why some people find 'free will' 'suspect' is because the term 'free will' has just NOT YET been defined, agreed upon, and accepted sufficiently, to those ones, or because those people have already found and/or believe 'free will' is 'suspect' or does NOT even exist.

To find out if 'free will' exists or not is done FIRSTLY by just defining that term in a way that 'free will' would E a 'thing' that, at least, could be able to be exist, physically AND logically.

That and the fact that no one knows what one's next thought is going to be, or where it has comes from.

But I ALREADY DO KNOW where ALL thoughts come from. And, if I wanted to could also KNOW what the next thought will be, inside this body.

One can have many choices about the way one is going to react to a situation and why one makes a particular choice is so steeped in the complexities of past, present, and one's biological state which is far from understood by science or the individual.

But WHY one chooses what they do is ALREADY KNOWN, well by some of 'us' anyway.

The one thing that is certain is that one cannot, not react to one's environment, for even a decided non-reaction would be a reaction to one's environment.

I thought that is was ALREADY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and thus would NOT need to be said and spoken about.

Then there is one's internal environment ,the triggers of past positive or negative experiences, babbling a bit here but, it is so so complex, that to think there is real self-control is impossible to believe.

But to me there are NO past positive NOR negative experiences. To me ALL of my past experiences were, now, just ALL learning experiences. And, as long as I REMAIN COMPLETELY OPEN, ALL future experiences can be LEARNING ones as well.

The collective mind isn't ready for this realization, think what it would do to the concept of sin, or to the administration of criminal law, collectively I don't think society would be able to function if determinism was acknowledged, yet to be a just world I believe it would need to be embraced.

But OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY 'determinism' exits. That is HOW 'that world', that 'you' were living in, back in the OLD and DARK ages, when this was being written, KEPT CONTINUALLY CHANGING UNTIL 'it' BECAME 'this (to 'you' NOT YET world'.

WHEN what thee Mind Truly IS became Truly UNDERSTOOD, THEN human beings COULD and DID CHANGE for the BETTER, which, in turn, CREATED the Truly MUCH BETTER 'world', which was ALWAYS PRE-DETERMINED and PRE-DESTINED to COME-TO-BE.

'sin' and 'criminal law', by the way, both completely end and fall by the wayside, and they would have become just another part of a completely forgotten past, that is; if it were not for writings like this one and the other RECORDED MESSAGES.

[Age]

Okay, but to just clarify, to 'you', is EVERY one FREE to make CHOICES or NOT?

Age: For everyone, including you ...

You’re free to do whatever it is you must do,

In just ONE THIRD of A SENTENCE 'you' have managed to CONTRADICT "yourself?

HOW can one, LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY, 'BE FREE', BUT ALSO, 'MUST DO'?

This is just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the adult human being, BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS WAS BEING WRITTEN, would say JUST ABOUT ANY thing, in the HOPE that it would back up and support their currently HELD ONTO and MAINTAINED BELIEF.

OBVIOUSLY this one does NOT even KNOW, IF EVERY one is FREE or NOT?

within the limitations of a situation*, and those situational limitations include your own physical limitations.

BUT, WHAT is the 'you', which 'you' HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, ALREADY CONCLUDED is made up of physicality?

For example, if you find yourself restrained for whatever reason, and you must scratch your nose, you're free to do that within your limitations, which means you're likely going to be scratching your nose with something other than your dirty finger nails.

BUT 'you' SAID and CLAIMED that I, allegedly, MUST DO this. So, WHERE is the PROOF that I MUST DO this?

And, what is with the "dirty finger nails" REMARK.

Here we have ANOTHER ATTEMPT at 'argumentum ad hominen', as though this somehow backs up and supports the CLAIM being made here.

If you’re confused about how to scratch and must choose, you’re free to do that.

NO one MUST CHOOSE. BUT, 'you', human beings, are MAKING CHOICES, a LOT of the time.

If your limitations only allow you to ask questions to get your nose scratched, you’re free to ask, unless your captor has gagged you. But, there are still ways to communicate without voice. A throat whine will attract attention. While asking it’s best to keep in mind that your need to ask does not automatically create a need in another to answer, but a good question indeed might create that need, in another.

But NO one NEEDS to ask, AND, if one HAS BEEN GAGGED and RESTRAINED, then HOW, EXACTLY, do 'you' PROPOSE they even could ASK a QUESTION?

This is here is just MORE PROOF of how these ones would NOT think through their responses, and so end up just saying Truly ILLOGICAL 'things'.

Oh, and by the way, while 'TRYING SO HARD' to RIDICULE and HUMILIATE the "other".

Which, REALLY, was THEIR WAY of 'trying to' GAG and RESTRAIN the "other", with the OPPOSING VIEWS.

And this GAGGING and RESTRAINING 'misbehavior' can be SEEN throughout a lot of human history, when what was ACTUALLY FOUND OUT is that the ones who were being GAGGED and RESTRAINED were REALLY the ones SPEAKING and SAYING thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

* Even if you're living under a totalitarian thumb.