What's new
By:

Gay Nightclub mass shooting -- Orlando, Florida

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Siro said:
Nonetheless, the universe does follow a set of rules, and we must assume that life follows the same rules as the rest of their universe. This is regardless of what these rules are, or how well we understand them. Free will, as it is understood by the mainstream, is logically impossible. That statement could have been made by the ancient hunter gatherers, the Greeks, the scientists of the 50s and 60s, or anyone today. I don't see how it can be any other way, unless you believe that humans are partly immaterial, and thus able to control the universe from without.
Click to expand...

You're getting twisted, dude. Yes, common sense does a miserable job understanding choice, but that doesn't mean we should swing like a pendulum to a different but equally dumb framing of the phenomenon. And, physics itself has greatly softened its stance on LAWS/RULES -- so it'd be better for your personal philosophy if it got unyoked from that mess. Right now you're tossing "material" and "immaterial" around like the difference is obvious. It's not.
 
NAOS said:
You're getting twisted, dude. Yes, common sense does a miserable job understanding choice, but that doesn't mean we should swing like a pendulum to a different but equally dumb framing of the phenomenon. And, physics itself has greatly softened its stance on LAWS/RULES -- so it'd be better for your personal philosophy if it got unyoked from that mess. Right now you're tossing "material" and "immaterial" around like the difference is obvious. It's not.
Click to expand...

Actually I think you're the one who's stuck on laws/rules. It is irrelevant. My position is perfectly consistent as long as causality exists. Which it does. Understanding of physics cannot change that, unless it is discovered that the universe is acausal. Quantum mechanics are NOT acausal, and quantum uncertainty CANNOT explain choice.

The nonexistence of choice is the only philosophical position that isn't a mess. IMO.
 
Siro said:
Actually I think you're the one who's stuck on laws/rules. It is irrelevant. My position is perfectly consistent as long as causality exists. Which it does. Understanding of physics cannot change that, unless it is discovered that the universe is acausal. Quantum mechanics are NOT acausal, and quantum uncertainty CANNOT explain choice.

The nonexistence of choice is the only philosophical position that isn't a mess. IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm too old for this ****.

Is Choice the ur-myth of our liberal society? Yes.
Is Choice wildly mis-framed by centuries of philosophies which have over-rated consciousness and misunderstood the unconscious? Yes
Does this all mean choice (note, small c) doesn't exist as an element in life? No.
Is the "unmessiness" of your position a sign of its wisdom? No. Things like this ARE messy.

EDIT: Beware of philosophers who want parsimony and consistency at the same time.

NAOS OUT
 
Last edited:
I've heard the argument that we do not make choices at all ever. It's something I don't have the specific education to argue one way or another. But for myself, I've decided that the illusion is strong enough that I'll play along and pretend that I'm making choices and that they matter.
 
Gameface said:
I've heard the argument that we do not make choices at all ever. It's something I don't have the specific education to argue one way or another. But for myself, I've decided that the illusion is strong enough that I'll play along and pretend that I'm making choices and that they matter.
Click to expand...

I agree. But understanding that it IS an illusion is important for serious discussion. The removal of choice as a criterion for the moral standing of homosexuality makes for a stronger, and more rational, position. It is similar for any other topic. Understanding that choice is irrelevant allows for more realistic discussion of how to achieve desirable outcomes.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but is [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] arguing that there are no morals it is all cultural Reletivity? That we have no choices in life yet culture forces us to act upon impulse?

I am slow. What I read is he is at the same time objecting to homophobic shaming from a cultural perspective while also arguing in favour of cultural moral shaming.
 
Siro said:
And how are those choices made? If you were an individual living in Syria, then you could have been a member of ISIS. That would have been a possible choice given the way your experience shaped your brain, just like you now possess Western ideals and make choices/hold opinions typical of those in your culture.

I know that the notion of free will is comforting for many, much like religion. But think about it, given your mental state at any certain moment, how can you choose anything except what physics inevitably gets from information going thru that state? How, given that we live in a mechanistic universe, can we choose between two equally possible outcomes?
Click to expand...
I would be a different person if I'd been raised Syrian, or if I had different experiences in my life, or as a result of many different things. Despite this, I refuse to believe that I don't have free will.

I think that actually proving whether we do or not will always be far beyond our capabilities, but consider what it would mean to live by such a principle. Not only would it rob much of the meaning of life from those who accepted your ideas, but I cannot imagine such a philosophy leading to good outcomes. Morality as a guiding principle becomes meaningless without free will. A person who believes that they have no free will can easily justify doing anything.

tl/dr: If we believe in free will, even if we don't actually have it, morality plays a role in our decisions. If we don't have free will then nothing we do is our fault, and therefore anything we do is okay.
 
Siro said:
You insist on understanding what I'm saying in that simplistic way. Your disagreement baffles me. If you don't think we have a soul, than you cannot believe in free will and still be consistent. You either believe we're wholly natural, which makes us a materialist system like galaxies, mountains, and clouds, with no ability to control the response to stimuli. Or we are supernatural beings who can make choices. If you're the latter, then like I said to babe, there is no point in the disucssion.

And like I said to addictionary, whether or not we have real choice bares no importance on what we deem moral.
Click to expand...

This makes you sound like a very dark person with little understanding or relationship to understanding what humanity is. Of course I have Choices. Maybe You act on impulse but the rest of us have personal control. And sympathy. I do not need a soul for selfless acts that show no personal benefit.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I would be a different person if I'd been raised Syrian, or if I had different experiences in my life, or as a result of many different things. Despite this, I refuse to believe that I don't have free will.

I think that actually proving whether we do or not will always be far beyond our capabilities, but consider what it would mean to live by such a principle. Not only would it rob much of the meaning of life from those who accepted your ideas, but I cannot imagine such a philosophy leading to good outcomes. Morality as a guiding principle becomes meaningless without free will. A person who believes that they have no free will can easily justify doing anything.

tl/dr: If we believe in free will, even if we don't actually have it, morality plays a role in our decisions. If we don't have free will then nothing we do is our fault, and therefore anything we do is okay.
Click to expand...

I realize that morality, as it is usually defined, cannot exist. But a different, and better, kind of morality can exist regardless of whether free will is real or not. It is the morality of consequences. We lock away (or kill) a serial killer because we do not want them to kill more people and negatively affect our emotional experience. Whether they chose to be a serial killer does not change the outcome of their actions. Actions are real. Choice is not.
 
NAOS said:
I'm too old for this ****.

Is Choice the ur-myth of our liberal society? Yes.
Is Choice wildly mis-framed by centuries of philosophies which have over-rated consciousness and misunderstood the unconscious? Yes
Does this all mean choice (note, small c) doesn't exist as an element in life? No.
Is the "unmessiness" of your position a sign of its wisdom? No. Things like this ARE messy.

EDIT: Beware of philosophers who want parsimony and consistency at the same time.

NAOS OUT
Click to expand...
Were you rapping during this post? Yo?
 
Siro said:
I realize that morality, as it is usually defined, cannot exist. But a different, and better, kind of morality can exist regardless of whether free will is real or not. It is the morality of consequences. We lock away (or kill) a serial killer because we do not want them to kill more people and negatively affect our emotional experience. Whether they chose to be a serial killer does not change the outcome of their actions. Actions are real. Choice is not.
Click to expand...
Let's take this from the perspective of the serial killer. The thought enters his mind that he should go on a mass murder spree. He knows that he has no free will, therefore it is not really his decision whether or not he acts on this thought, so he is more like a casual observer who just watches himself act on this idea. He brutally murders 50 people, shattering scores of lives. He faces the consequences, just as you said, but so do all of the thousands of people impacted by his act.

Your system of morality of consequences is not better because the consequence is not a deterrent if you see it as inevitable. Your system of morality is much, much worse.
 
Boris said:
This makes you sound like a very dark person with little understanding or relationship to understanding what humanity is. Of course I have Choices. Maybe You act on impulse but the rest of us have personal control. And sympathy. I do not need a soul for selfless acts that show no personal benefit.
Click to expand...

Siro said:
I realize that morality, as it is usually defined, cannot exist. But a different, and better, kind of morality can exist regardless of whether free will is real or not. It is the morality of consequences. We lock away (or kill) a serial killer because we do not want them to kill more people and negatively affect our emotional experience. Whether they chose to be a serial killer does not change the outcome of their actions. Actions are real. Choice is not.
Click to expand...

That is what I driving at. You scare me right now.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Let's take this from the perspective of the serial killer. The thought enters his mind that he should go on a mass murder spree. He knows that he has no free will, therefore it is not really his decision whether or not he acts on this thought, so he is more like a casual observer who just watches himself act on this idea. He brutally murders 50 people, shattering scores of lives. He faces the consequences, just as you said, but so do all of the thousands of people impacted by his act.

Your system of morality of consequences is not better because the consequence is not a deterrent if you see it as inevitable. Your system of morality is much, much worse.
Click to expand...

There is no "self" either in the way you describe. :o

There is no one observing anything. The actor and the observer are one and the same. The conscious and the subconscious are all part of the same thing.

I need to go soon, so i don't have time to further elaborate at the time, but I do have to bring up two points. First, we're talking about the nature of the world. It is what it is. If that does not make for satisfying morality, and I do think it does, then that's what it is. I'm not interested in believing something simply because it makes me feel better. Second, like I said before, subjective experience remains the same. Knowing that we have no free will does not change the fact that we feel like we do. We will still experience the world the way we do now. A serial killer can "choose" to/not to kill. No free choice was really made. His brain reached the choice thru its physical structure (shaped by history and genetics), and the choice was made known to the conscious part. What matters is that society in general do not want people killed, and will work to stop that. I don't see why belief in causality-transcendent animals are necessary for that.
 
Siro said:
There is no "self" either in the way you describe. :o

There is no one observing anything. The actor and the observer are one and the same. The conscious and the subconscious are all part of the same thing.

I need to go soon, so i don't have time to further elaborate at the time, but I do have to bring up two points. First, we're talking about the nature of the world. It is what it is. If that does not make for satisfying morality, and I do think it does, then that's what it is. I'm not interested in believing something simply because it makes me feel better. Second, like I said before, subjective experience remains the same. Knowing that we have no free will does not change the fact that we feel like we do. We will still experience the world the way we do now. A serial killer can "choose" to/not to kill. No free choice was really made. His brain reached the choice thru its physical structure (shaped by history and genetics), and the choice was made known to the conscious part. What matters is that society in general do not want people killed, and will work to stop that. I don't see why belief in causality-transcendent animals are necessary for that.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you'll agree that any input into the brain is going to have an impact on the "decision" that the individual believes that they make. To continue with the example from above, if one of the inputs into the brain of a potential killer is, "I have no free will," I believe it would have a higher likelihood of leading to a negative outcome than the alternative. In fact, it would be akin to what we currently see as a mental illness. They could probably even successfully plead insanity if they claimed this as a defense.

Our argument has become circular, though. I see your logic and understand why you believe it's correct. I simply don't think that it can be proven, and I believe that we are far better off with morality based on free choice.
 
@ siro

The brain is a meat computer. Correct?

What we call the mind seems to be governed by the brain. Correct?

That meat computer makes decisions based on it's current state. Correct?

Particles that are governed by quantum mechanics are an integral part of defining that state. Correct?

Those particles exist as a wave function until measured observed. Correct?

In essence the mind exist in multiple States until observed by itself. Correct?

(Insert Twilight Zone gif)

Can we say anything with certainty about a system(the mind) that seems to be toeing the line between both classical and quantum mechanics when we still haven't a United Theory of the two? I would agree that free will seems to be on Shaky Ground but I'm not sure if physics has yet given us a satisfactory answer to the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top