Who is morally culpable?

Quoting Truth Seeker

If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable

On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone (i.e. beings like ourselves at least).

Reply to 180 Proof I am not talking about assigning moral culpability. I am talking about actual moral culpability. Is anyone actually morally culpable? Do you understand the difference?

Moral culpability really, as far as I can see, takes two forms:

Internal culpability, which is to say feelings of responsibility and obligation to behave correctly, feelings of guilt or shame to not behave incorrectly, all of the things inside of you that make you want to behave in a moral way.

External culpability, which means people holding you accountable for what you do (usually in the form of negative consequences for undesirable behaviour).

So "who is morally culpable?" could be asked from both perspectives. A lion would not feel guilty for eating a human child, so they lion is clearly not culpable in the internal sense (though there may be other things in a lions life that it does feel culpable for, for all I know).

But I think the op means mostly in the second sense, and can be rephrased as "who should we add a society hold to be morally culpable?" Is that right?

Since morality itself is an exclusively human concept, it follows that only humans can be moral or immoral, according to their own rules of right conduct. We generally excuse the feeble-minded, insane and very young, due to their lack of judgment.
though it was not always so:

The youngest person confirmed to have been hanged in England was Michael Hamond, aged just seven. He was hanged in King's Lynn, Norfolk, next to his sister Ann, who was 11 at the time

However, the degree of culpability is probably different in each case.

Reply to Truth Seeker If determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to whomever we think is "actually" morally culpable. There cannot be a vantage point for us outside of this causal nexus to differentiate right or wrong about assigning "actual moral culpability". That distinction has no meaning if determinism is the case.

Reply to 180 Proof I agree with you. Is determinism true? How can we know for sure?

Reply to 180 Proof Does it have meaning if the universe has genuine randomness?

Reply to Vera Mont I am so sorry that Michael and Ann were hanged. I think that it was wrong to do that to them. How would we work out to what degree who is culpable?

Reply to flannel jesus I like your distinction between internal and external culpability. What I am asking about is actual culpability. Is anyone actually culpable for anything they do or don't do? This is different from both internal and external culpability. It is also different from assigned culpability.

Reply to Truth Seeker how is it different?

If I ask the question, "Who should we as a society hold culpable", then it what way is that different from the question "Who is actually culpable?"

I guess I'm not understanding exactly what "actual culpability" is here, if it's different from that. Those two questions seem like they always have the same answer, to me.

Reply to flannel jesus I will do my best to clarify what I mean by actual culpability.

If X murders Y, the legal system will hold him/her culpable. However, if hard determinism is true, then it is inevitable that X murdered Y. In that case, X is not actually culpable. The actions of X are as determined and inevitable as death by an earthquake. We don't hold earthquakes culpable for murder, but we hold adult humans of sound mind culpable for murder. Should we though? Are they actually any more culpable than an earthquake is culpable?

Reply to Truth Seeker I don't take it for granted that determinism means you shouldn't hold someone culpable. That's because the alternative to determinism, to me, seems to be randomness, and I don't think randomness can add culpability

I think this is a good question. My view is that we should not blame the fish for swimming. Some people cannot help themselves but do what they do, regardless of whether hard determinism is true or not. But we should also not help ourselves against jailing those that pose a threat to us. It might just be that socially and psychologically stressing over a serial killer, ultimately over the question of "Why did you do that?", might be as pointless as asking the hurricane "Why did you destroy my house?".

Quoting 180 Proof

if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone

:ok:

Quoting Truth Seeker

Is anyone actually morally culpable?

For me morality is a complete human invention (non-realism), so moral guilt has to be assigned, it is never actual.

Quoting Truth Seeker

In that case, X is not actually culpable

Well, yes, because "actually culpable" for you seems to imply free will. So under determinism no one is "actually culpable". Conclusion follows from the premises.

I didn't vote on the poll since 'none of the above' wasn't a choice.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Is determinism true? How can we know for sure?

Contrary to the popular belief, determinism has nothing to do with this. It has to do with the physics of our universe being causally closed. If it is (deterministic or random), then there can be no objective morality, or as 180 puts it: Quoting 180 Proof

There cannot be a vantage point for us outside of this causal nexus to differentiate right or wrong about assigning "actual moral culpability

:100:

Quoting flannel jesus

I don't take it for granted that determinism means you shouldn't hold someone culpable.

That's the common mistake. Determinism (or any closed physics) means that one cannot be held objectively culpable, which is very different from being held culpable.

So while there are valid interpretations of physics that are deterministic and ones that are not, the difference is moot. The question is if physics is causally closed. Those that posit objective morality require the cause of one's choices to come from elsewhere than physics, hence the need for physics to not be causally closed.


I find all this a side track to what moral culpability is. Morals are a product of a society with expectations on its members. If something is not a member of such a society, then moral culpability is meaningless. If you disagree (which I'm sure many do), then provide a counterexample.

If morals are objective, then the rules of all societies anywhere must be based on these objective rules. So say you're playing dungeons and dragons. The dungeon is not closed. The choices made are made by people outside. There is a moral code that you don't betray your team members. That can only be meaningful if the player has some control over his character in the game. Else the character's actions are determined by the closed physics of the game and those outside the game cannot hold him moral culpable.

Reply to Lionino I agree with you.

Reply to flannel jesus What are the implications of hard determinism?

Reply to Truth Seeker I don't know, I wouldn't describe myself as a "hard determinist". What do you think the implications are?

Reply to flannel jesus If hard determinism is true, then everything that happens, happens inevitably and no one has moral culpability. This is what I think but I can't prove or disprove hard determinism.

Reply to noAxioms That's interesting. I am sorry that I didn't think of "None of the above" as one of the options. Why didn't I think of that? Is it my fault? Is it inevitable that I did not think of that but you did? I don't know.

I agree that morals are social constructs but social constructs are not free from the biology, chemistry and physics that make up the members of a society. In other words, social rules are not free from hard determinism, they are determined by hard determinism.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am so sorry that Michael and Ann were hanged.

It was in the 1700's. Since most hangings were for murder, I assume they killed a younger sibling, since they were hardly big enough to kill an adult. It was not uncommon in those days to hang teenagers; quite a few in their early teens. Mostly boys, and without doing extensive research, I'd guess they either fought back against a father or master - there was a good deal of open abuse. Or they were caught stealing and lashed out - lots of people were poor to the point of starvation; lots of people were desperate. On the other side, the children grew up fast in those conditions; they were not the innocent bairns we pamper nowadays.
Quoting Truth Seeker

How would we work out to what degree who is culpable?

Judges usually have quite broad discretionary power - if their hands are not tied with mandatory minimum sentences.
A thoughtful and well-informed person can look through the evidence, consider the culprit's circumstances, capabilities and motivation, what pressures and influences were at work on him, whether the illegal act was spontaneous or premeditated, what damage it caused, whether he did it on his own, or other people were involved - all kinds of factors come into such a judgment.
I'm not saying every jurist has the patience or tolerance or inclination to weigh each case on its merits, only that in theory, they can and should. So should jury members: that's their assigned task.

Reply to Truth Seeker What's the alternative to determinism to you? Is it just some degree of randomness sprinkled in? Like some visions of quantum mechanics suggest?

Reply to Lionino

Quoting Lionino

Some people cannot help themselves but do what they do, regardless of whether hard determinism is true or not. But we should also not help ourselves against jailing those that pose a threat to us. It might just be that socially and psychologically stressing over a serial killer, ultimately over the question of "Why did you do that?", might be as pointless as asking the hurricane "Why did you destroy my house?"

I think it’s the most important question there is. But we’re so overwhelmed by the effort to answer it that we throw up our hands and fall back on a concept of blame. We blame the free willing autonomous subject. Or we blame the social milieu. Or we blame genetics and biology. Or we blame determinism. What blame fails to do is come up with an explanation of behavior that avoids pinning it on arbitrary internal ( spiritual will, biological impulse, the id) or external (society, mother and father) demons, conditionings and influences. We fail to understand ‘blameful’ behavior in terms of motivations that not only are justified by the standards of the person who initiated it, but by our own standards of sense-making.

Reply to flannel jesus

Quoting flannel jesus

?Truth Seeker What's the alternative to determinism to you? Is it just some degree of randomness sprinkled in? Like some visions of quantum mechanics suggest?

It seems to me that determinism and randomness presuppose each other. That’s why proponents of determinism, like Martha Nussbaum and Daniel Dennett support blame and punishment. Dteeminism has arbitrariness built into it, and arbitrariness justifies blameful
justice. We don’t punish evil souls, we reshape capricious, wayward behaviors.

Quoting Joshs

But we’re so overwhelmed by the effort to answer it that we throw up our hands and fall back on a concept of blame.

I think this goes back to the patriarchal societies and their religions. Reward and punishment is one way to maintain social order, but it's not the only way. It might be possible to approach harmful actions from a perspective other than assigning guilt. We might look at the person who committed a harmful act as damaged and in need of repair. Or we might consider whether that individual is able to make some kind of restitution and win forgiveness from the victim. We might look at justice from the First Nations' POV:

The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged.

Reply to Vera Mont Thank you for explaining the context. I would never be a judge because I have no idea how to work out who is morally culpable.

Reply to flannel jesus I don't know of any alternative to hard determinism that is evidence-based. I am aware that religious people believe that people have free will due to having immortal souls piloting their bodies. I am not convinced that souls exist but I am open to examining any evidence offered.

Quantum indeterminism does not lead to macroscopic indeterminism because of quantum decoherence. Also, quantum randomness does not lead to macroscopic randomness because of quantum decoherence.

Besides, randomness cannot be the justification for moral culpability of any being except for an all-knowing and all-powerful God who could be blamed and praised for everything that exists and everything that happens.

I am not convinced that God or gods exist but I am open to examining any evidence offered.

Reply to Truth Seeker I don't think souls add anything to the conversation at all, because souls, if they exist, still evolve over time in a semi-predictable way, they apparently share the same direction of flow of time as the physical world, and thus they are still either deterministic or maybe have a bit of randomness sprinkled in.

Which leaves us the same place we were before souls were introduced to the conversation: either we exist in a deterministic system, or we exist in a system that's partially rule-based and partially random. That's true with or without souls.

You said people can't be culpable if determinism is true, which makes me think that you think that people can be culpable maybe if determinism isn't true - which to me reads like "people can be culpable if there's some randomness".

This is what I'm trying to explore - can randomness add culpability? Full disclosure, I do not believe it can.

Reply to flannel jesus I don't think randomness adds culpability. I don't think our choices are random. I think our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Adding soul to the equation only confuses the matter. How does an immaterial soul interact with a material body? How can an immaterial soul make choices that are free from genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? I don't know. I am not convinced that souls exist.

Reply to Vera Mont Reply to Vera Mont

Quoting Vera Mont

It might be possible to approach harmful actions from a perspective other than assigning guilt. We might look at the person who committed a harmful act as damaged and in need of repair. Or we might consider whether that individual is able to make some kind of restitution and win forgiveness from the victim. We might look at justice from the First Nations' POV:
The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged.

Concepts like forgiveness depend on the prior assessment of blame and guilt. Who says the person who does harm is ‘damaged’ and in need of ‘repair’? I’m guessing it’s not the person who committed the ‘wrongful’ act.

Quoting Truth Seeker

flannel jesus I don't think randomness adds culpability.

Neither do i, which is why I wonder why early in the thread you tied culpability to determinism.

Reply to Truth Seeker

If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable.

I am not sure if this follows. Consider a basic sketch of compatibalist free will as one's relative degree of self-determination:

A. Initially, following conception, we are not conscious. We are the effects of causes external to us.
B. As we develop, more and more of what effects us lies internal to us, as in "within our bodies." For example, organ development is spurred on by signals that originate in the fetus, not by signals coming from the mother's body. Although obviously the mother's body continues to play an important causal role even in a normal pregnancy.
C. At some point, phenomenal awareness begins and we become aware of our own bodies and our environment.
D. As we develop, we develop faculties for self-control, planning, etc.
E. By the time we are adults we can engage in introspection and try to determine our reasons for acting. Further, we can shape our environment in accordance with our will. We can write post-it notes to remind ourselves to do things, we can sign up for fitness classes with a friend so that social pressure forces us to engage in exercise we would otherwise shrug off, go backpacking so that we are far away from cigarettes so that we can't smoke, etc.

Somewhere in this process of development, at least some of what we do comes to be determined by the thoughts and decisions that enter into our conscious awareness. Obviously, people can be more or less introspective, they can have varying degrees of self-control, and they can do more or less to shape their environment so that it supports courses of action that they prefer.

The free person is a self-organizing system. Self-determination isn't a binary. It's something that emerges over time and builds on itself. Everyone has the capability to be driven by what they think is right action to some degree, such that their thoughts about what is right plays a determining role in their actions.

We can also have what Frankfurt terms "second-order volitions," i.e., desires about what we do or do not want to desire. We can take action on these as well, e.g., someone on a diet eats a salad and drinks broth so that they will not have a strong desire to eat high calorie food because they do not want to have that desire.

Freedom then, would be a sort of state. It is when:
1. We do what we want to do.
2. We want to want to do what we do (second-order volition).
3. We consciously intend to do what we do.
4. We know why we want to do what we do, and we agree that those are good reasons for acting.

Obviously, such freedom is never absolute. A person who acts in a way they otherwise wouldn't due to ignorance fails to meet #4. No one ever knows all the reasons behind why they act a certain way, or all the reasons determining why they want to act the way they want to act. But I'd argue that at least some people manage to have a pretty good idea about these things in at least some instances, and in these instances they are responsible for their actions because it is "who they are" that determines their actions.

The universe being deterministic seems sort of aside the point, although I'd tend to agree with compatibalists that some sort of determinism is actually a prerequisite for freedom. What seems important for culpability and freedom is if a person's acts are determined by their thinking, and if their thinking has been determined by a life that has allowed them to become relatively self-determining, such that an appropriate amount of the proximate causes underlying their actions can be traced back to their own conscious reflection and decisions.

This entails that people can be culpable to some degree. We might also consider that people's own choices can either make them more or less self-determining. Self-control, knowledge, and introspection can all be developed or eroded based on the choices we make. Therefore, we might well find people culpable for not developing these capabilities if it leads to their acting poorly. There is a sort of negligence that comes from having a good environment for developing freedom and choosing not to take advantage of it.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Who is morally culpable?

Those who choose and act with free will.

Reply to Leontiskos Are there people who don't? How can you tell the difference?

Reply to flannel jesus - If we believe that someone or something does not choose or act with free will then we do not hold them morally culpable for those choices or acts. For example, if a lawyer convinces the jury that a defendant was insane at the time of the putative crime, then the defendant will not be held (fully) responsible for their actions. You could look up a case like that if you want to see the manner in which this sort of investigation is carried out.

Quoting Joshs

Concepts like forgiveness depend on the prior assessment of blame and guilt. Who says the person who does harm is ‘damaged’ and in need of ‘repair’? I’m guessing it’s not the person who committed the ‘wrongful’ act.

I was suggesting approaches different from the present system of punishments.
Who says? The community says how it regards the responsibility and liability of its members. The person who commits a wrongful act is subject to judgment by his society; it's not up to him to decide whether he's ill or damaged or evil or in error.

Reply to Vera Mont

Quoting Vera Mont

. The person who commits a wrongful act is subject to judgment by his society; it's not up to him to decide whether he's ill or damaged or evil or in error.

We are all ill, damaged, evil and in error as judged by the perspective of those who are unable to relate the justifications of our actions, as seen from our own perspective, to their own perspective and form of life. If we are fortunate , after enduring enough ‘correction’, we can come to realize that our accusers don’t really belong to our own ‘society’ and we may join up with those who do relate to our way of thinking. Welcome to red state and blue state America.

Quoting Lionino

For me morality is a complete human invention (non-realism), so moral guilt has to be assigned, it is never actual

:ok:

Thank you for saving me time lol

Quoting Joshs

We are all ill, damaged, evil and in error as judged by the perspective of those who are unable to relate the justifications of our actions, as seen from our own perspective, to their own perspective and form of life.

That's right. And this is why the framing of laws and moral strictures should not be left to a short-sighted, invested individual (like a prelate or monarch) who can't see another person's POV. It should be done by a consensus of the community. Nevertheless, many communities are bound by tradition or religion or ethnic bias and don't tolerate any different perspective. If the majority of your fellow citizens consider your actions to be wrong, it doesn't matter what your self-justification is: they won't allow you to act that way.
Quoting Joshs

Welcome to red state and blue state America.

That rift was never about morality or justice.

Reply to Vera Mont

Quoting Vera Mont

Welcome to red state and blue state America.
— Joshs
That rift was never about morality or justice.

That rift is about, among other things, differing views of what is moral and just.

Reply to Joshs
That's how it's presented by the vested political interests that have been exploiting the prejudices and fears of the inhabitants. That's never a hard sell!

Reply to Joshs In "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky he presents evidence which supports the idea that criminals are damaged and in need of repair and the idea that they should be quarantined until they are repaired in order to protect others from them. Normally people with contagious illnesses are quarantined to protect others from catching the illness. People in quarantine are not blamed or called evil but are considered victims who need help. I am convinced by Professor Sapolsky's evidence and arguments.

Reply to Leontiskos Who has free will? Aren't all living things prisoners of causality?

Reply to flannel jesus "If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable. How do we figure out whether or not hard determinism is true?" Here is the definition of hard determinism from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism "Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will, and therefore that free will does not exist." If hard determinism is true, then we don't have free will hence, we are not culpable.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

Quoting Truth Seeker

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Done. What next?

Reply to Lionino Not done!

Quoting Truth Seeker

?Leontiskos Who has free will? Aren't all living things prisoners of causality?

Free will is the traditional answer to the question you pose in the OP. Something with free will is a self-mover, and that is why culpability attaches to such things. If a bullet rips through your leg we don't put the bullet on the stand and see if it is guilty, because the bullet's movement/act comes from outside itself. Neither do we see if the gun is guilty, or the hand that pulled the trigger. We stop at the person who fired the gun, because they are potentially the principle of their own acts.

Quoting Aquinas, ST I-II.6.1

There must needs be something voluntary in human acts. In order to make this clear, we must take note that the principle of some acts or movements is within the agent, or that which is moved; whereas the principle of some movements or acts is outside. For when a stone is moved upwards, the principle of this movement is outside the stone: whereas when it is moved downwards, the principle of this movement is in the stone. Now of those things that are moved by an intrinsic principle, some move themselves, some not.

Quoting Vera Mont

It should be done by a consensus of the community

I think this is a bit of red herring for Moralists.
There is never going to be a consensus. There is going to be a majority rule. I cannot see my way to thinking that's the best possible outcome. Particularly if we reject moral objectivity.

Quoting Vera Mont

That's never a hard sell!

Why do you think that is? My position (probably close to Joshs') is that they prey on the existing truth of these differences in morality. And, that's in aggregate. Plenty of gay conservatives, along with the homophobes for eg.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Not done!

I can't force you to believe me.

Reply to Lionino If you had done the tasks on the list, I would be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. While I am all-loving, I am definitely not all-knowing and all-powerful.

Reply to Leontiskos I understand what you said but the problem is that we are not self-movers. We don't choose to come into existence. We don't choose our genes, the environment that allows our zygote to develop, the nutrients that allow our zygote to multiply and multiply until we are adults and the experiences that shape our values, knowledge and skills. We are not deserving of any praise or blame because our choices are not free from variables not chosen by us.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I understand what you said

Do you?

Quoting Truth Seeker

but the problem is that we are not self-movers. We don't choose to come into existence.

You are mistaken to claim that, .

Quoting Truth Seeker

We don't choose our genes

You are mistaken to claim that, . (etc.)

Quoting Truth Seeker

We are not deserving of any praise or blame because our choices are not free from variables not chosen by us.

No philosopher who holds to classical volition has ever held that, in order for us to make free choices, our makeup must be free from all variables not chosen by us. Arguably, choice presupposes forms of natural determination, because choice is a means which must align with natural, causal means. Or in other words, if there were no reliable constraints and causes, then there would be no reliable means to any end, and hence no possibility for choice.

Quoting AmadeusD

There is never going to be a consensus. There is going to be a majority rule.

True, of politics and legislation. But societies generally adhere to a single set of basic values, though the members may disagree on detail and there will always be transgressors who have to be dealt with in order that the society may continue to function.
Quoting AmadeusD

I cannot see my way to thinking that's the best possible outcome.

I cannot see a viable alternative.
Quoting AmadeusD

Particularly if we reject moral objectivity.

How's that supposed to work? How is the 'factual' right and wrong arrived-at? Papal decree? Been tried; didn't prevent crime and punishment.

Quoting AmadeusD

That's never a hard sell! — Vera Mont
Why do you think that is?

People love to be ever-so-much more righteous than and punitive toward whatever or whomever they're afraid of, and they can be persuaded to fear pretty much anything. Vaccines, immigrants, spiders, old women, cats - anything.

Reply to Leontiskos I have seen no evidence that supports your claim that we are self-movers. I have seen evidence which supports my position that we are not self-movers. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence.

Quoting Truth Seeker

If you had done the tasks on the list, I would be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. While I am all-loving, I am definitely not all-knowing and all-powerful.

You were, but I took the powers away from you shortly after.

Reply to Lionino If I were all-knowing and all-powerful, I would have prevented the removal of my omniscience and omnipotence by you or anyone else!

Quoting Truth Seeker

I would have prevented the removal of my omniscience and omnipotence by you or anyone else!

Would you? How do you know that after I took your powers away? :smirk:

Reply to Truth Seeker - I have seen no evidence that supports your claim that we are not self-movers. I have seen evidence which supports my position that we are self-movers. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence.

Reply to Lionino You have provided no evidence for your claims. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence. If you are truly all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful why did you fail to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice and deaths?

Reply to Truth Seeker I did, I do, and I will. You simply do not grasp that I have prevented all suffering, inequality, injustice and deaths because of your limited, non-all-knowing mind.

Reply to Leontiskos I have seen how a zygote is formed and how it develops. That's my evidence. A zygote does not create itself.

Reply to Lionino You are lying. I have experienced suffering myself and have witnessed the suffering of others. Although I have not yet died, I will. You will, too.

Quoting Truth Seeker

You are lying. I have experienced suffering myself and have witnessed the suffering of others. Although I have not yet died, I will. You will, too.

I inserted that impression into your memories with my unlimited power. It was nothing but an illusion.

.

Reply to Lionino LOL. You are great at lying. I would love to see you prove your claims with evidence.

Reply to flannel jesus We already agreed that randomness does not add culpability. True randomness exists only at the quantum scale. True randomness does not exist at the macroscopic scale due to quantum decoherence.

Reply to Truth Seeker right, so then saying "we don't have culpability because of determinism" doesn't really seem to make sense - if randomness doesn't add culpability, then we wouldn't have culpability even WITHOUT determinism.

If that's your view, we don't have culpability either way, and determinism has nothing to do with it.

Quoting Vera Mont

True, of politics and legislation. But societies generally adhere to a single set of basic values, though the members may disagree on detail and there will always be transgressors who have to be dealt with in order that the society may continue to function.

So, yes, rule of the majority. And it is tyrannous if the basis for that interference with 'transgressors' is violent or restrictive.

Quoting AmadeusD

So, yes, rule of the majority. And it is tyrannous if the basis for that interference with 'transgressors' is violent or restrictive

That 'if' clause holds true of any kind of governance. If a theocracy is violent and restrictive, it's likely that many harmless acts are considered to be transgressions. If a monarchy, military or populist dictatorship is violent and restrictive, many acts that are not in the least socially disruptive are considered transgressions and harshly punished. At least a democracy, even a flawed and corrupt one, tends toward less autocratic laws - and makes it easier to change the laws.

Reply to flannel jesus If we had free will, we would be culpable, but we don't have free will, so we are not culpable. If the compatibilists are right, we could have limited free will, but I think they are wrong. Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqj32jxOC0Y

Reply to Vera Mont Isn't democracy just majority rule where the 51% takes away the rights of the 49%? Besides, gerrymandering can make sure that even the minority takes away the rights of the majority. As can the Electoral College system in the USA where in 2016, Hillary Clinton got more votes from the public yet lost to Donald Trump who got more Electoral College votes. She got 65,853,514 votes from the public and he got 62,984,828 votes from the public. She got 227 electoral college votes and he got 304 electoral college votes.

Ideally, all living things should be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful and own an infinite number of universes each and there should be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. We don't live in an ideal universe.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Isn't democracy just majority rule where the 51% takes away the rights of the 49%?

If you take the dimmest possible view of humankind. It's never even close to 51% of the population that wants to take rights away from their fellow citizens; it is at most 10 or 15%, and in a reasonable society, those ambitions are curbed. The US is ranked at 36th in the world, is a flawed and corrupted democracy; therefore hardly a benchmark for the form of government. The real power in a capitalist country, whatever its form of government, resides in the to 0.1% wealthiest.
Most people are content to let other people get on with their lives, so long as they don't pose a threat to their fellow citizens. One large problem is that most people, especially in times of high anxiety, can be convinced that it's an identifiable group of their fellow fellow citizens that pose a threat, to direct their attention away from the actual cause of their anxiety.
Quoting Truth Seeker

We clearly don't live in an ideal universe.

I think most of us were already aware of this - hence the attempts to organize ourselves in societies for mutual protection. I think most of us are inclined to be peaceful and co-operative most of the time, since we know we can't successfully fend for ourselves.

Reply to Truth Seeker

Your mortal mind would not ever be able to grasp my omnipotence and omniscience. How could I ever provide you enough evidence?

Reply to Lionino To start with, please post a video of yourself changing colour like chameleons.

Reply to Vera Mont I agree that the USA is hardly a benchmark for the form of government. I think the Earth should be one egalitarian country where everyone's Human Rights are protected and there is a separation between government and religion.

Quoting Truth Seeker

To start with, please post a video of yourself changing colour like chameleons.

I don't see how that proves my omnipotence, only that it proves I am a chameleon.

Reply to Truth Seeker I am.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I think the Earth should be one egalitarian country where everyone's Human Rights are protected and there is a separation between government and religion.

That would be nice. But somebody still has to conceive of, define and articulate those human rights. The UN would be my choice, since I agree with their charter and the vast majority pf people on earth would benefit from it. But there will always be a minority that wants religion -their own, of course - making the rules for everybody, and a minority that wants special privilege, and a minority that demands a right to pursue activities that are harmful to other people and the environment. Those minorities would still feel oppressed. It's an imperfect world, growing less perfect every day.

Quoting Vera Mont

At least a democracy, even a flawed and corrupt one, tends toward less autocratic laws - and makes it easier to change the laws.

Thats true. I take Churchills line on this.

Reply to Arne How do you know this to be true?

Reply to Lionino I said in an earlier post:

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

You claimed that you had completed the tasks. I am asking for evidence proving that each of the tasks has been completed by you. Showing a video of yourself changing your skin colour like a chameleon would prove that even though you don't have the genes of a chameleon you can do what a chameleon can do. This would prove that genes don't determine what we can and can't do.

Reply to Vera Mont Human Rights were declared on the 10th of December 1948 by the United Nations. Please see https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights Unfortunately, these rights are not implemented for all humans worldwide.

If I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then everything would be perfect for everyone. Sadly, I can't do it.

Quoting Truth Seeker

If I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then everything would be perfect for everyone. Sadly, I can't do it.

Keep practicing!

Quoting Truth Seeker

How do you know this to be true?

I know it to be the truth of me. Its truth value beyond that matters not to me.

Reply to Arne Ok, thank you for sharing.

Reply to Vera Mont LOL. It's not a matter of practice. Learning to play the piano is a matter of practice.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Showing a video of yourself changing your skin colour like a chameleon would prove that even though you don't have the genes of a chameleon you can do what a chameleon can do.

Well, I would rather not expose my identity here.

Reply to Lionino Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being as you claim you are, be afraid of exposing his or her identity? What about doing something else from the list that doesn't expose your identity but still proves your claim that you have done all the tasks on the list?

Quoting Truth Seeker

Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being as you claim you are, be afraid of exposing his or her identity?

I am not afraid, I just don't want to expose it.

Quoting Truth Seeker

What about doing something else from the list that doesn't expose your identity but still proves your claim that you have done all the tasks on the list?

As I have said, I have done all.

Reply to Lionino You have claimed that you have done all the tasks but you have not proven to me and others on this forum with evidence that you have done all the tasks.

Reply to Truth Seeker Well, for example, I just teleported exactly behind you.

Reply to Lionino Ok, please describe my room and what I look like.

Reply to Truth Seeker I didn't pay attention, and nothing about it really stood out.

Reply to Lionino An all-knowing being would be able to describe my room and what I look like even without teleporting into my room. Your lies are not even plausible.

Quoting Truth Seeker

An all-knowing being would be able to describe my room and what I look like even without teleporting into my room. Your lies are not even plausible.

What I know and what I wish to remember are different things. You said all-knowing, not all-remembering.

Reply to Lionino An all-knowing being by definition knows everything which includes what my room and I look like. This is getting boring.

Quoting Truth Seeker

which includes what my room and I look like

And I know that.

Quoting 180 Proof

On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone

And some are determined to accept it while some are determined to not accept it.

Reply to Arne I agree.

Reply to Arne No doubt.

Quoting Truth Seeker

If hard determinism is true, then everything that happens, happens inevitably and no one has moral culpability.

Incorrect. I think @180 Proof has already touched on this. If determinism is true, we are destined to have an agency such that we are determined to
consider the moral obligation of our actions. If you are a moral agent, then you are capable of moral deliberation, therefore you are morally culpable.

There is a theory on punishment that argues that the denial of punishment to a person denies that person a moral agency, (moral agency to be the ultimate measure of what it is to be human).

Reply to L'éléphant The moral deliberation of someone is not free from variables he or she did not choose i.e. genes, environments since conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, experiences from the womb to the present. We don't have free will. We have determined and constrained will. This is why no biological being is morally culpable.

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

Isn't free will only valid when you had choice? Most things you have listed as you have done, but don't want to do them seem nothing to do with freewill.

For example, did you have option not to be born?

Quoting Truth Seeker

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will

I have done all those.

Reply to Lionino Please prove your claim with evidence.

Reply to Corvus I don't know. I have met people who believe we are immortal souls and choose to be born and choose all the experiences we will have during our lives in this universe before we are born. They were not able to prove what they believe but that does not mean they are necessarily wrong. I am an agnostic about the existence of souls and gods but I am open to new evidence for souls and gods.

Reply to Truth Seeker It sounds like the first priority is to define what freewill is. Then you could proceed for further clarifications and discussions.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Who is morally culpable?

(The emphasis is mine.)
Why, in what sense can one by culpable other than morally?
Then, culpable of what?
Finally, how is this question connected to your multichoice list? It implies that one or more beings in the list is (actually) culpable. But neither a reason for being culpable is given nor any one in the list seems to be culpable for any reason, e.g. like a "criminal" would clearly be.

Now, since all the sound like criticism --although they aren't; they are just logical questions-- I tried to find what could be a question that fits your list ... The best I could find off hand is the following "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?"

If you like it, you can edit your OP and use it. (I don't ask for credit. :smile:)

Reply to Corvus I have read many definitions of free will but I don't agree with any of them. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't mind if no one else agrees with my definition. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything.

Reply to Alkis Piskas One can be legally culpable without being morally culpable. I think that no one is morally culpable but all adults of sound minds are legally culpable.

Culpable for doing something morally incorrect. For example, I became a vegan eighteen years ago because two vegans convinced me that it is morally wrong to be an omnivorous or carnivorous human.

In my list, I have included beings I have never met and am not convinced exist, e.g. gods, angels, demons and the devil. I have also included beings such as robots and AI even though I am not convinced that the currently existing robots and AI are sentient. I chose the "No one" option from my list. I could be wrong but that is what I currently think. My thoughts may change or they may not.

I like your rephrasing: "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?" Please answer the rephrased question. Thank you.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Please prove your claim with evidence.

Just did it.

Reply to Lionino No, you didn't. Please stop lying.

Reply to Truth Seeker I did post proof. But I used my unbounded powers to make Hanover erase my post. Don't ask him however, I erased his memories.

Quoting Truth Seeker

One can be legally culpable without being morally culpable.

OK, since you are insisting, I believe that one can use (losely) both the terms "legal" and "moral" culpability.
It wasn't my main point anyway; just an observation, something that "striked" me as stange.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I think that no one is morally culpable but all adults of sound minds are legally culpable.

So, there's no moral culpability but only an illegal one. OK. then would you call lying, cursing, offending etc. "illegal"? I don't believe that you would.

Maybe, instead of "morally culpable", you really mean morally responsible? I think this term fits your topic and description better.

For instance, pure (severe, diagnosed) psychopaths --with no "sound mind", as you say-- cannot distinguish right from wrong and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. That's why when such persons are found guilty in court, they would not be sent to a mental facility instead of to prison.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Culpable for doing something morally incorrect.

if that something had nothing to do with morality, e.g. an incorrect calculation, an invalid statement, a common error etc., would you call that person "culpable" of doing that? This is simply "being mistaken"
Again, the word "culpable" is always connected to morality. (Except of course if it is used as a figure of speech.)

Quoting Truth Seeker

I became a vegan eighteen years ago because two vegans convinced me that it is morally wrong to be an omnivorous or carnivorous human.

This is good. Then, if you eat meat you will most probably feel guilty, whouldn't you? Why? Because you have violated a moral principle of yours? Isn't that right?
As with the the word "culpable", the word "gulty" is always connected to morality. (Except of course, again, if it is used as a figure of speech.)

Quoting Truth Seeker

I have also included beings such as robots and AI even though I am not convinced that the currently existing robots and AI are sentient.

What do you mean "convinced"? Whoever tries to convince you, even if it is yourself, tell them to look up the term "artificial intelligence" and undestand what it really means. (Although people usually hate doing that!)
(BTW I am an AI programmer and have not the least doubt that it is totally impossible for AI --as it is defined and known today-- to ever become sentient. :smile:)

Quoting Truth Seeker

I like your rephrasing: "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?"

Thanks.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Please answer the rephrased question.

I just checked and the old one --"Who is morally culpable?"-- is still there.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I have read many definitions of free will but I don't agree with any of them. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't mind if no one else agrees with my definition. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything.

If you discuss a topic under different definitions of the key concept with the others, then you will not be able to reach the agreed conclusion.

But from my own view, things which were under determinant and constraints can never be freewill. You must accept something are determined for the humans, and they can never change or decide them.

Freewill is only valid when you had choices for different options for your decisions or actions.

Reply to Alkis Piskas The reason I have not edited my original question is that even if the phrasing is wrong, that's what I was thinking and asking at the time of posting. The posts are steps on my journey from then to now. If I edit the original post the record of the journey will be distorted and will no longer be accurate.

You can still answer the question "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?

Yes, I would feel guilty if I ate meat or drank cow's milk or ate chicken's egg or wore leather or wore wool and so on. However, if my choices are inevitable then I can't really be blamed or praised for my choices. Are the choices made by all living things inevitable? I don't know. If hard determinism is true then it would make sense that all choices are inevitable. The legal system simply ignores the implications of hard determinism and assumes that people have free will and are legally culpable if they do anything illegal. This is done because society needs laws to function. So, people are assigned legal culpability even when they lack actual culpability.

Reply to Corvus I agree with your statement "If you discuss a topic under different definitions of the key concept with the others, then you will not be able to reach the agreed conclusion."

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't.

Quoting Truth Seeker

The reason I have not edited my original question is that even if the phrasing is wrong, that's what I was thinking and asking at the time of posting.

Of course. But I didn't suggest to change the question-title of the topic. Only the last question, which introduces the multiple choices.

Quoting Truth Seeker

You can still answer the question "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?

Sure. I select the following one (of course): "All adult humans with sound minds"
(I also voted it. It's only too obvious. Glad to know that it received the vast majority of the votes. But I would like very much to know also what the minority has voted and their reasons. This would reveal interesting things, I guess.)

Quoting Truth Seeker

Yes, I would feel guilty if I ate meat or drank cow's milk or ate chicken's egg or wore leather or wore wool and so on. However, if my choices are inevitable then I can't really be blamed or praised for my choices.

Of course, even killing in defense and in order to save one's life cannot be considered unethical. The intention and purpose of one's actions plays a very important in ethics.

Quoting Truth Seeker

The legal system simply ignores the implications of hard determinism and assumes that people have free will and are legally culpable if they do anything illegal.

A fair, democratic system is correct in ignoring hard determinism and assuming free will. A person with a sound mind does have free will. Even criminals have, in general. Almost all of them are aware of what they are doing and they commit crimes on purpose. They have a choice about whether to commit a crime or not. They have reasons to do or not to do a certain crime. If they have an aberrated, sick mind, is another thing. This can be cured, using appropriate methods --mild ones, not electroshocks or heavy medicines.

***

One question: Do you believe that you composed this topic deterministically and not by your free will?
And, as en extension of this: Do you believe that people voted deterministically and not by their free will?

Reply to Alkis Piskas I am agnostic about a lot of things. Is solipsism true? I don't know. Is hard determinism true? I don't know. Do souls exist? I don't know. Is anyone responsible for the choices they make? I don't know.

I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. Concepts e.g. the definition of squares, circles, triangles, etc.
7. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
8. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost certain of the following:

1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, pre-life selection by souls hypothesis, resurrection hypothesis, reincarnation hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am all-loving but I am not all-knowing or all-powerful. I am the Truth Seeker, not the Truth Knower.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't.

But what could anyone do about the determinants and constraints?

Reply to Corvus Some of the determinants and constraints can be changed.

For example:
1. Gene therapy.
2. Changing the environment by moving to a different part of the Earth.
3. Giving aid to famine victims who are dying from not having enough nutrients.
4. Rescuing people from modern slavery and giving them treatment for PTSD if necessary.

Of course, many of the determinants and constraints can't be changed by the subjects and they need external help from others e.g. doctors, aid workers, police officers, paramedics, etc.

Reply to Truth Seeker
Wow! This is really long!
Multiple choices turned into multiple subjects. :grin:
Although, "Is solipsism true?", "Is hard determinism true?" etc. they seem only rhetorical questions
BTW, I have to note something here: solipsism, hard determinism, etc. are concepts and views and as such cannot be said to be "true" or "false". They can only be said to be "right" or "wrong", "correct" or "erroneous", "valid" or "invalid", etc.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am agnostic about a lot of things.

I believe it is a healthy thing to be agnostic. (BTW, the term refers mainly to God of gods.)
If I had to chose a label for myself, most probably this is what I wpuld have chosesn.
Known agnostics that I like a lot were Einsten and Sagan.

However, I believe that you pull the cord of agnosticism too far. It reminds of "One thing I know that I know nothing" attributed Socrates, for which there no evidence at all. Indeed, Socrates was not that modestm and one of the main elements in his teahings was wisdom. Therefore, such a statement would discourage his students! Besides, it's a self contradictiory statement!

So, don't try to look that modest. You know well that you know much more and can reason much better that what you say you do.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am completely certain of the following:

... I'm sure you missed quite a few ... Don't you know how to ride a bicycle? :grin:

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am almost certain of the following:

I don't believe that you are "almost cerain", i.e. there a possiblity that you won't die
On the other hand, I believe you are justified to think about a possibility that we and the whole Univers as wa know it are part of a simulation, dream, etc.,

Quoting Truth Seeker

Humans and other organisms do not have free will.

I'm really surprised that you equate humans with all other organisms. At least, you could equate them with primates, esp. apes.

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

This might be fun ...

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
A living organism is an autonomous system. You can have only little control ove it. The mind however, acts only in part as an autonomous system. You can have a lot and good control over it. Free will comes in here, you are free to change your mind, to think this or that way, to solve a problem, to learn things, to d this or that ... It all depends on your will, your free will.

2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
As I said above, one can have very little control over one's own organism. Much less over an organism that is different. Except of course if one practices mimicry, which is a superficial action. But yes, to do that one needs to apply one's free will.

3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
This is just fantasy or sci-fi or wishfull thinking.

4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
Only a god could do that --based on an appropriate concept of "god" of course. Anyway, there's isn't one around. And if I am wring and there is one, he doesn't do any of that; he can't care less. :smile:

5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
Ditto.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
Ditto.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.
Ditto.

Well, eventually it wasn't so fun ... Very little challenge. You must try better, Truth Seeker.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am the Truth Seeker, not the Truth Knower.

Well, that's a noble and honest endeavor. And you seem indeed a honest person.
But if you really seek the truth, you must either apply strong reasoning yourself or see and accept a truth when it is presented to you.
And allow me to say that your questions and requests in this topic and subect lack of strong reasoning; they are quite superficial. I have shown that more than once in this thread. You also seem to not see the truth about free will that I have described also more than once in this thread. I mean, you have not presented counter arguments to mine or your own arguments or a clear position regarding free will. The questions/requests that you have presented in this thread are not arguments or a position on free will.
But then, this is only me talking. :smile:

Reply to Alkis Piskas I am suffering from depression and CPTSD which affects my thoughts and emotions. I find reading, critically evaluating ideas, etc. very difficult due to my illnesses. You could argue that I do not have a sound mind. When I asked "Is solipsism true?" what I meant is that "Is solipsism real? i.e. am I the only real entity in all of reality?"

Yes, I know how to ride a bike, how to walk, how to read and write, what my address is, the names of my parents, and millions of other things. I don't have the time to list millions of things.

I think we are using very different definitions for free will. Although you have not stated which definition of free will you are using. I am inferring that your definition is "Free will is the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence." My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I am talking about both internal (e.g. genes) and external (e.g. environments) determinants and constraints.

If I had the genes of a banana tree, would I be able to type this post? No. I have seen many banana trees and none of them can read or type or even know English. They are probably not even sentient.

If the zygote that was I when I was conceived was placed inside an oven at 250 degrees Celsius for an hour would I have become the adult I am now? No. The lethal environment would have destroyed the zygote.

If the zygote that was I when I was conceived was deprived of all nutrients would I have become the adult I am now? No. The lack of nutrients would have killed the zygote.

If the zygote that was I had all the correct genes and was in the correct environment and received the correct nutrients then I would have been born as a healthy human baby. If that baby had different experiences from me such as learning Japanese instead of English, I would not be typing this message.

So, do you now see the roles played by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences in the typing of this post? This is why I am convinced that we don't have free will. Do you understand my thoughts and reasoning?

I gave you a list of tasks to complete to prove that your will is free from determinants and constraints, but you failed to do the tasks. You claimed that the mind is free but it is not actually free. Can you become fluent in 6000 languages you don't know in one nanosecond? No, you can't because your mind is not free. Your thoughts are most likely the product of the electrochemical activities of your brain and they are subject to the laws of physics. The state of your brain not only depends on the laws of physics but also depends on your genes, your environments from conception to the present, all the nutrients you have consumed from conception to the present, and all the experiences you have had from when you were in the womb until the present. Therefore, your mind is not free from determinants and constraints. If you can prove to me that your mind is free from determinants and constraints, please do.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am suffering from depression and CPTSD which affects my thoughts and emotions.

I'm very sorry to hear that, TS.

Quoting Truth Seeker

You could argue that I do not have a sound mind.

I don't believe this is true.

Quoting Truth Seeker

When I asked "Is solipsism true?" what I meant is that "Is solipsism real? i.e. am I the only real entity in all of reality?"

I know. I think I said that myself too.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I think we are using very different definitions for free will. Although you have not stated which definition of free will you are using.

Yes, most probably. For me, free will is simply what it says: freedom to act on one's own will. It should not get mixed with foreign substances. Not even with determinism, which is usually opposed to. Because once you do that, it gets more and more complicated as a concept and its essence is lost.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am inferring that your definition is "Free will is the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence."

Correct. You can infer dozens of things. It's essence won't change. But it may be lost, as I said.

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I am talking about both internal (e.g. genes) and external (e.g. environments) determinants and constraints.

I see. Well, can anyone eliminate all determinants and constraints, both internal and external as you say? This could only be done by some god, if in its definition we included the omnipotent element. However this is fantasy. In reality, and for humans, there are always determinants and constraints. But the issue here is not to eliminate them but base our decisions and actions after taking them into consideration. This does not prevents us from acting voluntarily, at our own will.
I believe you agree in that ...

Quoting Truth Seeker

If the zygote that was I had all the correct genes and was in the correct environment and received the correct nutrients then I would have been born as a healthy human baby. If that baby had different experiences from me such as learning Japanese instead of English, I would not be typing this message.

Certainly. I see your point. So, language is a limitation in our communication with other people. But it's only that, Not being able to speak Japanese does not mean that I'm not able to speak at my own will.
And, vice versa, if I were able to speak all the languages in the world, that wouldn't mean that I could always speak at my will. There could be other restrictions. Restrictions are always there. They have nothing to do with our free will.

***

So, it it is time I think to talk about the opposite of free will: deteminism or simply total lack, inexistence of free will. And it I would like from you to answer this question me: If my actions are not based on my free will where are they based on? What exactly is that determines them?

There are some theories that explain this. I also make up one myself. What is yours?

Quoting Truth Seeker

Some of the determinants and constraints can be changed.

For example:
1. Gene therapy.
2. Changing the environment by moving to a different part of the Earth.
3. Giving aid to famine victims who are dying from not having enough nutrients.
4. Rescuing people from modern slavery and giving them treatment for PTSD if necessary.

Of course, many of the determinants and constraints can't be changed by the subjects and they need external help from others e.g. doctors, aid workers, police officers, paramedics, etc.

But do you think that humans with the restricted abilities are able to deal with the inherent determinants and constraints efficiently, even if they tried?

Would you not agree that the inherent determinants and constraints are rather in the domain of God, who are omniscient and omnipotent?

Reply to Alkis Piskas Thank you for your sympathy. I understand what you mean by "freedom to act on one's own will" but the problem is that our will is never free from determinants and constraints. I don't know if any all-knowing and all-powerful being exists. If such beings exist their Wills won't be constrained the way our wills are. I don't know whether or not their Wills will be determined by variables or not.

You asked "If my actions are not based on my free will where are they based on? What exactly is that determines them?" Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. This is why most of the choices made by me when I was 4 years old were different from most of the choices made by me when I was 18 years old even though our genes have not changed. Please note that epigenetic changes also affect our wills.

In my explanation above, I am assuming what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell actually exist and are not simulations or hallucinations or dreams or illusions.

Reply to Corvus We can't change all determinants and constraints but we can change some determinants and constraints. It varies from person to person depending on their genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. I have not assessed how efficiently we deal with our determinants and constraints.

I don't know if Gods exist and if they are all-knowing and all-powerful. I am agnostic about the existence and nature of all Gods. Humans have believed in and still believe in many Gods. That does not mean that they exist.

Quoting Truth Seeker

the problem is that our will is never free from determinants and constraints.

You have stated that already, But you have not backed it up with some explantion. arguments and esp. examples. I believe that anyone who hears this would need some explanation ...

Quoting Truth Seeker

Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

Well, this applies mainly to the body and maybe a little to the mind and consciousness. Moreover, it does not change the fact that if such a thing prevents free will and determines our thinking, decisions and actions, we are simple puppets, doing what our genes dictate, what they tell us to do or makes us do. Or like animals, we are at the mercy of our instincts. Even a cat looks more "alive" and free than that!

If all this seem to be the way things are and makes sense to you, I cannot do anything else than accept your way of looking at the subject.

Quoting Truth Seeker

We can't change all determinants and constraints but we can change some determinants and constraints. It varies from person to person depending on their genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. I have not assessed how efficiently we deal with our determinants and constraints.

I don't know if Gods exist and if they are all-knowing and all-powerful. I am agnostic about the existence and nature of all Gods. Humans have believed in and still believe in many Gods. That does not mean that they exist.

I agree with you that some people make good efforts for improving and bettering the human living conditions which are under the negative inherent determinants and constraints. I do hope they will make good progress, and suppose that is actually what most of the public works are about.

You also mentioned the existence of God, and your agnostic attitude on the existence.
I think it is an interesting comment. It tells me that you think you know what God is, but you are not convinced it exists. Because one cannot be agnostic without having reasons for being agnostic, and it follows that one cannot have reasons for being agnostic without knowing the concept of God.

Therefore it follows that your thinking and knowing God's existence doesn't necessarily warrant the existence of God to yourself.

What would give you 100% certainly of the knowledge for the existence of God? What do you need for you to believe in God's existence with 100% certainty?

Reply to Alkis Piskas I carried out experiments to test the roles played by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. These experiments were not published in any journals because I carried them out alone and I was my only test subject. I compared myself with myself under different situations e.g. how lack of oxygen affected my decision making, how lack of water affected my decision making, how lack of food affected my decision making, how lack of sleep affected my decision making, how cold and heat affected my decision making, etc. I also compared myself to how I was before significant life events with how I was after significant life events. By significant life events I mean being kidnapped, being raped, watching people murder each other, being in natural disasters which killed lots of people, relatives being murdered, etc. The more I experimented and compared, the more it became clear to me that our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

How much do you know about neuroscience? Have you ever seen PET scans and functional MRI scans of humans? I have. If you want to learn more about how choices arise in brains, I recommend that you start by reading this book: "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky. It is available on Amazon Kindle. If you want to discuss the book with me, I am happy to discuss it.

Reply to Corvus I have studied most of the religions on Earth. The Gods in various religions differ from each other. For example, the Allah of the Quran is very different from the Jesus of the Bible. They are both very different from the Hindu God Brahma who is very different from the Hindu Goddess Lakshmi. They are all very different from the Norse Gods such as Thor or Odin.

I don't know if any god or goddess exists. I have never met any. I don't know what they are like except for how they are portrayed in religious books.

If God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses made me all-knowing and all-powerful, I would be convinced that it is possible to be all-knowing and all-powerful and I would then know that God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses exist and what God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses are actually like.

Reply to Truth Seeker
My goodness! Has all that really happened to you? I makes one feel quite uncomfortable.

I'm also very impressed by your findings. Extraordinary!

I know little about neuroscience. I know about and I have seen MRI scans but not live.

I'll check about the book.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't know if any god or goddess exists. I have never met any. I don't know what they are like except for how they are portrayed in religious books.

So you studied all the religions in the world, and also the concepts of God extensively. You think about God much of your life. However, you are still agnostic until you actually meet God yourself face to face. Is it correct?

Reply to Alkis Piskas Yes, they happened to me. I am sorry you are feeling uncomfortable. Don't worry - I will spare you the gory details.

You can do the experiments on yourself - it's not necessary to take my word for it.

Thank you for taking an interest in the book.

Reply to Corvus I have studied most of the religions on Earth but not all of them. I have tried praying to many gods and goddesses. None of them answered my prayers. If God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses made me all-knowing and all-powerful, I would be convinced that it is possible to be all-knowing and all-powerful and I would then know that God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses exist and what God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses are actually like.

Quoting Truth Seeker

If God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses made me all-knowing and all-powerful, I would be convinced that it is possible to be all-knowing and all-powerful and I would then know that God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses exist and what God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses are actually like.

Would it be the only way that you could know the existence of Gods and Goddesses? No other ways?

Since you have studied the world religions extensively in the past, another questions would be, are Gods always in both sexes? Why are there so many Gods? Should it not be the only one God for the whole universe? If there are so many Gods, then which one is the real God?

Quoting Truth Seeker

I have studied most of the religions on Earth but not all of them. I have tried praying to many gods and goddesses. None of them answered my prayers.

Could it be the case you might have had prayed to the unreal or fake Gods, and there were no response for your prayer from them?

Quoting Truth Seeker

have studied most of the religions on Earth but not all of them. I have tried praying to many gods and goddesses. None of them answered my prayers.

Quoting Corvus

Could it be the case you might have had prayed to the unreal or fake Gods, and there were no response for your prayer from them?

Right, and a variation on Corvus, could it be they answered your prayers in a "language" you have closed yourself off to?

I'm not saying I agree with the depiction of God Gods Godesses here. Who knows, i might agree more with Truth Seeker's view of God/No God.

But, if God exists as Ultimate Reality, I dont think we can establish, judge, understand, discuss God in our terms. So, though I am yet to be a reader or student of Wittgenstein, I've come across enough to say, and I paraphrase, that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

But that doesn't mean the door is closed on God. Only that God cannot be accessed by our Minds. Other means must be employed...

Quoting ENOAH

that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

This seems to contradict itself (not uncommon with Witt, and the main reason I think he's a load of bollocks). If we cannot speak on something, we need no imperative not too. We cannot.
And if we can, we must.

Reply to Truth Seeker

As for who is morally culpable. Here's my take.

From the perspective of human Consciousness, collective consciousness, or History, we must settle upon the belief (making it a truth) that an individual is morally culpable. History functions under that "we know but we act as if," mechanism best in this scenario. If we were to settle upon the belief that we are all culpable, there would be a need not just for a radical paradigm shift, but one that would take generations to assimilate into functionality.

But from the perspective of an outsider, a being not, like we all are, "trapped" in History, we all built history together, and we continue to do so. Every expression of a single mind to at least one other, triggers at least one reaction (no matter how minute), and so on, building history. Thus given the interconnectedness of all things mediated by human mind, i.e., all things human, we are all morally culpable and all morally credited for every action in said history. Not because there aren't degrees of culpability from locus to locus, but because it is ultimately one structure. As painful a pill to swallow, maybe there is something to the Catcher in the Rye killing Lennon.

Reply to AmadeusD

Yah I didn't bother looking it up. Do you know the Wittgenstein line?

Reply to AmadeusD Quoting AmadeusD

If we cannot speak on something, we need no imperative not too. We cannot.

Ha. True. But, and this might have been the point (?) , yet how we do.

Hey, myself more than the next guy! It's irresistible.

Reply to Corvus I don't know the answers to your questions because I have never met any God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses. It's possible that they are all fictitious. I am agnostic about it.

Reply to ENOAH I prayed for the prevention of all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. I prayed that all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) became all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Neither of the prayers were answered. I prayed in multiple languages. That didn't make any difference. I am agnostic about the existence and nature of deities.

Reply to ENOAH The problem is that our wills are not free from determinants and constraints. As we don't have free will, any culpability is merely assigned culpability, not actual culpability.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't know the answers to your questions because I have never met any God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses. It's possible that they are all fictitious. I am agnostic about it.

Fair enough. At least you are honest with you answer on the questions, which deserves respect. Not knowing can be start of new investigative discussions and analysis. Not knowing can be better position than knowing incorrectly.

Anyhow, I have asked the questions regarding Gods, because I believe that morality can have close connection with existence of God. For example, we can ask where does morality come from? Is morality based on human reasons? Or social customs and rules? Or on God?

If morality is based on human reason or social customs, then does it have absolute right or wrong in the judgements? In this case, would it be right to ask who is morally culpable?

For something to be absolute right in judgements, should it not be from something absolute in knowing and existing?

Quoting ENOAH

So, though I am yet to be a reader or student of Wittgenstein, I've come across enough to say, and I paraphrase, that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

When W. said that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent, was he not saying something already on something of which we cannot speak?, which implies that it is impossible for a language possessor to remain silent on things one feels inquisitive? Therefore he broke his own code as soon as he uttered the sentence?

Reply to Corvus As far as I know, morality is made up by humans. This is why it varies across time and place. Morality is a matter of subjective opinions. People ascribe morality to various deities who allegedly communicated with us through religious books. I have read many religious books and I am not convinced that any of them were authored by one or more deities.

Quoting Truth Seeker

However, if hard determinism is true, then it is inevitable that X murdered Y. In that case, X is not actually culpable. The actions of X are as determined and inevitable as death by an earthquake. We don't hold earthquakes culpable for murder, but we hold adult humans of sound mind culpable for murder. Should we though?

Your question presupposes that we can choose to hold people responsible or not, i.e. that hard determinism is false. If hard determinism is false then we should hold people responsible.

If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I am not sure if this follows. Consider a basic sketch of compatibalist free will as one's relative degree of self-determination:

Compatibilism is soft determinism, not hard determinism. If hard determinism is true then compatibilism is false.

Reply to Michael I think hard determinism is true.

Reply to Michael

Well yes, "hard determinism," is generally defined as "determinism in which freedom is impossible." So it's true that, given not-P, not-P. But the way I've generally seen it the "hardness" of determinism follows from simple determinism. I.e., lack of freedom isn't a starting premise, but rather taken as a conclusion. What I meant was that "given determinism" the "hardness" does not seem to automatically follow.

I can see why smallism/reductionism and causal closure are generally taken as excluding any sort of freedom though. If those premises are included, then the properties of mindless fundemental particles determines everything, which leaves no room for freedom. But these seem to me to be extra premises (with dubious evidence to support them) outside the main premise of determinism. Or, if there is something like strong emergence, then metal events are just a type of physical event, and they can have causal powers just fine under causal closure.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I think hard determinism is true.

If hard determinism is true then we don't choose to hold people responsible; we just do. Asking if we should makes no sense.

Quoting Michael

Compatibilism is soft determinism, not hard determinism. If hard determinism is true then compatibilism is false.

If hard determinism is true, then you think hard determinism and compatibilism are not compatible because you have to.

Quoting Michael

Asking if we should makes no sense.

Yes it does. He had to.

Reply to Michael We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

Quoting Truth Seeker

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

Why do we do that?

Reply to Hanover There are two levels of explanation for this. The social-level explanation is that most people believe that people have free will and are actually culpable even though they are not actually culpable. The molecular-level explanation is that all behaviour occurs according to hard determinism, including believing that hard determinism is false even though it is true, which leads to assigning culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

Quoting Hanover

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.
— Truth Seeker

Why do we do that?

Because there are many ways of understanding culpability. In its most general form, blame is pointing to the inner or outer demons capricously and arbitrarily pushing and pulling us in various, potentially nefarious directions. We blame these demons and seek to influence them in the aim of rehabilitating the person who has them, or to separate them from society. This form of culpability is perfectly compatible with hard determinism.

Reply to Joshs How do you know that demons exist?

Quoting Truth Seeker

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

Yes. But asking if we should makes no sense, given that we don't have a choice.

Quoting ENOAH

But that doesn't mean the door is closed on God. Only that God cannot be accessed by our Minds. Other means must be employed...

Sure, God could be an abstract object which is not perceivable via sense perception. Or it could be a manifestation in some mundane physical forms such as light (remember, God said, Let there be light, and there was light. in the Genesis?), or as ancient Egyptians believed God could be Sun. Without Sun, all life on earth will be extinguished within days.

As you suggested, God could be contacted in some other way than seeing or hearing him. It proves human reason and thinking is not really the 100% certain criteria for all the knowledge in the world.

What are the other means for employment you suggesting?

Quoting Hanover

Yes it does. He had to.

Fair. I suppose a more appropriate response is to say that any claim that we should or shouldn't do something is true only if hard determinism is false, and so if hard determinism is true then the claim that we shouldn't hold people responsible is not true.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

?Joshs How do you know that demons exist?

A demon is any arbitrary force or influence. Hard determinism is based on such demons.

Reply to Michael I agree.

Reply to Joshs I thought demons were evil spirits - according to the Bible, Jesus cast out lots of demons. Christians still do exorcisms of demons to heal people. I have witnessed several exorcisms but did not see any demons.

Quoting Corvus

God could be contacted in some other way than seeing or hearing him. It proves human reason and thinking is not really the 100% certain criteria for all the knowledge in the world.

What are the other means for employment you suggesting?

I think God--if there is--transcends our human constructions/conventions, including reason and morality. If God is the Creator/Sustainer/Recycler of all that there is beyond such constructions/conventions, i.e. the "Lord/Lady" of Nature, then accessing God would be by being that nature, your true nature, that living breathing organism. Be-ing a human creature, accepting that reality, as opposed to what we spend the vast majority of our time doing, creating our own reality becoming a human "god."
To incorporate the Abrahamic tradition, the former is the tree of life, the latter is the tree of knowledge.

Quoting Corvus

that it is impossible for a language possessor to remain silent on things one feels inquisitive? Therefore he broke his own code as soon as he uttered the sentence?

Yes, and so do we all

Reply to Truth Seeker I agree with you

Quoting Truth Seeker

There are two levels of explanation for this. The social-level explanation is that most people believe that people have free will and are actually culpable even though they are not actually culpable. The molecular-level explanation is that all behaviour occurs according to hard determinism, including believing that hard determinism is false even though it is true, which leads to assigning culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

The point I was making is that if HD is true, we assign culpability because we do and there is no reason or purpose for that. It's like asking why an acorn makes a sound when it strikes the ground. It just does. Why do I think you're guilty. I just do. Why do I put you in prison. I just do. Why do I think I put you in prison because you were guilty. I just do. That's just what happens when one pool ball strikes another.

Quoting Joshs

Because there are many ways of understanding culpability. In its most general form, blame is pointing to the inner or outer demons capricously and arbitrarily pushing and pulling us in various, potentially nefarious directions. We blame these demons and seek to influence them in the aim of rehabilitating the person who has them, or to separate them from society. This form of culpability is perfectly compatible with hard determinism.

Your offering reasons for your behaviors as motivators for your behaviors assumes your evaluations of your behaviors are based upon judgment by you and could be different if you wanted them to be. But that's not part of HD.

HD would be you sitting listening to facts and then being asked for your conclusion, and then you would offer up the reasons that you were pre-determined to offer and then you would offer your conclusion that was also pre-determined. This idea that you could have decided otherwise isn't part of HD. That's part of free will.

Reply to Hanover

Quoting Hanover

HD would be you sitting listening to facts and then being asked for your conclusion, and then you would offer up the reasons that you were pre-determined to offer and then you would offer your conclusion that was also pre-determined. This idea that you could have decided otherwise isn't part of HD. That's part of free will

The presuppositions that guide HD and free-will advocates are not nearly as far apart as it might seem. In both cases a fundamentally arbitrary and socially non-relational basis of behavior is presumed. Each assume a way to determine correctness of action. The former ties it to scientific truth and the latter most often to divine moral truth.

Quoting Hanover

pre-determined

I do not think this is hte right word. It is determined at the time, not previously, in any practical sense. Yes, your response is determined by the exact sequence of events that preceded it, but it is not already determined before you actually do the thing. That would be time-travel.

Reply to AmadeusD I agree.

Quoting Truth Seeker

As far as I know, morality is made up by humans. This is why it varies across time and place. Morality is a matter of subjective opinions.

Does it mean that there is no such things as morally good or bad to begin with? Does it not invalidate the question "Who is morally culpable?"?

Reply to Corvus No, we can still have moral values. Morality does not have to be objective to be valid. For example, I am a vegan egalitarian. I think being a vegan is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore. I think being an egalitarian is more ethical than being an elitist ableist misogynist racist speciesist plutocrat. If the world ran according to my wishes, there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. All living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. We would all be forever happy.

Reply to Truth Seeker OK, you say that it is still good to have objective moral values. I think we do. It is far stronger than one's opinions or wishful thinkings on the moral issues. And some moral issues are also legal issues, and vice versa.

Whatever the case, the world don't care about HD. Regardless of what the hard determinism or constraints were, if someone came into your house, stole everything of your valuables, then you will morally accuse and legally punish the wrong doer, even if he says to you, that he was programmed to steal your valuables by his DNA, and he had no choice. Would you not?

Reply to Corvus I didn't say that objective moral values exist. I said that morality does not have to be objective to be valid. How can we possibly know about anything objectively? Everything we know is subjective. Our sensory perceptions are subjective. Our thoughts and emotions are subjective. Our values are subjective. There is exclusive subjectivity e.g. only I know my thoughts and dreams and hallucinations, etc. There is shared subjectivity e.g. many people can know what this post says.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I didn't say that objective moral values exist. I said that morality does not have to be objective to be valid. How can we possibly know about anything objectively? Everything we know is subjective.

But how can anyone know about subjectivity apart from one's own? Isn't shared subjectivity objectivity?
Until subjectivity is shared with others, it is private to the owner of subjectivity, which is unknown. When you shared your subjectivity, it then becomes objectivity.

Reply to Corvus I know my own subjective experience of being me. Just as you know your own subjective experience of being you. We can share our experiences - that way we can know about each other's subjectivity. For example, I have nightmares every night. Now you all know the fact that I have nightmares. Something you did not know until I shared it.

Reply to Truth Seeker I agree with you.

Reply to Corvus Thank you for letting me know. Now, I know something about your subjectivity - the fact that you agree with me about it.

Reply to Truth Seeker You are very welcome TS. So is it the speech act or language which makes subjectivity to objectivity? We are communicating via writing on the keyboard and internet. But if we were in the same room, we would be conversing in ordinary language for sharing the subjectivity.

Reply to Corvus I don't think anything can turn our subjectivity into objectivity. When two people see the same thing e.g. a rose, and confirm to each other that they are both seeing the rose, then they may think that their perceived rose is part of an objective reality but it is not necessarily so. They could both be plugged into the same simulation which has a rose in it!

Reply to Truth Seeker I agree with you.

Reply to Corvus Thank you.

Reply to Truth Seeker :blush: :pray:

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Corvus

Regardless of what the hard determinism or constraints were, if someone came into your house, stole everything of your valuables, then you will morally accuse and legally punish the wrong doer, even if he says to you, that he was programmed to steal your valuables by his DNA, and he had no choice, and the wrong doings were the results of determinism and inherent constraint. Would you not?

I am not sure if you answered this question.

Reply to Corvus Sorry, I hadn't noticed your question until now as I am suffering from depression and CPTSD and consequently my concentration is poor. The answer to your question is: no, I would not. I let my kidnapper, my rapist, the thieves who stole our belongings, and the murderers of my relatives and my best friend get away with their crimes. I think what all living things did in the past, what all living things are doing in the present and what all living things will do in the future are all according to hard determinism.

Reply to Truth Seeker :worry: :fear: No need for apology my friend.
There seem to be definitely element of determinism in life. In fact every events in the past are under the hard determinism. No one can change the past.

Some events in the future are also under the HD e.g. old age, deaths - we know them for sure, but cannot change them. Only some actions and events at present and future are in the realm of freewill e.g. drinking coffee instead of tea, reading instead of going for a walk etc.

Reply to Corvus Thank you Corvus. Even drinking coffee instead of tea or reading instead of going for a walk is not free from hard determinism. Our preferences and the resultant choices are products of hard determinism.

Quoting ENOAH

then accessing God would be by being that nature, your true nature, that living breathing organism. Be-ing a human creature, accepting that reality, as opposed to what we spend the vast majority of our time doing, creating our own reality becoming a human "god."

That sounds like Buddhism. Could it be right?

Quoting ENOAH

To incorporate the Abrahamic tradition, the former is the tree of life, the latter is the tree of knowledge.

Which sphere in the Tree of Life depicts morality?

Quoting Truth Seeker

Our preferences and the resultant choices are products of hard determinism.

Could it not be your judgement which takes place always after your decisions on the choices? You are thinking them all as hard determinism, because you always reflect on them after the events, at which you cannot change them anymore from the view point of your reflections on them? Surely before the decisions, you had freewill to choose?

Reply to Corvus Our choices are determined by the effects of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are never free from these groups of variables. If you had the genes of a banana tree would you be posting messages in this forum? If your zygote was baked in an oven instead of being nurtured in your mother's womb would you be reading these words? If your zygote was deprived of all the nutrients from your time in the womb to the present day, would you have come this far? If you didn't experience learning English, would you be able to read these sentences? No. You would not. Your present is the result of your past.

Quoting Truth Seeker

No. You would not. Your present is the result of your past.

Should we not trace the most immediate causes for our actions? If we go too far back for accounting the causes, then we might have to go back to the big bang for as the cause for every events taken place since the start of universe. It wouldn't be very meaningful.

For my freewill to decide to drink water now instead of coffee is that because I wanted to drink water, not because my DNA was not banana's DNA, or the universe happened, or I was born.

The reason I could read your post in English was because I got email that you have replied to my post, and I decided to read it (which is the most immediate cause for the action), not because I was born, studied to read in English, didn't have DNA of banana, or the universe started 500 billion years ago.

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to. I could have gone to bed instead of reading your post in English, but I decided to read it. I had my freewill at the time. Now it is past the moments, I no longer have the freewill. Those events are now under the hard determinism. But for my future and present actions, I still have my freewill to exercise as I want and desire.

Would you agree? Or is my point not quite making sense? :)

Quoting Corvus

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to.

You wanting to is determined. This ignores the objection.

Quoting Corvus

I could have gone to bed instead of reading your post in English, but I decided to read it.

No, you couldn't have. It was not open to you to decide anything but what the preceding history of hte Universe determined you to decide.

Quoting Truth Seeker

The moral deliberation of someone is not free from variables he or she did not choose i.e. genes, environments since conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, experiences from the womb to the present. We don't have free will. We have determined and constrained will. This is why no biological being is morally culpable.

All design under glaze -- as a potter would say.

"We don't have free will" has become the unscratchable design in topics like this. The misconception of this idea of free will has lead to the kind of arguments like yours. "Lacking free will", if that's even true, is not synonymous with lacking conscious volition. Deliberation is a human activity. Please consult Aristotle and Descartes. We are not automatons that has a few moves in a very limited capacity.

What does a will even mean to you?

Quoting Corvus

I could have chosen not drink anything at all, or could have drank a cola, but I chose to drink water because I wanted to.

How did you settle finally upon the so called decision to drink water? You say you wanted to.

Did your body receive organic triggers driving you to feel what we call thirsty, in turn sending triggers to your mind, which has been conditioned over time so precisely, that the particular organic feeling, triggered in Mind, the exact chain of Signifiers which habitually code the final Signifier, I want water?

Or was there an environmental trigger first, you saw an image of water on the screen, triggering in Mind, the exact sequence of Signifiers which habitually code the final Signifier, I want water?

Or to prove this suggestion wrong, are you now going to get up and spontaneously drink a glass of water? To prove this wrong.


Quoting AmadeusD

No, you couldn't have. It was not open to you to decide anything but what the preceding history of hte Universe determined you to decide.

Quoting L'éléphant

Deliberation is a human activity.

And each incidence of deliberation is determined by the previous. Which is determined by its reasons. Which are determined by previous states of affairs, which consist in previous deliberations and reasons.

This is not avoidable without some novel element interloping.

Reply to Corvus I disagree because it's a domino effect starting from the beginning of the universe to the present. If you remove any of the dominos from the trail of dominos the chain of causation breaks.

Reply to AmadeusD I agree.

Reply to L'éléphant Yes, we have conscious volition, but this volition is not free from determinants and constraints. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints.

Reply to AmadeusD I agree.

Reply to ENOAH I agree.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I disagree because it's a domino effect starting from the beginning of the universe to the present. If you remove any of the dominos from the trail of dominos the chain of causation breaks.

For example, if your partner (husband or wife) cheated you, then would you say that he / she cheated because he / she was born, and had DNA for cheating? Your partner had to cheat because the cheating was done under the determinism and constraint, that he or she couldn't be faithful. Therefore, he / she is not morally culpable?

Would you not take into account the fact, and the fact only that your partner cheated you regardless of what the domino effect of the cause for the cheating was in concluding he / she is morally culpable for the cheating?

Quoting AmadeusD

You wanting to is determined. This ignores the objection.

It looks determined after the event, but before the event I was able to decide to want and choose what I wanted. Or sometimes I don't want something, but I still choose something with no wanting or thinking at all. If this is the case, then why is it determined?

Reply to Corvus We make choices every second. Some of the choices are unconscious e.g. the heart rate, and some of the choices are conscious e.g. choosing to cheat or not cheat on a partner. All of the choices are determined and constrained by the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are never free from the variables that determine and constrain our choices. I don't assign culpability to anyone because no one is actually culpable. This is why I chose the "No one" option on the "Who is morally culpable?" poll in the first post in this thread. We are born inevitably, we live inevitable lives, and then we die inevitable deaths. Everything is proceeding in the only way it can.

This has become a pointless discussion.

Reply to L'éléphant In a way, everything is pointless. I have never asked anyone to agree with me about anything and I never will. I have my thoughts and you have yours. If you had my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, and my experiences from the womb to the present you would be typing these words where and when I am typing these words. If I had your genes, your environments from conception to the present, your nutrients from conception to the present, and your experiences from the womb to the present, I would be doing what you are doing in the present. The same goes for everyone else. We are all puppets controlled by the strings of variables.

To incontrovertibly prove that hard determinism is true, I would need to create a universe that has identical starting conditions and laws of physics and let it run for as long as the universe we are in has run to see if events unfold exactly as they did in this universe. As I can't create an identical universe or access data from another universe, I can't prove it incontrovertibly. However, I am almost certain that it is true - as my conclusion is based on experiments and observations carried out in this universe.

Quoting Truth Seeker

As I can't create an identical universe or access data from another universe, I can't prove it incontrovertibly. However, I am almost certain that it is true - as my conclusion is based on experiments and observations carried out in this universe.

It sounds like you are making choices and decisions on your beliefs and the world views. Some will say that even the hardest determinism is chosen via freewill of the believer. Hence this argument seems it has no resolution.

I am not going to say your view is wrong like some other folks would do. Your view is just different from some others and mine, and it is good to know that.

Reply to Corvus I don't have any problem with other people having different views from me. In fact, I prefer it. Diversity of all kinds makes the world much more interesting than it would be if everyone were identical. Have you carried out experiments to test the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences on living things? I have. The arbiter of truth is evidence. My conclusion follows from the evidence.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

Reply to Corvus you were under a very successful illusion. But your choices are not made consciously on this view and your experience of choice is like a mini experience machine. That you felt it doesn’t mean it’s what’s actually happening

Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't have any problem with other people having different views from me. In fact, I prefer it. Diversity of all kinds makes the world much more interesting than it would be if everyone were identical.

That's also what I believe too. You can think whatever you feel true as true, and express your thoughts with your interlocutors freely on the philosophical topics under discussion. That is what philosophical discussion is about suppose.

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

Some determinants and constraints are definitely absolute such as birth, death, ageing etc. But looking them as the cause for one's decision to drink water instead of coffee sounds a bit extreme view.

I feel that determinism or freewill could actually belong to the domain of psychological beliefs. To believe that an event was determined or was undetermined depends on one's psychological state and belief rather than from objective analysis and facts. Hence it is tricky to prove them via logic or reasonings.

Quoting Truth Seeker

7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

I have not done anything you listed, and I am sure I will never be able to do them. But still I believe that I have freewill. If it is psychological belief, then it is just a matter of believing them i.e. believe that everything is contingent, random and free, and I have freewill to do whatever I want.

Or I can change my belief tomorrow to ditch my freewill, and start believing in hard determinism. No one will able to refute it including me. So I confess I will never be able to change your belief. I accept that you have your belief that everything in the universe is operational under hard determinism.

Quoting AmadeusD

you were under a very successful illusion. But your choices are not made consciously on this view and your experience of choice is like a mini experience machine. That you felt it doesn’t mean it’s what’s actually happening

But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that I was under a very successful illusion. Everything around me is working too coherently and rationally, and there is nothing I can even doubt, that the world, perceptions and my decisions and choices were illusion. Can you?

Reply to AmadeusD I agree.

Reply to Corvus So, how does the decision to drink water instead of coffee come about? I am a water drinker. I don't drink alcohol or tea or coffee or fizzy drinks or milk. This occurs because of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It is not a free choice. My mum is also a water drinker. If my mum was different, I would have been different, too.

You can't do any of the things I asked you to do earlier yet you believe you have free will. What is the basis for your belief in having free will?

I can't do any of the things I want to do. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. This is why I am convinced that I don't have free will. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I want to forget
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

Can you refrain from doing the above 27 things forever? If you can do that, I will be convinced that you have free will.

Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?

Quoting Truth Seeker

Who is morally culpable?

After long and deep meditation, I have concluded that I am.

Reply to Lionino Thank you for sharing your conclusion with us. What is the basis for your conclusion? My conclusion is that no one is morally culpable because no one has free will.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Can you refrain from doing the above 27 things forever?

I don't know if many people think of free will in terms of being able to be something other than what one is. It seems that you associate the idea of free will with being able to be something other than what you are. Why would that be a necessary requirement for free will?

Reply to wonderer1 My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints

However that is not what free will means.

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?

No.

Still, it seems like it's worth considering free will from a variety of perspectives.

Reply to wonderer1 I have considered free will from a variety of perspectives. My evidence-based conclusion is that we don't have free will. The fact that you can't give me even one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints proves my point.

Reply to Lionino I have considered many definitions of free will and rejected all the other definitions of free will because they were inaccurate. Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will.

Quoting Truth Seeker

If you can do that, I will be convinced that you have free will.

How about, "I think, therefore I am free." When I think I am free, I am free. It is a psychological belief that I am free.

Tomorrow, I may say, "I think I am not free, therefore I am not free." I can change my thinking to I am not free by my freewill. I think I am not free, therefore I am not free, but I am free because I thought I am not free by my freewill to think I am not free. The day after tomorrow, I can change my thinking to, "I think I am free, therefore I am free." and I am free, and so on so forth.

Because it is a psychological belief, no one can prove it or disprove it, like if you say "I believe in the existence of God.", then no one can prove or disprove it empirically or logically.

You may say "well, but you can only think because you are not banana DNA.", but I can retort "Well, No. I was able to think I was free, and changed my thinking to I was not free, and changed back again to think I was free, because I had freewill."

Quoting Truth Seeker

Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will.

It would be accurate if that is how "free will" was used, but nobody means that when they say free will.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will

Would you say that free will is freedom to think what we want to think? If so , how do we make sense of this concept of wanting or desiring? We don’t usually think free will in terms of choosing that which we dont desire, but what makes what we desire such that freedom of will depends on it? I suggest that choosing what we desire is another way of talking about thoughts that come to us as recognizable , intelligible, useful, purposeful. Thoughts that come to us as arbitrary, nonsensical or confused are those we seem to consider not freely willed but those that impose themselves upon us randomly as alien to us . What’s interesting about this is that it is the chaotic thought which is truly free and random, oblivious to what we want, whereas the thought that seems purposeful and ‘chosen’ is the one that is constrained. Not by an outside agency, but constrained by our previous expectations and criteria of significance, relevance and meaningfulness. In other words, what we call free will is thoughts that are constrained by and consistent with our anticipations. Creativity wouldnt seem meaningful and valuable if this weren’t the case. It would be indistinguishable from incoherent and confused thinking. What we desire isn’t pure freedom, but a balance between constraint and novelty. Do we have this kind of freedom of will? I would say yes. In fact, this capability of innovating within normative patterns we share with all other living organisms.

Reply to Corvus Thinking that you are free does not make you actually free. You may think that you will go to heaven after you die, but that does not mean you actually will. The question of whether or not you are actually free from determinants and constraints has to be resolved by doing things that demonstrate that you are actually free from determinants and constraints. This is why I gave you some tasks to do and some tasks to refrain from doing.

Reply to Lionino What do they mean when they say free will? How do you know that is the correct meaning?

Reply to Joshs You described is determined and constrained will instead of free will. I agree that we have determined and constrained will. Thus we can choose between drinking water or drinking tea but the choice is never free from determinants and constraints. For example, I drink water instead of tea as my mum drank water instead of tea. So, my choice to drink water instead of other liquids is determined by my experience of watching my mum drink only water during my childhood.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Thinking that you are free does not make you actually free.

Does it mean that Descartes "I think therefore I am." doesn't mean anything meaningful either?
I can understand your point, when it was said "I think therefore I am free." because your thinking has no object or content, so you don't know what you were thinking about.

But what about the case of "I think that I am free, therefore I am free."? In that case, you know that you think about your freedom and freewill is true, hence you confirm you are free.

If we accept that being free is a mental state, rather than some physical activities such as your lists to do, then your thinking that you are free must come from your being free, and it implies your freewill.

Likewise X is determined or under constraint also implies the epistemic judgement of one's mind, rather than something material. Hence determinism is your mental state of your judgement on your perception rather than description of some concrete object in the world. So what we are talking about is all mental concepts which are determinism or freewill. They are not concrete objects in the world. Is it correct?

Reply to Corvus I asked you "Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?" You have not given me even one such example. The fact that you can't give me even one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints proves my point.

How do you know that the world you perceive to be concrete is real? It could be a simulation, or a hallucination, or a dream, or an illusion. You can't prove that your perceived world is real.

Hard determinism and free will are opposing ideas. They can't both be true. How do we establish which is true? I can't do any of the things I want to do. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. If I had free will, I would be able to do the things I want to do and refrain from doing the things I don't want to do. This is why I am convinced that I don't have free will.

Quoting Truth Seeker

20. Think

Quoting Truth Seeker

I asked you "Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?" You have not given me even one such example.

I have given you an example from your list No.20. Think. I was demonstrating how one's Thinking operates in the realm of Freewill.

The demonstration also proved that Freewill is mental state, rather than your doing some things.
Likewise your determinism is not a material object, but it is your mental judgement on your perception of the external world and your actions.

You can do anything under determinism or freewill or by random chance. If you see it as determined, then you will say it was done under determinism. If you think it was under freewill, then you will say, it was done under freewill. Therefore these are your psychological judgements rather than objective facts.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Hard determinism and free will are opposing ideas. They can't both be true.

They can be, if and only if they are psychological state. They can be both true, because they are not deductive or inductive facts.

You could say, "yes and no", when asked if you are happy.

Reply to Truth Seeker Why are hard determinism and free will opposed? They can be, depending on your definition. I think hard determinism is pretty well defined, but how do you define free will?

You seem to define it as the ability to make decisions without any constraints, but I'm not sure that's a fair definition. We are embodied beings, we will ALWAYS have constraints. It is easy then to look at any decision and say "That was entirely determined by your circumstances" even if there truly was a "free element" in us

To illustrate, let's assume that all of us are souls inhabiting bodies and that souls magically impact the physical world. Let's also assume that the souls are entirely free and can make any decision they want. This is about as "free" a conception of humans as I can think of, some weird magical dualism. I'll assume you agree that this soul has free will correct? Since it can make any decision it wants without any external factors.

Then, let's say you're picking between a cheeseburger and a burrito and give a number to every factor to simplify. So for example:

"The cheeseburger has more cheese and I'm craving cheese right now" -> +50 points towards cheese burger
"The burrito is cheaper and I don't like spending money" -> +20 points towards the burrito
"The burrito guy needs the money more" -> +50 points towards burrito
etc

Add all of your determinants and constraints with whatever unique values they have up and then in the end you add:
"I (the soul) picked cheeseburger" -> +100 points

In this example, which would be a "free" choice?

1- Burger: 700, Burrito: 500 In this case, the +100 didn't matter, the external circumstance alone would have moved us in the direction we wanted

2- Burger: 600, Burrito: 500 In this case, the +100 is what made the difference

3- Burger: 500, Burrito: 600 In this case, the +100 wasn't enough

Does it need to be situation 2? Would 1 still be freely willed, even though the factors alone moved us in the direction we would have chosen? Would 3 be freely willed?

Most importantly though: We do not have this point analysis in real life. It is impossible. Even if we had free souls, we can't "calculate" how much effect they have. It will be just as easy to say "souls add 0 to what they choose, and your choices are all determined by circumstance" as it is to say "souls add 9999999999 to what they choose, and can always easily overpower circumstance".

From what I read, you seem to be saying the former, that we (whether we are souls, or bodies, or whatever) add 0, and everything is determined by circumstance. How do you know that? And how much would we need to add before we have free will?

Reply to Corvus Thinking is not free from determinants and constraints. For example, I can think only in the languages I know. I can't think in languages I don't know. So, the fact that I learned English is determining the fact that I am now typing in English. The fact that I never learned Mandarin is preventing me from typing in Mandarin.

It goes even deeper than that. Assuming that atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, universes are real and not simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion, our thinking occurs as a result of the electrochemical activities of the brain. This activity is determined and constrained by the laws of physics. That's why we can't think faster than our nerve conduction velocity which is 50 to 60 metres per second.

Happiness and sadness are mental states but they are determined by the electrochemical activities of the brain. You can't be both happy and sad at the same time but you can be happy at one time and sad at another time.

Hard determinism and free will are two ideas but they are ideas about how reality works. Hard determinism and free will are not mental states the way happiness and sadness are mental states.

Reply to khaled Have you read all of my previous posts in this thread? It does not seem like you have.

I don't know if souls exist or not. How would an immaterial soul interact with a material body? I have witnessed lots of deaths, but I have never seen any soul leaving the body at the time of death. You can argue that the soul is immaterial and is therefore undetectable. In that case, how do you that it exists? I think the arbiter of truth is evidence. I have not seen any evidence for the existence of souls. Therefore, I am a materialist monist.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't have such a will. I have never met anyone who does.

I think our choices are the result of the interaction between genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

Reply to Truth Seeker Not everything, just what's recent. Apologies if I misinterpreted anything.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't know if souls exist or not.

It's not really about souls or ontology, I just picked the situation which I think has the highest "freedom". That we are souls inhabiting bodies, and somehow the souls can interact with said bodies. I wanted to determine what exactly consitutes free will for you.

Quoting Truth Seeker

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints.

Completely free? Wow. That's a high bar. No wonder you think it doesn't exist!

What about situations where all the determinants and constraints happened to align with what we would have willed anyways? Think: Prisoner wants to escape prison and finds his cell door unlocked and all the guards are on vacation. Do you think the prisoner was not free to choose to escape even then?

Quoting Truth Seeker

I think our choices are the result of the interaction between genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

This is the point I was trying to make above. How did you come to this conclusion? To confirm this for sure means you accounted for all the interactions between genes, environmental factors, nutrients and experiences from the womb, and then found that all of these factors add up to predict everything a person would do. I doubt you, or any scientist has done that. And I do not think it is obvious that they would add up either, so I've always been puzzled why people are so sure.

Reply to khaled I am not convinced that being souls would give us the highest freedom. Being all-knowing and all-powerful would give us the highest freedom.

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

To prove me wrong, you would have to forever refrain from doing the above 27 things and instead do the following things:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

I carried out experiments to test the roles played by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. These experiments were not published in any journals because I carried them out alone and I was my only test subject. I compared myself with myself under different situations e.g. how lack of oxygen affected my decision making, how lack of water affected my decision making, how lack of food affected my decision making, how lack of sleep affected my decision making, how cold and heat affected my decision making, etc. I also compared myself to how I was before significant life events with how I was after significant life events. By significant life events, I mean being kidnapped, being raped, watching people murder each other, being in natural disasters which killed lots of people, relatives being murdered, etc. The more I experimented and compared, the more it became clear to me that our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. You can do the experiments on yourself - it's not necessary to take my word for it.

How much do you know about neuroscience? Have you ever seen PET scans and functional MRI scans of humans? I have. If you want to learn more about how choices arise in brains, I recommend that you start by reading this book: "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky. It is available on Amazon Kindle. If you want to discuss the book with me, I am happy to discuss it.

If I had the genes of a banana tree, would I be able to type this post? No. I have seen many banana trees and none of them can read or type or even know English. They are probably not even sentient.

If the zygote that was I when I was conceived was placed inside an oven at 250 degrees Celsius for an hour would I have become the adult I am now? No. The lethal environment would have destroyed the zygote.

If the zygote that was I when I was conceived was deprived of all nutrients would I have become the adult I am now? No. The lack of nutrients would have killed the zygote.

If the zygote that was I had all the correct genes and was in the correct environment and received the correct nutrients then I would have been born as a healthy human baby. If that baby had different experiences from me such as learning Japanese instead of English, I would not be typing this message.

So, do you now see the roles played by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences in the typing of this post? This is why I am convinced that we don't have free will. Do you understand my thoughts and reasoning?

Something being determined is not the same as being predictable. For example, earthquakes are entirely deterministic but are hard to predict accurately.

Whether your prisoner chooses to escape from the prison or stays in the prison is not free from his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Whatever he chooses will be the result of the interactions of the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Quoting Corvus

But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that I was under a very successful illusion. Everything around me is working too coherently and rationally, and there is nothing I can even doubt, that the world, perceptions and my decisions and choices were illusion. Can you?

That's just you saying this. It doesn't entail that you've looked for, or understand what we're putting infront of you.

If every event has a prior cause, these are absolute facts. It is not possible to sit yourself outside of that lineage. If you reject that, you're in need of a rather strong and convincing argument that includes empirical considerations and logical cogency. I don't think you ahve either.

Reply to Truth Seeker

Quoting Truth Seeker

I carried out experiments to test the roles played by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. These experiments were not published in any journals because I carried them out alone and I was my only test subject. I compared myself with myself under different situations e.g. how lack of oxygen affected my decision making, how lack of water affected my decision making, how lack of food affected my decision making, how lack of sleep affected my decision making, how cold and heat affected my decision making, etc. I also compared myself to how I was before significant life events with how I was after significant life events. By significant life events, I mean being kidnapped, being raped, watching people murder each other, being in natural disasters which killed lots of people, relatives being murdered, etc. The more I experimented and compared, the more it became clear to me that our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. You can do the experiments on yourself - it's not necessary to take my word for it.

First off, I assume you cite these significant life events as examples, not actually things that happened to you. If they happened to you then... I don't know what to say, that's one long TERRIBLE list, I'm not sure "I'm sorry" would even suffice.

With that assumption:

Funny thing is, I did the experiments myself. I am a big fan of meditation, and I try to be as aware as possible of my internal state. I found that DESPITE all the differences in environment and circumstance, there still remained a "will" which was free of all of these impositions. Getting into the nature of this will is outside the scope of this thread I think, so I won't. That's not to say that this will is capable of moving mountains. There are things I can't do, but there is nothing I can't TRY to do. The existence of such a capacity in itself constitutes free will for me.

Quoting Truth Seeker

How much do you know about neuroscience? Have you ever seen PET scans and functional MRI scans of humans?

I have, though I admit my knowledge of the subject is rather cursory. Frankly, I have my own reading list, so I don't think I'll be pursuing a PHD in neurology for the sake of this discusison.

Quoting Truth Seeker

So, do you now see the roles played by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences in the typing of this post? This is why I am convinced that we don't have free will. Do you understand my thoughts and reasoning?

I do, but I do not think your conclusion follows from your reasoning. You've pointed out many ways in which genetic, environmental, etc factors affect our decisions, but you have not proven that they are ALL that affect our decisions. Listing many factors does not prove that they are all the factors.

It is easy to look at a decision (such as typing this post) and then list all the factors that pushed you to type it, then claim it was determined. It is just as easy to look at a decision (such as me replying) and then list all the factors that pushed me NOT to reply, then claim it was my free will that made the difference. I'll demonstrate:

I want to play video games right now.
I am tired and I should fix my sleep schedule.
I am currently on vacation and would rather be relaxing.
I am surrounded by friends I could be talking to.
etc etc

AHA, but here I am replying because I chose to reply in spite of all the above. See! I have free will!

I could also do:

I like to debate.
The guy I'm talking to is interesting.
A part of me wants to change his mind.
etc etc

AHA, this must be why I am replying. It's all deterministic! There is no free will!

I don't give the best examples but I hope you get the point. No matter how long the list gets, it does not follow that those are all the factors contributing to a decision.

It seems to me that the only way to be sure that our actions are purely determined by environmental factors is to take stock of ALL of them (somehow), and then see if that is enough to predict what a person will do, think, and feel (somehow). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Hard determinism and free will are two ideas but they are ideas about how reality works. Hard determinism and free will are not mental states the way happiness and sadness are mental states.

I still think determinism is your psychology. If you see all the events and your actions from your past point of view, then everything seems to be determined.

But if one sees every event and one's actions from the present point of view, then everything is from freewill. It is that difference i.e. difference of point of view.

You can say a bottle is half empty or half full with wine. It just is upto your point of view and expression.

If you really believe the world events and your actions are under hard determinism, then you must be able to prove via the Logical Argument for that.

All you have is just your belief and assertions that the world events and your actions are under hard determinism and constraints just because you have been born, you have your mum's DNA, you taught yourself English ... etc. They are your past experiences, abilities and limitations. They are not the determinants and constraints. They can be, just because you are looking at them as the constraints.

You say that everything is determined and is under constraints. Some others say the opposite, and they believe in freewill.

They cannot be proved either true or false, because they are just personal opinions or psychological beliefs. Just like Descartes "I think therefore I am" is a psychological utterance with missing object for the "think".

You cannot prove psychological state or utterance using Logic. Logic needs something to check for the truth or falsity of the statements against something which are objective and infallible. Psychological beliefs and utterances have nothing to compare, check over or infer against for truth or falsity. Because all psychological states and beliefs are private to their owners.

Quoting AmadeusD

That's just you saying this. It doesn't entail that you've looked for, or understand what we're putting infront of you.

If every event has a prior cause, these are absolute facts. It is not possible to sit yourself outside of that lineage. If you reject that, you're in need of a rather strong and convincing argument that includes empirical considerations and logical cogency. I don't think you ahve either.

I used to have a lot of illusory beliefs such as people will live forever, because they resurrect as soon as they die after seeing the action films stars in the other films after seeing them dead in another film.

I also used to believe Santa was real, and the old folks born old, and I will stay as a wee 10 year old forever. But as time went by, all my illusions were proven to be wrong. People die for good, and the old folks were the babies and kids at one time a long time ago. They just got old by living on, and we all get old, and will die.

I am not sure what other illusions I still have. Not many, if not at all.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Happiness and sadness are mental states but they are determined by the electrochemical activities of the brain. You can't be both happy and sad at the same time but you can be happy at one time and sad at another time.

It makes perfect sense to me, when I ask someone "Are you happy?", and get a reply "Well Yes and No".

Quoting Truth Seeker

It goes even deeper than that. Assuming that atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, universes are real and not simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion, our thinking occurs as a result of the electrochemical activities of the brain. This activity is determined and constrained by the laws of physics. That's why we can't think faster than our nerve conduction velocity which is 50 to 60 metres per second.

Well prove your argument in Logical argument. You must start with some reasonable premises for your arguments, and then inferences and reasonings for the premises, and then your conclusion. Will have a look at it together for its validity and soundness.

Just saying, everything is under hard determinism because blah blah blah .... doesn't have compelling points for its meaningfulness or truth as such. Many will just say, well that's just your belief and assertion, but what about the opposite point of view on that? And that has been happening all along in this thread. We can come to a closure clarifying either your assertion has a validity with logical sound argument, or it was just your mental state.

Reply to Corvus This isn't relevant at all to whether your current position on Free Will is (in this case, ignorance, but at base...) an illusion.

We hold that it is (though, intuitively, I am fairly open to the idea that something about consciousness to be discovered will shake this). If all events have prior causes, you don't have Free Will. You've not addressed any arguments at all.

Quoting Corvus

We can come to a closure clarifying either your assertion has a validity with logical sound argument, or it was just your mental state.

That's actually been done, several times. IFF all events have prior causes, Determinism is true.

There you go. Beat it, logically, if that's your game.

Quoting AmadeusD

We hold that it is (though, intuitively, I am fairly open to the idea that something about consciousness to be discovered will shake this). If all events have prior causes, you don't have Free Will. You've not addressed any arguments at all.

I thought my argument was clear in my reply to you. All my actions and expressions are caused by my freewill. What else could it be?

Quoting AmadeusD

IFF all events have prior causes, Determinism is true.

I have not seen the logical proof of that. Where is it? Or you could prove again here.
How do you know all events have prior causes?

Even if we suppose all events have prior causes, that doesn't entail determinism. Because some of the events are caused by freewill.

But you must prove how all events have prior causes first, and prove that they are absolutely not caused by freewill to secure the validity of determinism.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Is determinism true?

"Determinism" is a thought-experiment, not a truth-claim – a supposition, not a proposition.

How can we know for sure?

We cannot "know" it, only imagine it.

Quoting Corvus

I thought my argument was clear in my reply to you. All my actions and expressions are caused by my freewill. What else could it be?

Oh, I would say your argument was fairly clear, but it was weak. There are many many, many ways for you to be deluded, or wrong. More than there are ways you to be right. That, alone, is a good reason your argument isn't. at least 'good enough', if not a bad one. It could be determined by prior causes, which are determined by prior causes, which are determined by prior causes. Either, you end up with a logical regress - whcih you either need to solve, or make peace with.

Quoting Corvus

I have not seen the logical proof of that. Where is it? Or you could prove again here.
How do you know all events have prior causes?

You asked for a logically sound argument.

P1. If[b]Determinism is true, Free Will is not possible;
P2. Determinism is true.
P3. Your choices are determined.
C. Your concept of Free Will is an illusion.

As noted, I'm not too heavily married to this, beyond have no evidence otherwise currently. I assume (in some part of my mind) that we will find empirical evidence to defeat the above. But, the above is logically sound.
It seems that your argument against determinism is just that you like the feeling of Free Will and would prefer it was not an illusion.

Quoting 180 Proof

"Determinism" is a thought-experiment, not a truth-claim.

Interesting. Even moreso in that this smacks of many of our number here on TPF.

(unrelated)An interesting article from a few years back with bold claims.

Reply to AmadeusD Determinism does not necessarily exclude "free will"; rather it can be conceptualized as conditioning – enabling-constraining – free actions re: compatibilism..

Quoting AmadeusD

You asked for a logically sound argument.

P1. IfDeterminism is true, Free Will is not possible;
P2. Determinism is true.
P3. Your choices are determined.
C. Your concept of Free Will is an illusion.

That is just saying determinism is true, and freewill is false.
That is nothing new to your psychological assertion, and you listed down as some sort of logical argument, which clearly is not.

Write down exactly back to front determinism replaced with freewill, you get the same conclusion for freewill is true and determinism is an illusion.

Sorry mate, go and think harder, and you need to brining in something which makes sense for your argument.

I will give you a hint. You must write down all the determinant properties for X, if X is determined. And prove those properties are necessarily true. If you do that, I will show you why they are false.

Reply to AmadeusD I agree.

Reply to khaled No, the significant life experiences I listed actually happened. That's why I was able to compare the before and after states. Don't worry about saying sorry. We are all doomed to suffer and die.

I would love to know more about your experience of meditation. I meditate daily. I have not experienced what you described. How did you come to experience it?

I have seen the evidence for the following groups of variables: genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I have not seen any evidence for the existence of other groups of variables. If you can show me the evidence for other groups of variables, please do.

You have not managed to forever refrain from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from. Also, you have not managed to do the 7 things I asked you to do. I think this proves my point that you don't have free will. Your will is determined and constrained. I have given you the opportunity to prove me wrong but you have failed. It's not your fault. We are all prisoners of causality.

The strings of thoughts you shared in your post are not free from determinism. Our thoughts occur as a result of electrochemical activities in the brain. If your thoughts are so free, why don't you think of a trillion thoughts per second? Because your thoughts are not free. The nerve conduction velocity is 50 to 60 metres per second. If we could think freely, it would be whatever speed we want per second.

We don't have enough knowledge to predict people's behaviour with 100% accuracy but that does not mean that the behaviours are not deterministic. The same is true for predicting earthquakes.

Reply to Corvus It's a matter of evidence. I have provided you with the evidence. You failed to forever refrain from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from. You failed to do the 7 tasks I asked you to do.

I disagree with you because the evidence contradicts your position. It does not matter to me whether you agree with me or not.

Reply to Corvus How can you be both happy and not happy at the same time? I have never experienced. I wish we were all telepathic - that way we could really know what it is like to be each other instead of having to resort to communicate with words.

I have already provided you with evidence. I have invited you to refute my position but you have failed to do so.

Reply to AmadeusD I agree.

Quoting Truth Seeker

It's a matter of evidence. I have provided you with the evidence. You failed to forever refrain from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from. You failed to do the 7 tasks I asked you to do.

Hmmmm matter of evidence? Are you sure? :)
All I could see is your mental state for believing and claiming everything is under determinism. There is no philosophical argument in your claims at all. Your to-do tasks has nothing to do with either determinism or freewill. They are just functions of a biological agent.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I disagree with you because the evidence contradicts your position. It does not matter to me whether you agree with me or not.

It is OK that you disagree with me. I told you already that it is usually impossible to change someone's belief which is based on psychology or mental state. It is a psychological belief, so there is no way to persuade the believer using logical argument. I know it already, because I saw how it was impossible to change the view of the dualists who believe that I think therefore I am, is a logical statement.

Quoting Truth Seeker

How can you be both happy and not happy at the same time? I have never experienced. I wish we were all telepathic - that way we could really know what it is like to be each other instead of having to resort to communicate with words.

Human linguistic semantics are to capture and reflect your mental state and the world. You often hear people saying "I am not sure on that." "Yes and No", "maybe" "perhaps" ... you may not know it because maybe you have not done any self introspection for yourself, but an emotional state of someone can be mixture of various feelings.

Reply to Corvus I don't know what it is like to be you or anyone else. I have never been happy and unhappy at the same time.

Reply to Corvus I provided you with the determining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If you don't remember what I said, please read my posts again. Once you have refrained from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from and have done the 7 tasks I asked you to do, I will be convinced that you have free will.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't know what it is like to be you or anyone else. I have never been happy and unhappy at the same time.

It is natural that you cannot be anyone else than yourself. Maybe you have never been both happy and unhappy at the same time, but there are many others who have been. So it doesn't mean that one cannot be happy and unhappy at the same time.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I provided you with the determining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If you don't remember what I said, please read my posts again. Once you have refrained from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from and have done the 7 tasks I asked you to do, I will be convinced that you have free will.

Your 27 lists to-do are not meaningful in philosophical discussions. They belong to the functions of biological agents. They will not help you or me or anyone else to understand what freewill and determinism means.

If you want to know about freewill and determinism in philosophical point of view, you must try to prove determinism is valid supplying all the qualities and determinant properties of things or events which you believe to be determined.

I am going to ask you a simple question to start. : What do things and events which you believe to be determined have as their qualities and properties? i.e. what do you mean by something is determined?

Reply to Corvus It sounds like a contradiction to me. It's saying someone was alive and dead at the same time or angry and calm at the same time or excited and bored at the same time.

Quoting Truth Seeker

It sounds like a contradiction to me. It's saying someone was alive and dead at the same time or angry and calm at the same time or excited and bored at the same time.

You seem to be getting more confused. Being alive and dead at the same time is your description of a physical bodily condition. Your being happy and unhappy at the same time is your mental state. They are not the same category. You cannot draw comparisons between the two totally different categories.

Reply to Corvus I am not a professional philosopher. I am not even a student of philosophy. For me, science is the way to truth. That's why I conduct experiments to discover truths. Perhaps this forum is not the place I should be at. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence.

An earthquake is determined by all the variables that cause it. A cyclone is determined by all the variables that cause it. A choice is determined by all the variables that cause it. Do you understand now?

Reply to Corvus I have seen brain scans of people who were suffering from depressive episodes. I have seen brain scans of people who were suffering from manic episodes. They are significantly different. I have never seen a brain scan of someone who was both happy and unhappy at the same time. Can you prove to me that you are both happy and unhappy at the same time?

Quoting Truth Seeker

An earthquake is determined by all the variables that cause it. A cyclone is determined by all the variables that cause it. A choice is determined by all the variables that cause it. Do you understand now?

Hmmm it just sounds like all tautologies to me. There is nothing new or compellingly significant in that statement.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Can you prove to me that you are both happy and unhappy at the same time?

Well, yes and no, perhaps or maybe? :wink:

Reply to Corvus I am not trying to give you anything new. Determinism is not a new idea. I have told you how you can prove to me that you have free will but you have consistently failed to do so. I don't have anything else to say.

Reply to Corvus I have no idea what that means!

Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't have anything else to say.

Try to construct a tight logical arguments for your claims. Remember no beliefs, no opinions and no emotional statements. Just facts and the inferences and reasonings based on the facts. Will take it from there.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I have no idea what that means!

Meditate on it. It may flash in your mind.

Perhaps Humans and Artificial Intelligence? I actually don't know if animals or other lifeforms can be taken to court. Artificial Intelligence might be able to understand and defend itself in court.

Reply to Kevin Tan Is that assigned culpability or actual culpability?

Reply to Corvus Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. This is a fact. This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms.

You could do with reading Hume. Hume's cause and effect theory will set you back to the right track on this. Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences are Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences. They are not causes themselves. Your psychology is saying they are the causes for the choices made by organisms. In other words, causes exist in your mind, not out there in the world.

Quoting Truth Seeker

This is a fact.

It is not a fact. It is a dogma and misunderstanding.

Quoting Truth Seeker

This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise.

They are not rational philosophical comments. It is like saying "Ants don't play guitars." and "Humans don't fly like the birds."

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

I would love to know more about your experience of meditation. I meditate daily. I have not experienced what you described. How did you come to experience it?

I think Yoga would be faster for this, because you frequently find yourself in positions you don't want to be in, and yet push yourself to be in anyways. Also I'm not sure the issue here is which meditation to use.

Incidentally, in your model, what does "push yourself" mean? What's pushing what, it's all chemical reactions right? Is it just a confused phrase?

Quoting Truth Seeker

We don't have enough knowledge to predict people's behaviour with 100% accuracy but that does not mean that the behaviours are not deterministic.

Correct. It also seems to me that until we predict people's behavior with 100% accuracy, we can't be sure it's 100% deterministic. Maybe it's only 99% deterministic and a part of it is inherently random (like in quantum mechanics).

Quoting Truth Seeker

I have seen the evidence for the following groups of variables: genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I have not seen any evidence for the existence of other groups of variables. If you can show me the evidence for other groups of variables, please do.

We live in an embodied state. For any decision, there will be factors for making it, and factors against making it. For instance, for my decision to reply:

For:
I don't like not replying to people
I like mentally stimulating things
....

Against:
I need to pack up and go soon
I just woke up
....

Let's say that there IS an "X factor" if you will in one of these. That there is a "I freely choose to support this option" or "I pushed myself to choose this" on one of them (That is what I believe btw). How might I show that to you?

If I end up making the decision, it is easy to say "Aha, you did it because you don't like not replying to people and you like mentally stimulating things". If I end up not making the decision, it is easy to say "Aha, you didn't do it because you needed to pack up soon and you just woke up"

See the issue I'm facing here? If you believe things are deterministic, it will be easy to point to the factors for or against any decision, and then to decide from there that they are the only factors, when there could have been another "free" factor.

As for why I think such a factor exists? Again, direct experience.

Reply to Corvus Thank you for the reading recommendation. "Ants don't play guitars." is a fact. "Humans don't fly like the birds." is also a fact. Just as what I said in my post are facts.

Reply to khaled "Push yourself" means to do something that takes effort e.g. I am suffering from depression, CPTSD and chronic pain. So, it takes a lot of effort for me to read posts and reply to posts. It's not all chemical reactions. Please see: https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/brain/brain-physiology/action-potentials-and-synapses and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-mind-emerges-from-the-brains-complex-networks/

Quantum indeterminacy does not lead to macroscopic indeterminacy due to quantum decoherence. At the macroscopic level, things don't happen randomly. They happen deterministically.

I have tried yoga. I am not very good at it.

As I said before, earthquakes are 100% determined but it is hard to predict with 100% accuracy because of the complexity of the interacting variables that cause earthquakes. The same goes for weather. Our computers are not sophisticated enough to simulate reality with 100% accuracy but they are much better now than they were 50 years ago.

I don't see any evidence for any X factor in decision-making. Can you show me any evidence for the X factor that I could see using a brain scanner?

Quoting Truth Seeker

Thank you for the reading recommendation. "Ants don't play guitars." is a fact. "Humans don't fly like the birds." is also a fact. Just as what I said in my post are facts.

You are most welcome :) Sure they are also facts you could say that. But they are silly loopy facts that are irrelevant and unfit for the philosophical discussions. You could hear them in the kindergartens I am guessing. :D

You could go on saying "Dogs don't smoke cigars.", "Snakes don't write poems." ... etc etc. It can be amusing, but not very meaningful or helpful for you becoming wiser.

Reply to Corvus Are you joking? They are not silly or loopy or irrelevant. They are as factual as the Earth orbits the Sun.

Reply to Truth Seeker They are irrelevant and silly for the argument. Because they don't prove that all the events and actions are determined.

Reply to CorvusI disagree. Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. This is a fact. This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise. These are evidence-based statements. The only way you are going to convince me that you have free will is by forever refraining from doing the 27 things and by doing the 7 tasks I asked you to do.

Reply to Truth Seeker No nope, I am not trying to convince you. You can believe whatever you want or like. I just pointed out your beliefs are wrong, and explained why they are. If you opt to keep believing the wrong beliefs, then no one can change it. I have already told you that I have tried to change the dualists' wrong beliefs on Cogito, but failed to do so. So, why should I try to change your belief?
It is your freewill to believe whatever you decided to believe even if it is a deep hallucination of hard determinism, or decide to free yourself from the dogma, and change your mind accepting the truth.

Reply to Corvus I wish you were trying to convince me. I am all-loving. I would love to be all-knowing and all-powerful also. I long to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. I long to make all living things forever happy. I can't do these things due to my lack of omniscience and omnipotence. Only all-knowing and all-powerful beings are morally culpable. I don't know if such beings even exist.

Reply to Truth Seeker I am sure you can. First of all, try reading Hume and Kant, focusing on Cause and Effect theory. Then you can decide on what you feel and convince as correct. It is totally up to your free thinking what you decide as truth.

Reply to Corvus It's not possible to think freely. Can you think up everything there is to know about dark matter and dark energy? No, you can't. Can you think of a trillion thoughts per second? No, you can't. Our thoughts are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are all prisoners of causality - doomed to suffer and die. I am all-loving but I am not all-knowing and all-powerful. I am so sad. I wish I never existed.

Hume and Kant were dualists. They are both wrong. You are also wrong about having free will. I am a materialist monist hard determinist because I am convinced by evidence.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

I don't see any evidence for any X factor in decision-making. Can you show me any evidence for the X factor that I could see using a brain scanner?

No I cannot, because our technology isn't good enough to see it! But I'm sure it's there!

That's what your argument sounds like to me. "I am sure these are all the factors. They are the ones I see, therefore they're all the factors."

Without better techonology, the jury is out for both sides.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Quantum indeterminacy does not lead to macroscopic indeterminacy due to quantum decoherence. At the macroscopic level, things don't happen randomly. They happen deterministically.

Quantum decoherence is what happens when a quantum system interacts with the environment, and so loses its ability to be in a superposition as far as I understand. Normally, this would eliminate indeterminancy, you're right, but it's very easy to bypass this. Here is how you would do it:

The Stern-Gerlach Experiment is an experiment where you investigate the spin of a particle if it's up or down. When measured, the particle will have either an up or down spin with even probability (quantum indeterminancy), but until then, it's in superposition.

What I propose is: Do the same experiemnt, but attach the detector with a gun pointed at a cat. If the spin is measured as up, it shoots the cat. If it is down, it doesn't shoot the cat. Clearly the attachments won't change the outcome of the experiment, yes? Any more than the scientists who read the outcomes, wrote them on a piece of paper, then published them did.

So it is clearly possible that a quantum event can have major macroscopic consequences with the right setup. What makes you so sure that our brain does not have similar setups?

Quoting Truth Seeker

At the macroscopic level, things don't happen randomly. They happen deterministically.

There is also another issue with this: That determinism is a self-defeating hypothesis.

If I see a cloud that spells "2+2=5", ought I believe that 2+2=5? Clearly not right? Because the cloud didn't think rationally, so I have no reason to believe it. It was strewn about in that shape by determined processes.

Now replace the rock placement with electron placement in your brain. That electron placement causes you to type "2+2=4". Why should I believe that? It's no different from the cloud.

Determinism removes our brain's credibility, which is what got us to determinism. It is self-defeating, similar to the statement "we shouldn't trust our thoughts". If we shouldn't trust our thoughts, we should trust the thought that we shouldn't trust our thoughts. Similarly, if we cannot trust physical processes to produce rational conclusions, we cannot trust our conclusions as long as we believe they are formed from purely physical processes.

Reply to khaled Did you read the two articles I gave you links for?

It's possible that our brain scanners are not yet good enough to see everything. Time will tell. Unfortunately, I don't have a time machine which I could use to travel a million years into the future and see how much better brain scanners have gotten.

I would rather the gun in your experiment was pointing at a wall instead of a cat.

I am not convinced that determinism removes our brain's credibility.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

Did you read the two articles I gave you links for?

I admit, I only skimmed them, then realized I don't really know enough so I just took you at your word that it's not all chemical. Don't see how that's relavent though, my argument relies on it all being physical processes. Chemical, electrical, the nuances of how synapses work wouldn't affect this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I would rather the gun in your experiment was pointing at a wall instead of a cat.

Overdramatization is fun. However, it's not about the fate of the cat, it's about demonstrating that quantum processes can very much have an impact on a macro scale. And as you said yourself:

Quoting Truth Seeker

It's possible that our brain scanners are not yet good enough to see everything.

So there is no telling that it isn't already the case. In fact -and I didn't mention it earlier because I am not an expert on the field- I've read some theories stating that microtubules in the brain can actually maintain some quantum coherence despite the hot and chaotic environment, and therefore can actually have effects on a macro scale. I don't have the expertise to tell between science and pop-science, which is why I generally don't like reading short articles about these topics, but if you're interested, you could do your own research about it.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I am not convinced that determinism removes our brain's credibility.

Fair enough, but I hope I made a good case for it, so until you tell me why you don't think so, I don't see much point in continuing this.

To summarize, I've argued that:
1- There is little physical evidence the world is actually deterministic (the cat sure thinks so!)
2- Determinism is logically self-defeating in the first place

Reply to khaled Thank you for skimming the articles.

Your argument for how determinism removes our brain's credibility did not make any sense to me. I don't know if that's because I am depressed or because I am stupid or because the argument is a sophistry.

Are you talking about this? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

The macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy. You can test this by doing the following experiment. Take a coin and toss it. It will land on its head or tail - it will never be superpositioned or indeterminate.

Quoting Truth Seeker

What do they mean when they say free will?

The ability to have done otherwise.

Quoting Truth Seeker

How do you know that is the correct meaning?

I know that yours is incorrect.

Reply to Lionino How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done?

How do you know that mine is incorrect?

According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill the word "free will" has two meanings:

1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

I agree that people can make voluntary choices e.g. donating to charity. However, just because the choice to donate is voluntary it does not mean that it is free from prior causes or divine predestination.

If secular determinism is true, then the choice to donate money to charity was inevitable.

If divine predestination is true, then the choice to donate money was also inevitable.

How do we work out whether secular determinism is true? We could examine the evidence for causation. We could test how genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences affect decision making in organisms.

How do we work out whether divine predestination is true? We could trust what the Bible or the Quran or another religious book says or we could look for evidence for or against divine predestination.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

Your argument for how determinism removes our brain's credibility did not make any sense to me.

I'll try to rephrase it then. Note, that this isn't an argument that determinism is NOT the case, but rather that we are not justified in believing it.

The argument rests on the fact that physical processes aren't rational. For example: if a cloud is shaped to spell "2+2=4", that's not the cloud thinking and coming to a conclusion then communicating it. It is just dumb luck.

Now, in a deterministic world, even our thoughts, statements and written word are determined, yes? Doesn't that mean they are also produced by similar "dumb luck"? Then why should we believe them?

The atoms bumping around in your brain that produced your thought or speech or reply are exactly as believable as a cloud happening to spell out your reply. Why should I believe either? They're just dumb atoms bumping around.

So if the dumb atoms make you type "determinism is the case" I have no reason to believe it any more than I would believe it if a saw a cloud that spelt it, and if they make you type "determinism is not the case" I similarly have no reason to believe it.

Now, by some epistemic luck, it COULD be the case that the atoms bumped around and produced a true statement, just like the cloud that spelled "2+2=4", but we have no reason to think so, since any thought we have will also be a result of dumb bumping atoms. It could even be the case that our atoms are so positioned that they almost ALWAYS produce true statements! But again, no reason to think so.

I say "dumb bumping atoms" as shorthand. I know it's not that simple. Replace it with "dumb physical processes" if it makes things clearer.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Are you talking about this? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

That wasn't the specific one I read. It was years ago. But please go ahead and do your own research, I am no expert.

Quoting Truth Seeker

The macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy. You can test this by doing the following experiment. Take a coin and toss it. It will land on its head or tail - it will never be superpositioned or indeterminate.

Ah, but I don't want to prove that large bodies can be in a superposition. All I set out to prove was that quantum events can have consequences on the macroscopic scale (it can determine the fate of a cat under the right setup for example). And if that is the case, then determinism must necessarily not be the case, since quantum events have some randomness.

Quoting Truth Seeker

How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done?

I don't, that is what the whole debate around the topic.

Quoting Truth Seeker

However, just because the choice to donate is voluntary it does not mean that it is free from prior causes or divine predestination.

Thanks for granting that your definition has nothing to do with free will.

Quoting Corvus

That is just saying determinism is true, and freewill is false.

I think you might be trolling at this point. You asked for a logically sound argument. THere it is. You're now objecting to empirical matters. I cannot get on with someone who moves goalposts as far as you do, so either you begin to reply in good faith, or Im not continuing beyond this post. You are getting this wrong, point blank period.

Quoting Corvus

logical argument, which clearly is not.

This is exactly what the above is - a logical argument. It is logically sound. Whether the premises hold was not asked. I am unsure whether they do. Good arguments either way - but your hilariously misplaced self-assuredness makes it impossible to have a discussion in good faith. Truth Seeker seems to be having exactly the same experience.

Quoting Corvus

Write down exactly back to front determinism replaced with freewill, you get the same conclusion for freewill is true and determinism is an illusion.

Yes. Which is a logical argument. Ha... ha? That's what you asked for. I'm getting the feeling you area bit lost and pretending you have a grasp on this.

Quoting Corvus

Sorry mate, go and think harder, and you need to brining in something which makes sense for your argument.

This is you being uneasy, I think. Te snark seems to take the place of veritable objection.
Sorry mate, you are wrong and can't even understand that you are. There's no help, if that's the case.
See. I can do that too,. But i don't, because it's unhelpful and irrelevant.

Quoting Corvus

You must write down all the determinant properties for X, if X is determined. And prove those properties are necessarily true. If you do that, I will show you why they are false.

I am pretty happy to dismiss you as trolling at this point. If i were able to do the former, you are precluded from doing the latter. That's logic.
I gave you the logically sound argument. You did not ask for the empirical considerations which would prove it true. Those, I did not claim I had. The actual point htere, which you seem to be wandering around without addressing, is "Do you accept that all events have prior causes?" If so, that syllogism holds and defeats your position.

We can get somewhere if goalposts aren't moved, and accounts aren't prematurely closed.

Quoting AmadeusD

"Do you accept that all events have prior causes?" If so, that syllogism holds and defeats your position.

It appears that you haven't read any Hume at all. It is not matter of all events have prior causes or not. But the matter is that causes exist in your mind, not in the external world. Hence all causes are psychological judgement. In other words you have been talking about something which is your mental state, rather than objective existence or facts.

I can see why you were upset, and being defensive calling trolling and changing goal posts etc. The logical argument you presented is not logical at all. It just is reasserting your belief on determinism.

I am glad that you declared the end of discussion. I have nothing more to add apart from the points I made in the last posts. All the very best.

Reply to khaled I understand your point now. Thank you for taking the time to explain it more clearly. I agree with you now. We don't fully understand how the brain works. We know a lot more now than we did before but we still don't have complete knowledge of how the brain works. Perhaps I should just be an agnostic about everything?

Reply to Lionino You are most welcome. However, if my actions are inevitable, either due to secular determinism or due to divine predestination, do I or anyone else deserve any thanks or blame for anything?

Quoting Corvus

It appears that you haven't read any Hume at all.

Suffice to say you are not an honest interlocutor. Take it easy.

Quoting AmadeusD

Suffice to say you are not an honest interlocutor.

:roll: :rofl:

Quoting AmadeusD

It appears that you haven't read any Hume at all.
— Corvus

Suffice to say you are not an honest interlocutor. Take it easy.
6h

Well it has been 25+ years since I studied philosophy at mcgill and ubc. And I used to be able to name drop and think that meant something….

I believe that most of my opinions are out of date, and am adjusting to trying to survive in this forum. will take a few months. Probably longer.

However - I would say that if you can’t say something without referring abstractly to other up to date known facticities circa 2024, I applaud your efficiency but laud the lack of a Socratic method ;)

And a forum… just seems the right place for the Socratic method.

Quoting Metaphyzik

However - I would say that if you can’t say something without referring abstractly to other up to date known facticities circa 2024, I applaud your efficiency but laud the lack of a Socratic method ;)

And a forum… just seems the right place for the Socratic method.

Unless I am totally misapprehending your meaning... Nice, heh.
Don't be put off. The insistent know-alls are few, in my experience. I'm still in the same boat you are (though, I'm not playing catch-up. Just playing).

Reply to AmadeusD

Haha thanks

Reply to khaled I am having second thoughts about your "dumb physical processes." Clouds making shapes are indeed a dumb physical process. However, brain activities are not dumb physical processes. The human brain is the product of billions of years of evolution. It doesn't function the way clouds do. It has responsive feedback systems that are self-correcting to make sure that the model of reality generated by the brain is accurate enough for the organism to survive and reproduce in the real world. If our brain worked only once in a blue moon the way clouds make numbers, we simply would not survive or reproduce or be able to look after children. I think that determinism does not remove the brain's credibility.

Quoting Truth Seeker

It's not possible to think freely. Can you think up everything there is to know about dark matter and dark energy? No, you can't. Can you think of a trillion thoughts per second? No, you can't. Our thoughts are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

The reason we can not do those is because of lack of data to us, and our brain has limited capacity in thinking, not because anything is determined.

Quoting Truth Seeker

We are all prisoners of causality - doomed to suffer and die. I am all-loving but I am not all-knowing and all-powerful. I am so sad. I wish I never existed.

These comments are not factual objective descriptions of anything in the world, but just reflection of your psychology. You can change your beliefs and emotions by changing your reasoning and reading some philosophical textbooks. No one else can change your beliefs apart from yourself.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Hume and Kant were dualists. They are both wrong. You are also wrong about having free will. I am a materialist monist hard determinist because I am convinced by evidence.

Hume and Kant were dualists? There are different interpretations about them. It is not that simple. They are not wrong. They present us with deep and rich arguments on our mind and the world. You should try reading them first, and try to understand them. I am sure you will enjoy.

Reply to Corvus Why does our brain have limited capacity? Why aren't all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done? I am not convinced that anyone could have done something else but I could be wrong as I am not all-knowing.

Here is a MOOD SCALE that I use to monitor myself:

+5: Total loss of judgement, exorbitant spending, religious delusions or hallucinations.
+4: Lost touch with reality, incoherent, no sleep, paranoid and vindictive, reckless behaviour.
+3: Inflated self-esteem, rapid thoughts and speech, counter-productive simultaneous tasks.
+2: Very productive, everything to excess, charming and talkative.
+1: Self-esteem good, optimistic, sociable and articulate, good decisions and get work done.
0: Mood in balance, no symptoms of depression or mania.
-1: Slight withdrawal from social situations, concentration less than usual, slight agitation.
-2: Feeling of panic and anxiety, concentration difficult and memory poor, some comfort in routine.
-3: Slow thinking, no appetite, need to be alone, sleep excessive or difficult, everything a struggle.
-4: Feeling of hopelessness and guilt, thoughts of suicide, little movement, impossible to do anything.
-5: Endless suicidal thoughts, no way out, no movement, everything is bleak and it will always be like this.

Right now I am at -2 on the mood scale. Have you ever experienced what it is like to be at -2 or -5 or +5? I have. I have to take 600 mg of Quetiapine XL per night to get to -2 on the mood scale. If I didn't take it, I would be stuck at -5. Have you ever had hallucinations? If you haven't, you won't understand how scary and confusing it is to have one's reality warped by things that are not really there.

If you don't have Bipolar Affective Disorder, the descriptors above won't mean much to you. Words cannot accurately convey what it is actually like.

I also have CPTSD and chronic pain. If you don't have flashbacks and nightmares and intrusive thoughts you are not going to understand what that's like. If you don't live with chronic pain you won't know what that's like. There is no substitute for actual experience. No amount of reading will help you comprehend how painful pain is.

I will read Hume and Kant if I ever get to either 0 or +1 on the mood scale. Thank you for the recommendations.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Why does our brain have limited capacity? Why aren't all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done? I am not convinced that anyone could have done something else but I could be wrong as I am not all-knowing.

Good question. I wish I know the answers for the questions. Only thing I know is that there are things we know, and there are things we don't know. Most of the unknowability can never be cleared I presume. Humans are critically and sorely limited existence in time of life on the earth, knowing and thinking capabilities due to them having the biological bodies, and thinkings and knowings that rely on the biological brain.

Quoting Truth Seeker

There is no substitute for actual experience. No amount of reading will help you comprehend how painful pain is.

I have no knowledge or experience in the field of pains and clinical psychology. I am sorry that I cannot offer any info or advice on the situation. I hope that you will feel better and get back to your normal emotional state and physical health as soon as possible.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I will read Hume and Kant if I ever get to either 0 or +1 on the mood scale. Thank you for the recommendations.

You are very welcome Truth Seeker. Please take your time. If you open new threads with Hume or Kant topics later on when you feel better, I will definitely try to join and engage in discussions with you then. Take care, and thank you for engaging discussions with me for the interesting OP.

Reply to Corvus Thank you for your kind wishes. You are most welcome.

Reply to Truth Seeker :blush: :pray:

Reply to Truth Seeker Reply to Corvus fwiw I entirely second reading Kant and Hume. Ignoring Corvus and I's exchange, we both think that's a good idea - so, it probably is :P

Reply to AmadeusD Thank you for your recommendation.

Reply to Truth Seeker It's assigned culpability as in 'part of a legal system'.
It's actual culpability as in 'part of Everything in Existence (what you call the universe).'

If everything in existence is subjected to the 'laws of physics', then there is no actual culpability.

On Earth, there is assigned culpability for beings capable of defending themselves in court. Hence humans and artificial intelligence.

How can the 'laws of physics' be subjected to themselves? They are not, they don't exist, they are simply a continuation of the Big Bang, which will result in the Big Crush, which is also a continuation of the Big Bang. Etcetera, etcetera.

Hence Eternity. Hence Eternal Recurrence. Hence Eternity.

Unless I'm wrong of course :rofl:

Reply to Kevin Tan I agree with your statement about assigned culpability. I also agree that there is no actual culpability as the choices we make are determined by prior causes.

The term Big Bang is a misnomer. It should be renamed Tiny Silent Beginning as this is what actually happened.

I don't think there will be a Big Crunch because the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I think this universe will die from Heat Death. We will be long dead so it won't affect us.

Reply to AmadeusD

I’ve got some reading to do ;). Will be fun!

Might take some time - am too busy these days on a software startup (in addition to my normal software job) …. But I like thinking about this stuff. Food for the brain ;)

Quoting Truth Seeker

Right now I am at -2 on the mood scale. Have you ever experienced what it is like to be at -2 or -5 or +5? I have. I have to take 600 mg of Quetiapine XL per night to get to -2 on the mood scale. If I didn't take it, I would be stuck at -5. Have you ever had hallucinations? If you haven't, you won't understand how scary and confusing it is to have one's reality warped by things that are not really there.

That's rough.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I will read Hume and Kant if I ever get to either 0 or +1 on the mood scale. Thank you for the recommendations.

I find secondary literature easier in the pit. Hope things get a bit more okay for you soon.

Reply to fdrake Thank you very much.

Source: https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-are-our-choices-and-actions-considered-free

To what extent are our choices and actions considered "free"?

Are they really ‘ours’? If you look into it, you will see that there may be a sense of choosing but no actual chooser. One way to look at choice is as a process, which starts at the subatomic levels, going to the atomic and molecular and cellular and suddenly “I choose this!”

Who is this ‘I’? If you say, “Me, silly!”, then are you controlling the process of choice from your subatomic level throughout all the other levels? Are you controlling what your atoms, molecules and cells do? Because they’re doing a bunch of stuff before you reach the point of declaring your choice.

Are choices really made consciously? Psychologists would argue that many of them are unconscious. Who, then, is the chooser? I assume none of us have the experience of pulling choices from the unconscious level through to the conscious… Nope, these unconscious choices make themselves. Only after they are made, we may realize what lurked in our unconscious.

Libet’s experiment is quite famous. It showed that choices are made and we actually become conscious of them after they’ve been made. Then, there is a process in the brain of claiming the choice as ‘mine.’ This claiming makes it feel like ‘I’ made the choice, like ‘I’ was in charge the entire time. But, actually, the choice arose and then was claimed as ‘my choice.’

Another interesting angle is this: When I ask you to choose between coffee and tea, keep in mind that both coffee and tea require the entire evolution of the universe to exist. Without the birth of the sun and all the conditions that allow earth to produce coffee beans and tea leaves, and without humans to make beverages from them — that choice wouldn’t be available to you. So the choices you have, you didn’t choose to have them(!). Evolution did. You were born into a context, and all your choices take place within that context. And like you, those who came before were also born into a particular context and did not choose what choices they will have. They had completely different choices than you (depending how far back you go). Go all the way back to the first man, who made whatever choices were available to him. Who originally chose the choices that were available to him?

How free is our choice if we can’t choose what options we have? Our choice is very limited by our context and circumstance. And the mysterious thing is… who put it there? You may say God, you may say evolution. The first man didn’t choose to be, didn’t choose what options will be available to him, didn’t choose anything about himself or his environment. Once he found himself in these pre-existing conditions, he made whatever choices were available from his understanding of himself and the world. But before the first man, was there choice? If you answer that there was no choice in the universe before the first man, then why should choice have started with his appearance? If you there was choice before the first man, then who was it that chose? Randomness? Evolution? God? Either way, it wasn’t man - so at what point did man assume choice? You see, if all is evolution’s doing, then we have no choice whatsoever and never had. Everything is just happening, unfolding, perhaps by laws of nature, and we are one choiceless part of that unfolding. If it’s God, then we are moved as God wills only (and what we think of as our will is really His). Man appeared within a context that he never chose. Evolution or God chose (or randomness). At what point did choice become man’s? What makes us think that we have gained independence? Seeking for the birth of choice kinda makes you wonder if it has any reality to it at all. The fact that we, humans, appear in the universe quite late on, after so much has been established (galaxies and solar systems, and planets etc), and then we claim to be in charge of some part of a process that is so much larger than us and began way before us… This is the same as what I started with - the subatomic, atomic, molecular and cellular levels - only looked at from the side of all the things that we are within rather than they within us. Do you see, we are part of a chain. Can one link on a chain claim to be a true individual, moving as it wishes?

This leads us perfectly into the more Buddhist view, that is an alternative to the evolution/God-is-the-chooser view. It might say it is neither God nor evolution, but interdependence. The existence of any one thing depends on all things. Our movement is not separate from the rest of the universe. It’s all one inter-connected movement, and one has to wonder where, within it all, is there any room for individuality and free will. If everything depends on everything else, then it is all inter-dependent, and that necessarily means there is no independent choice.

But say you’re not convinced and you feel you might have just a tiny bit of free will anyway, to have and to hold. Well is it not quite obvious that our choices are but a result of our genes and up-to-date conditioning? Which are utterly out of our control. Genes, we were born with. Our conditioning is a result of all of our life experiences, and surely we didn’t choose all the life experiences we had. I mean, did you choose to get into that terrible relationship? Or did you simply not know better? It wasn’t in your programming (conditioning) at the time to be able to smell where this relationship was going… You lacked experience at the time. It was your conditioning to go into it. It was only after the relationship ended that, most likely, your conditioning changed. But you didn’t choose who you had become. It happened. Through life experience. Experience that, again, you didn’t choose to have. You thought you were going into a relationship that would make you blissfully happy… You thought that’s what you were choosing. So much for choice when we so often don’t even know what we’re choosing. You may choose to go to a concert to have fun, but you end up crushed by the moshpit, and leave bruised, pissed and miserable. That… wasn’t really your choice.

The truth is that the next thing comes, whatever it is, regardless of what it is you think you’re choosing for yourself. I remember in India always asking for no spice in my food, and receiving enough spice for 7 people in my dish anyway. I “chose” no-spice, life gave me extra spice. If we really had choice, we would feel in control of our lives and of ourselves. There would be no addictions. Things would go our way. Life wouldn’t surprise us with curve balls constantly. We would know exactly what we’re getting into every single time we made a choice - we would know what we’re choosing. But even that we don’t know. Our choices are much more like guesses. Maybe it will lead to what we want, maybe not.

Let’s face it, we’re not in control. And the process of decision-making only feels real, but is actually a result of a false sense of separation from the whole.

BUT… there are good news at the end of it all. You ready? The good news is this: It’s freedom we want, not free will. “What?,” you say, “they’re one and the same!” No, no, no, not at all. Free will - choice - is bondage. Being not-separate from the whole, is freedom. It is the sense of separation that makes you constantly desire something other than what is. This is rarely ever good enough, you want THAT (whatever your THAT is). And you hope that having choice will enable to get what you want. We think freedom is being able to have something, like have the life we want. But it is the desirer that is the cause of suffering to begin with. Wanting what isn’t rather than what is, it attaches to these desires, these outcomes - and suffers, for it decides it is not complete until the desire is satisfied. But, of course, the death of one desire is the birth of the next. And on it goes. And thus one feels never fully and truly satisfied. UNTIL… one sees the absurdity and is happy with what is, as it is. This is the realization of non-separation from life. The realization that there is no ‘you’ to choose anything, for ‘you’ are a part of the whole’s (life’s) movement. THIS is freedom. Not-wanting. Not being troubled by choice and the search for THAT rather than THIS, what is.

Choosing occurs. But no chooser there is. (In Yoda-speak).

Quoting Truth Seeker

In a way, everything is pointless.

This is a very human thing to say.

The universe does not have a "point". Existence is a given. We don't question the given, only our place in the universe. And even that question is a narcissistic notion. I say, live for the arts, the appreciation of beauty.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

However, brain activities are not dumb physical processes.

Is a thought produced by dumb physical processes.

So are these:

Quoting Truth Seeker

The human brain is the product of billions of years of evolution. It doesn't function the way clouds do. It has responsive feedback systems that are self-correcting to make sure that the model of reality generated by the brain is accurate enough for the organism to survive and reproduce in the real world.

Even if we accept that the brain is evolved for survival (which is another thought resulting of dumb physical processes), then that wouldn't imply that our thoughts are accurate. We have no way of knowing the degree of correlation between accurate representations of the world, and evolutionary success, so we cannot assume from evolutionary success that our brains are accurate.

And on a simpler level: I do not think you can rationally think, if you are being FORCED to think things. Why is a cloud that spells "2+2=4" not rational? Because it did not choose to spell that, it was just the wind. Similarly, under determinism, I cannot call any thought rational, even if it happens to be accurate. I'm curious what you think. How can rationality arise from a bunch of irrational processes?


However I am also so interested in why you think the world is deterministic in the first place, especially given that science doesn't support the notion anymore as far as I can tell. You read the thought experiment with the cat and the gun. There is also a much clearer example:

In order to discovere quantum randomness, some scientist would have had to repeat an experiment and observe that he randomly got different outcomes correct?

What if that scientist (I am unfamiliar with the history so I wouldn't know who) just got unlucky, and got the same outcome every time he repeated the experiment.

Then the discovery of quantum randomness would have been delayed years. The discovery of quantum randomness is a huge macro event in itself if I've ever seen one, and it's borne out of randomness.

Reply to khaled The workings of the brain create perceptions, thoughts, emotions, actions. None of these things are dumb physical processes.

We have no way of knowing the degree of correlation between accurate representations of the world, and evolutionary success, so we cannot assume from evolutionary success that our brains are accurate.

That's not true. If an organism's brain can't produce an accurate enough model of its environment it dies from environmental hazards or predation. The fact that I avoid environmental hazards and predators successfully shows that my brain produces a sufficiently accurate model of the reality I live in.

We can choose to think about a specific topic but the thoughts arise unconsciously. For example, the contents of this post are thoughts that occurred to me as a result of me reading your post. It is not dumb, it is responsive to stimuli.

We subject our thoughts to analysis to work out if the thoughts are rational or irrational. A cloud is not sentient. A cloud has no control over the wind. We are sentient and we can control which topic we choose to think about. A cloud can't analyse the shapes it forms to see if it has formed something irrational or rational.

Quantum decoherence stops quantum indeterminacy from creating macroscopic indeterminacy. At macroscopic levels, events are still deterministic. If you toss a coin, whether it lands on its head or tail depends on the forces acting on it.

I am quoting ChatGPT 4:

Quantum decoherence is a fundamental phenomenon in quantum mechanics where a quantum system loses its quantum properties, like superposition and entanglement, due to interaction with its environment. This process effectively makes the quantum behavior of the system unobservable, making it appear more classical. Here are some key factors that cause quantum decoherence:

Interaction with the Environment: Quantum systems are incredibly sensitive to their surroundings. Even minimal interactions with external particles or fields can cause a quantum system to decohere. This includes interactions with photons, air molecules, or even stray electromagnetic fields.
Loss of Isolation: Quantum coherence, which is the maintenance of quantum states like superposition, requires that the system be isolated from external influences. In practical terms, complete isolation is nearly impossible to achieve, and any exposure to the external environment can lead to decoherence.
Entanglement with the Environment: When a quantum system interacts with the environment, its quantum states can become entangled with those of the environmental particles. This entanglement leads to a redistribution of the quantum information into the environment in a way that can no longer be controlled or observed by examining the system alone.
Thermal Interactions: Temperature and heat are forms of kinetic energy associated with the motion of particles. At higher temperatures, the likelihood and intensity of interactions between the quantum system and its environment increase, leading to faster decoherence.
Measurement and Observation: The act of measurement can lead to decoherence. Measuring a quantum system often involves some form of interaction with it (like photons impacting electrons), which can cause the wave function to collapse to a particular state, effectively causing decoherence.
Decoherence is one of the major challenges in developing quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, as it limits the ability to maintain and manipulate quantum states over time.

Reply to L'éléphant I appreciate lots of things but what is ultimately the point of existence? If I could have prevented my existence, I would have done so a long time ago. I am upset about all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. I want to make all living things forever happy, but I can't.

Reply to Truth Seeker I don't know. I'm not a physics scientist. To me the idea of Eternal Recurrence seems logical. And that in combination with a Big Bang & Big Crunch.

It's better than the idea of God. I recently lost my faith in God, after worshipping Him for as long as I can remember. It is hard. But these are good alternatives.

Also, ChatGPT recommends me to use philosophy to get through this difficult phase.

Reply to Kevin Tan I understand how you feel. Like you, I used to be religious. Like you, I found leaving religion very difficult. If you want to talk more about it, you can send me a private message.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

The workings of the brain create perceptions, thoughts, emotions, actions. None of these things are dumb physical processes.

"I am not sure that government official is very trustworthy"
"But look! He said he's trustworthy!"

That's what this sounds like to me. See why I don't find it convincing?

Note, that it's not that I think that our brains are unreliable, it's that I think that we have no reason to think they're reliable under a deterministic framework and we have reason to think they're unreliable under that same framework. Namely: Every other physical process is not rational, how come our brains just happen to be?

Again, I am not saying that our brains are irrational under a deterministic framework - which seems to be what you're arguing against - I am saying we have no basis for thinking they are, and some basis for thinking they're not. I would need you to argue that we have a basis for thinking our brains are rational, which you attempt to do by arguing that a rational brain would lend to better survival odds, but:

Quoting Truth Seeker

That's not true. If an organism's brain can't produce an accurate enough model of its environment it dies from environmental hazards or predation.

Perception requires some sort of energy. Sight, hearing, etc, all require different organs which consume energy. Which means evolution has to find what are the most beneficial things to perceive in compairson with how much they take to perceive. It's not like creating an omniscient being is just as "cheap" materially and in terms of food intake as creating something that sees much less. Spiders are almost blind and they survive just fine.

It is well known our brain doesn't perceive everything. We don't perceive UV, we don't perceive microwaves, we don't have that ability that birds have to detect the magnetic field produced by earth's core to know which direction is north (despite it being a very useful ability, considering how impactful compasses are).

Since we cannot perceive what our brain doesn't perceive (by definition), we cannot know how much we do perceive or how much it is altered by our brains (we know our brain alters perceptions, or else how would optical illusions arise?) So I don't believe the argument from evolution works when you take into account that there is a cost for exact perception which might not be worth the payment. What do you think?

Quoting Truth Seeker

We can choose to think about a specific topic but the thoughts arise unconsciously.

See, what's what I think, but you tell me there is no "choosing" at all.

Quoting Truth Seeker

We subject our thoughts to analysis to work out if the thoughts are rational or irrational. A cloud is not sentient. A cloud has no control over the wind. We are sentient and we can control which topic we choose to think about.

If you contend that we can control what we think about, then we can't be running deterministically right? How can we be in control if everything we think is predetermined?

I understand that there are compatibalist views which support both free will and determinism, but you stated multiple times that you don't believe in those, and that we'd need freedom to have any choice, and so any responsibility. For the last couple of paragraphs though you suddenly mentioned "choice" a dozen times. I'm confused...

Quoting Truth Seeker

Quantum decoherence stops quantum indeterminacy from creating macroscopic indeterminacy. At macroscopic levels, events are still deterministic. If you toss a coin, whether it lands on its head or tail depends on the forces acting on it.

Funnily enough, I asked ChatGPT the same thing earlier, but I don't think it is an adequate response. It descirbes what occurs in most quantum systems in nature, but I'm just curious how it meshes with the experiment I outlined.

I thought it was clear from my example that under certain setups quantum indeterminancy can cause huge macro effects (like determining the fate of a cat). I understand that these stetups would be extremely rare, but who is to say they never exist naturally. They definitely can exist in a lab.

I doubt the qualifications of ChatGPT as a physicist, but since you quoted it, here is what it has to say about my thought experiment:

What if we took the Stern-Gerlach experiment and extended it, so that when a particle's spin is up, a gun is fired at a wall, and when it is down, it isn't fired. Wouldn't that be an example of quantum indeterminance having macro effects?

ChatGPT:

Yes, that's a fascinating thought experiment! What you're describing is a hypothetical scenario where the outcome of a quantum event at the microscopic level (the spin of a particle in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus) directly influences a macroscopic event (the firing of a gun).

In such a scenario, if the particle's spin determines whether the gun is fired or not, and if the spin is truly subject to quantum indeterminacy, then the firing of the gun would indeed seem to be influenced by quantum randomness. If you repeated this experiment many times with identical setups, you would observe a statistical pattern where approximately half the time the gun fires and half the time it doesn't, mirroring the 50/50 outcome of the particle spin measurement.

This concept highlights the intriguing aspect of quantum mechanics where seemingly random and unpredictable events at the quantum level can potentially lead to observable effects at the macroscopic scale. It's worth noting that while this thought experiment is intriguing, actual implementation would be extremely challenging due to practical constraints and the delicate nature of quantum systems at the macroscopic level. Nonetheless, it serves as a thought-provoking illustration of the foundational principles of quantum mechanics.

It seems to agree.

Reply to khaled

I think that we have no reason to think they're reliable under a deterministic framework and we have reason to think they're unreliable under that same framework. Namely: Every other physical process is not rational, how come our brains just happen to be?

What reason do we have to think they are unreliable under a deterministic framework? There is nothing irrational about any physical processes e.g. clouds forming shapes. What shapes a cloud forms is entirely deterministic. It occurs due to the laws of physics acting on matter and energy. So, your claim “Every other physical process is not rational” is false.

Perception requires some sort of energy. Sight, hearing, etc, all require different organs which consume energy. Which means evolution has to find what are the most beneficial things to perceive in compairson with how much they take to perceive. It's not like creating an omniscient being is just as "cheap" materially and in terms of food intake as creating something that sees much less. Spiders are almost blind and they survive just fine.

Evolution is not sentient. It doesn’t plan and it doesn’t calculate the best option in terms of costs and benefits. It works through mutation – which occurs due to mistakes. We are all mistakes of nature. Nature doesn’t care if we live or die. This is why 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct and the remaining 0.1% are also at risk of going extinct.

Sight is not the only way to create a model of one’s environment. Spiders have eight eyes which can detect light and darkness. Spiders are highly sensitive to motion. Which helps them survive and reproduce. Have you ever seen a human without any capacity to see, hear, touch, taste, and smell? Would such a human be able to survive without help from other humans? I have seen people in a coma. They were kept alive by machines and doctors and nurses. Without their help, the patients would die.

It is well known our brain doesn't perceive everything. We don't perceive UV, we don't perceive microwaves, we don't have that ability that birds have to detect the magnetic field produced by earth's core to know which direction is north (despite it being a very useful ability, considering how impactful compasses are).

Since we cannot perceive what our brain doesn't perceive (by definition), we cannot know how much we do perceive or how much it is altered by our brains (we know our brain alters perceptions, or else how would optical illusions arise?) So I don't believe the argument from evolution works when you take into account that there is a cost for exact perception which might not be worth the payment. What do you think?

I agree that our brain doesn’t perceive everything. It doesn’t have to perceive everything for humans to survive and reproduce. It has to perceive just enough about hazards such as falling off cliffs or getting eaten by lions to ensure our survival and reproduction.

See, what's what I think, but you tell me there is no "choosing" at all.

That’s not what I said. I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

To prove me wrong, you would have to do only the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that your choices have no constraints but even then, your choices will still be determined by the variables (e.g. your experience of reading these words) that produced the choices.

If you contend that we can control what we think about, then we can't be running deterministically right? How can we be in control if everything we think is predetermined?

It is because we are running deterministically that we make the choices we make. I didn't say that our choices are predetermined. They are determined in the present by the interactions of four types of variables which are genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Our choices are both determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. This is why banana trees don’t post on this forum and humans don’t do photosynthesis.

We don’t have complete control over everything we do. The amount of control we have is determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

If I had as much control as I would like, I would never do the 27 things I listed.

I understand that there are compatibalist views which support both free will and determinism, but you stated multiple times that you don't believe in those, and that we'd need freedom to have any choice, and so any responsibility. For the last couple of paragraphs though you suddenly mentioned "choice" a dozen times. I'm confused...

We would need to be all-knowing and all-powerful to be able to do everything we want to do and to refrain from doing everything we don’t want to do and to have complete control over everything that exists. I am sorry that you are confused. Has reading everything I have said above helped you to understand what I am talking about? I have never said that we don’t make choices. I have said many times that we make choices and these choices are not free from determinants and constraints. These choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

Yes, your thought experiment about connecting the trigger of a gun to the spin of subatomic particles is interesting. However, that is not how the macroscopic world works. Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world does not exhibit the superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement that exist in the quantum world. Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy.

I hope that I have explained everything clearly. If you have any questions, please ask. If you can prove me wrong, please do. Thank you.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

There is nothing irrational about any physical processes e.g. clouds forming shapes. What shapes a cloud forms is entirely deterministic. It occurs due to the laws of physics acting on matter and energy. So, your claim “Every other physical process is not rational” is false.

What I meant by "irrational" is that we aren't justified in believing the cloud if it happens to spell "2+2=5". Or even if it spells "2+2=4". Are we agreed on that?

If so, what makes us justified in believing our brains? Even though they follow the same "irrational" processes.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Sight is not the only way to create a model of one’s environment.

You're right. But without it, the model is incomplete. And if we know that evolution can create creatures with incomplete models, why do you trust that it would create creatures with a valid or accurate rationality?

As far as I understand, you claimed that:

1- Our brains our products of natural selection
2- Natural selection would favor rational organisms that have accurate representations of their environments
3- Therefore our brain is rational and has an accurate representation of its environment

I am doubting #2. I do not see why it would be true apriori, and can think of circumstances where irrationality or inaccurate representations of reality can actually aid survival.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I agree that our brain doesn’t perceive everything. It doesn’t have to perceive everything for humans to survive and reproduce. It has to perceive just enough about hazards such as falling off cliffs or getting eaten by lions to ensure our survival and reproduction.

Exactly. We are evolved to reproduce. Not to be rational. So what makes you so sure we're rational?

A dualist doesn't have to deal with this issue, since they can maintain that rationality comes from the immaterial "mind" or "soul" or whatever they call it. Neither does an idealist. However a naturalist determinist does, since he has to concede that:

A- Atoms aren't rational (in the sense that we are not justified in believing any statement uttered or written by any random assortment of atoms... like a cloud for instance)
B- Somehow our brain (a collection of atoms) IS rational

The evolutionary argument you outlined is a good attempt. IF it is the case that Natural selection favors having accurate representations of the world, and rationality to boot, then we can reasonably think that our brains were naturally selected for so as to be rational and have an accurate representation of the world.

However, that premise itself needs to be proven, and I don't see how it can be as there are many examples of inaccurate representations of the world being more beneficial for survival, and thus being selected for. There are even examples of irrationality being more beneficial for survival, see cognitive biases such as sunk cost fallacy.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Yes, your thought experiment about connecting the trigger of a gun to the spin of subatomic particles is interesting. However, that is not how the macroscopic world works.

How do you know this? Have you examined every single physical configuration in the universe and determined that there is nothing akin to the thought experiment I outlined?

Reply to khaled The way clouds behave and the way brains behave are due to their structure. A cloud can't assess whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 is true. We can. The reason we can assess it is due to the complexity of the human brain which is due to our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. Dogs have brains, too, but they can't even read though dogs are alive and sentient. That's because dogs have different genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I didn't claim that humans are rational. Humans are much more emotional than rational. Billions of us believe in self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions. It's not rational to believe in the religions we have on Earth. We evolved to survive and reproduce. That's why we are so bad at understanding quantum mechanics. Our brains didn't evolve to understand quantum mechanics or dark matter or dark energy. We still haven't figured out a Unified Theory of Everything because our brains didn't evolve to do such things. We still don't know what dark matter and dark energy are because our brains didn't evolve to do such things.

I didn't say that natural selection would favour rational organisms. Natural selection would only favour organisms that are good at survival and reproduction. That's why bacteria are the most successful type of organisms on Earth. They are the most numerous organisms on Earth. Also, they are the longest surviving organisms on Earth because they have been around for 3.5 billion years. Humans have been around only 200,000 years and there are only 8.1 billion of us alive right now. Human bodies have more bacteria cells than human cells. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion (10^30) bacteria alive right now.

Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world does not exhibit the superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement that exist in the quantum world. Can you show me even one instance when macroscopic objects have exhibited superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement? No, you can't. You can't because quantum decoherence makes it impossible. Your thought experiment is irrelevant to how the macroscopic world works.

Quoting khaled

A dualist doesn't have to deal with this issue, since they can maintain that rationality comes from the immaterial "mind" or "soul" or whatever they call it. Neither does an idealist. However a naturalist determinist does, since he has to concede that:

A- Atoms aren't rational (in the sense that we are not justified in believing any statement uttered or written by any random assortment of atoms... like a cloud for instance)
B- Somehow our brain (a collection of atoms) IS rational

What evidence do you have that souls exist? How does an immaterial soul grant organisms rationality? How does an immaterial soul interact with a material body? How would idealism make us rational?

I already explained that our brains are more emotional than rational. Do you see one-minute-old babies produce logical statements? No, you don't. But one-minute-old babies cry when they are cold or hungry. This is because their choice to cry is determined and constrained by their genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I used to be a baby. You used to be a baby, too. When we were babies we could not even read 2+2=4. Yet, now we are both capable of assessing that 2+2=5 is false and 2+2=4 is true. This is due entirely to our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. If we were feral children nurtured by monkeys in the jungle, we would not be able to even read 2+2=4.

In my previous post, I invited you to prove me wrong but you failed to prove me wrong.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

The way clouds behave and the way brains behave are due to their structure. A cloud can't assess whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 is true. We can. The reason we can assess it is due to the complexity of the human brain which is due to our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

How would you go about proving that our brain just happens to be set up such that it produces true statements (at least, often enough for us to have meaningful discussion)?

Complexity is not a good explanation. Why is a cloud incapable of assessing wether 2+2=4 but we are? When do atoms get "complex enough" to be rational? The city of Tokyo is very complex, but I don't think you'd say it's capable of rational thought, right?

The point still remains, that from my POV, under your brand of Materialistic Monism all I know is that there is a bunch of atoms doing a bunch of physical processes, and in the end producing that post you just wrote. Why should I believe a bunch of atoms? I don't believe the cloud atoms, why are your atoms so special?

Now what I ACTUALLY think is happening, is that whether through a soul, or something else, there is a part of you capable of choice, and thus is capable of choosing what to think about, and thus is capable of forming rational conclusions by consciously choosing to think rationally. Because, again, I do not think a thought can be rational if you are FORCED to think it, and cannot think of anything else (which is how all thoughts are under a deterministic framework). Frankly, I used to be a Materialistic Monist like yourself, but I don't know where I stand now, so my view may be full of holes, but I'm just pointing out why I no longer found MM satisfactory.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I didn't claim that humans are rational.

Well, we have to assume we're rational enough to at least have a discussion! Or else, there is no point in continuing! From now on, when I say "rational" I mean "rational enough to have a discussion" or "can access whether or not 2+2=4 is true".

Quoting Truth Seeker

Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world does not exhibit the superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement that exist in the quantum world. Can you show me even one instance when macroscopic objects have exhibited superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement?

I did not set out to show that macroscopic objects exhibit superposition. I set out to show that the world is not deterministic, even on a macro scale. In order to do this, I would need an example of a macro scale event, that is not determined by prior events, correct?

I think the cat shows that very well. There is a scenario where the death or life of the cat is NOT predetermined. Therefore the world we live in is not predetermined. What am I missing?

Quoting Truth Seeker

What evidence do you have that souls exist? How does an immaterial soul grant organisms rationality? How does an immaterial soul interact with a material body? How would idealism make us rational?

I didn't really argue for souls, although I believe in something like a soul. And I have no clue how they would interact with a material body. But the thing that all these beliefs can do is outright assume that the "soul" (or whatever they use) is rational. Which as far as I understand is what they often do.

Your brand of Materialistic Monism cannot do that, because it also has to contend with the fact that the atoms that make us up are not rational, AND that evolution does not necessarily favor rationality, AND that there is nothing more that makes us up or determines our behavior other than these irrational atoms. You have to believe that we got really, really lucky.

First we have to assume that a collection of atoms can be set up to have a good representation of the world it's in (this is not a given. Look up the "The Self-Referential Sentinel" paradox)

Then we have to assume that our particular collection of atoms happened to find one of those good setups, despite knowing that evolution does not necessarily favor these complex setups with accurate representations of the world, much less rationality.

To understand what you're saying better though: Do you believe that rationality is strongly or weakly emerged from our atoms?

Reply to khaled The key issue here is not complexity. The key issue here is the structure. A baby's brain is complex but there is a huge difference in structure between someone's brain when they are a baby compared to when they are an adult. The structure of Tokyo is complex, too. However, it does not have the structure a brain has. The behaviour of brains depends on the electrochemical activities of the neurones. This depends on genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I recommend that you study neuroscience. In a previous post I gave you two links and you said you skimmed them because you didn't have the knowledge to understand them. The only way to remedy this is for you to study neuroscience. I know lots of neuroscientists who, like me, are happy to be materialist monists. I think your ignorance is getting in your way.

I agree that we are rational enough to have a discussion and assess whether 2+2=4 is true. This does not require the existence of souls. The capabilities of our brains are determined by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I did not say that events are predetermined. I said that events are determined in the present by the interaction of variables. Even in your thought experiment, what happens is determined in the present by the interaction of variables.

I have noticed something interesting about your posts. You frequently misquote me by claiming that I made statements I never made. I am not blaming you. If I had your genes, your environments from conception to the present, your nutrients from conception to the present, and your experiences from the womb to the present, I would have done the same thing. After all, we are not free from our determinants and constraints.

You keep making the same mistake. Atoms are not rational or emotional or perceptive or wise or ethical or anything else that you would attribute to a conscious being. These attributes are weakly emergent properties of the electrochemical activities of the brain. Please note that I said electrochemical activities of the brain. It is not enough to just have a bunch of atoms. The actual structure matters. You really need to study neuroscience for you to be able to understand this. An average human body is 65% oxygen, 18.5% carbon, 9.5% hydrogen, 3.5% nitrogen, 3.5% other chemical elements. It's not enough to just line up these elements in the correct proportion. They have to be in proper structure for a human body to be alive and functional.

The bodies and brains of all the extant species are good enough for survival and reproduction. Otherwise, they would have gone extinct.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

The key issue here is not complexity. The key issue here is the structure.

Quoting Truth Seeker

These attributes are weakly emergent properties of the electrochemical activities of the brain.

Yes, I understand. Your claim is that the structure of the brain is such that it can have accurate representations of reality as well as rationality correct? How did you know that the brain is so structured so as to be rational? (I understand the basics of neurology. I know what electrochemical activities are. That does not change my question)

The atoms themselves are rational? That can't be it, they're clearly not.

Complexity? That's clearly not enough. The city of Tokyo is complex yet can't think rationally.

Having electrochemical activity and neurons? Many animals have brains equipped with neurons and plenty of electrochemical activity, and yet are not rational.

Evolution would favor a rational brain? Not necessarily. Even we have irrational biases drilled into us through evolution.

So what makes you so sure?

Quoting Truth Seeker

I did not say that events are predetermined. I said that events are determined in the present by the interaction of variables. Even in your thought experiment, what happens is determined in the present by the interaction of variables.

Well... Duh!!

If you count even quantum randomness as a "variable" then that's obvious. With this definition though, how come there is a contradiction between free will and determinism? There would no longer be any contradiction between having a "will" variable which acts freely, and determinism.

Quoting Truth Seeker

I have noticed something interesting about your posts. You frequently misquote me by claiming that I made statements I never made.

I don't mean to misquote you... I misunderstood your position. Frankly, I think your position has shifted and I'm not sure you noticed. The way people typically use "determinism" is to say that every event is predetermined by the previous event, and so if we had enough computational power we would know everything that happens (including people's behavior).

I believe this is also what you meant by it initially, through quotes like these:

Quoting Truth Seeker

We don't have enough knowledge to predict people's behaviour with 100% accuracy but that does not mean that the behaviours are not deterministic.

Here you imply that if we did have enough knowledge then we would be able to predict behavior correct?

Now:
1- We cannot predict Quantum events as they are inherently random
2- Quantum events can cause changes on a macro scale (see cat)
3- Therefore we cannot predict events (including people's behavior) on a macro scale

Just so we're on the same page, let's first decide whether you're arguing for determinism as outlined above or just in "causation" (that present events are determined by the interaction of variables). And if it is the former, do you find the above argument satisfactory in showing that determinism is not the case?

Reply to Truth Seeker

I think the one who is morally culpable is the one with "awareness".

Awareness can be broken down into the following tenets:
1). Agency - the power to exert independent or autonomous choice/ free will through action.

2). Knowledge - the ability to understand both themselves and the world around them.

3). Empathy - the trust/faith (without proof) that they are not the only awareness that exists. An anti-solipsist acknowledgement of the existence of "multiple identical agents" - ie others that can experience the same sensations: suffering and joy as the self can.

Following these tenets we can exclude certain groups from culpability:

1. "The inanimate" are not culpable - a gun is not culpable for a homicide.

2. "The deluded or ignorant" are not culpable (they dont understand what they're doing even if they have good intentions). Example - the clinically insane, those with severe mental illness or who have been heavily indoctrinated with propaganda.

3. Psychopaths, uber-narcissists and perhaps AI - if one is incapable genetically or otherwsie, of being able to "walk in the shoes of another" or relate to another awareness as equals, then they are not culpable for selfish acts nor their consequences.

There is considerable overlap between the three tenets. They're difficult to separate.

For example if AI is intelligent but possesses no agency of its own, then questioning its empathy is irrelevant.

Similarly, one can argue a psychopath lacks certain knowledge of others experience, and so discussing empathy could be regarded as irrelevant.

In the end due to the difficulty in distinctly separating the tenets, I reduce them to one simple and all encompassing definition - "awareness."

By that definition I determine who is morally culpable for the results of their individual experience of reality.

Reply to khaled Here is my first post in this thread:

Who is morally culpable? I don't know. I know that the legal system holds people culpable if they do anything illegal. Are criminals truly morally culpable? If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable. How do we figure out whether or not hard determinism is true? Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. For example, I would not be typing this post if I were alive 1,000 years ago instead of now as there was no computer and internet back then. If I had the genes of a chicken instead of my genes I would not be typing this post either. I would not be typing this post if I didn't experience learning the English language. I would not be typing this post if I was deprived of all the nutrients that I have consumed since I was conceived. Is it inevitable that I typed this post when and where I typed this post? Am I morally culpable for the choice to type this post? Please explain how you have worked out the answer. Thank you very much.

I clearly stated my position that "Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences."

I am still saying the same thing. So, why are you saying that my position has changed?

I don't know with 100% certainty how consciousness, emotions, rationality, ethics, etc. emerge from the electrochemical activities of the brain. I do know that dead brains don't produce consciousness, emotions, rationality, ethics, etc. So, what is it about brains that are alive that produce consciousness?

Quoting ChatGPT 4:

The question of how consciousness is produced is one of the most profound and challenging in both science and philosophy. There are several major theories and approaches to this question, but no definitive answers as of yet. Here's an overview of some of the leading theories on the production of consciousness:

1. Physicalist Theories
Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Developed by Giulio Tononi, IIT proposes that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system. It quantifies consciousness in terms of "phi," a measure of the system's integration of information. The theory suggests that any system with a high enough phi value is conscious.

Global Workspace Theory (GWT)

Proposed by Bernard Baars and further developed by Stanislas Dehaene and others, GWT posits that consciousness results from certain information being broadcast in a global workspace—a distributed network within the brain. This theory focuses on the accessibility of information across different cognitive systems for decision-making, reasoning, and planning.

2. Biological Theories
Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC)

An approach that aims to identify specific neural systems responsible for conscious awareness. The NCC approach is less of a theory of consciousness itself and more a method of studying how particular brain activities correlate with specific conscious experiences.

3. Quantum Theories
Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)

This theory, developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, suggests that consciousness emerges from quantum state reductions that occur within microtubules in brain cells. They argue that these quantum events are orchestrated by biological processes to produce conscious experience, which is a theory not widely accepted in the scientific community due to its speculative nature.

4. Panpsychism
Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the universe. It suggests that all matter possesses some form of consciousness, with complex systems such as human brains exhibiting a richer and more complex form of consciousness. This perspective shifts the problem of consciousness from emergence to one of combination—how simple consciousness combines into more complex forms.

5. Dual-Aspect Theories
These theories suggest that mental and physical states are two aspects of the same underlying reality. This approach tries to bridge the explanatory gap by positing a non-material, yet not entirely separate, realm of existence that interacts with or parallels the physical.

6. Emergentism
Emergentism argues that consciousness emerges from complex patterns of physical interactions within the brain, but in a way that is not reducible to those interactions alone. This suggests a form of strong emergence where consciousness is seen as more than the sum of its parts.

Current Scientific Endeavors
In the scientific realm, ongoing research involves mapping brain activity and its correlation with conscious experience (trying to pinpoint the NCC), manipulating brain states (through technologies such as TMS and EEG) to see how changes in neural activity affect consciousness, and developing better computational models to simulate how networks of neurons might generate conscious awareness.

Despite substantial progress in understanding the brain's functioning, how consciousness arises from the activity of neurons, or whether it perhaps emerges from other processes, remains a profound mystery. Each theory provides valuable insights, but none has yet achieved consensus acceptance. The pursuit to understand consciousness is not only about discovering its mechanisms but also about exploring fundamental questions about the nature of existence and our place within it.

I am a materialist monist because I have never seen any soul or spirit in any brain scans. I realise that if the soul or spirit is not made of matter or energy as we know them, we won't spot them on brain scans. Then there is the problem of how an immaterial soul or spirit can interact with a brain made of ordinary matter.

In deterministic systems, it is possible to predict outcomes if you know what the interacting variables are. For example, evidence shows that if you behead someone, they die in 100% of the cases. So, you can predict with 100% accuracy that if you were to behead me, I would die. In a random system (as in quantum mechanics), you can't predict outcomes in the same way. Instead, you can only calculate the probability. There is a 50% probability that the electron would spin right and a 50% probability that the electron would spin left. Due to quantum decoherence, our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences don't behave like electrons do.

If we knew the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences on organisms with 100% accuracy, we should be able to predict their choices with 100% accuracy. I can't test this hypothesis because we currently don't know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences with 100% accuracy in all instances. For example, you know that if you were to behead me, I would die as my brain would be deprived of blood which delivers vital oxygen and glucose, etc. for my neurones and glial cells. You can predict this with 100% accuracy. However, what would I do, if you gave me 100 trillion US dollars? It would be hard for you to predict this with 100% accuracy. It's logical to state that the more you knew about my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, the more precise your prediction would be.

Reply to Benj96 Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Are the choices made by organisms inevitable given their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? If so, do they truly deserve any reward or punishment for their choices?

I think we both would agree that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be omniculpable. I don't know if any omniscient and omnipotent being exists. If such a being existed, he or she should be sued for failing to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death.

Quoting khaled

Evolution would favor a rational brain? Not necessarily. Even we have irrational biases drilled into us through evolution.

Not 'perfectly rational', just 'rational enough'. Evolution has many Rube Goldberg like results.

Reply to wonderer1 Thank you for the link. I was already familiar with the inefficiency of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in humans and giraffes but I didn't know about the Sauropods. Please see https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-235403/

Quoting Truth Seeker

I think we both would agree that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be omniculpable. I don't know if any omniscient and omnipotent being exists. If such a being existed, he or she should be sued for failing to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death.

It's a neat thought, holding what essentially accounts for a "God" culpable for all existent misfortune. One of the popular reasons for atheists to opt for atheism.

However I do wonder where "free will" falls in this argument. My first tenet of culpability. True agency.

One would imagine if anyone is to truly have free will then such an omniscient omnipotent entity is simply rolling the dice of uncertainty and passively observing the outcome.

Given that such an entity did not directly have any input into the outcome in this sense (in order to allow for freedom for choice/free will) it seems counterintuitive to then hold them responsible.

The only way such an entity is responsible is if the system is fully deterministic - ie a direct result of said entities actions

Reply to Benj96 I agree with you. How would we figure out if hard determinism is true or not?

Our choices are not free from determinants and constraints e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Does that mean that our choices are inevitable?

Reply to Truth Seeker It depends.

Genes are subject to mutations and epigenetics (switching on or off) - both of which are subject to environmental conditions. We understand that many environmental conditions are seemingly chaotic and unpredictable: for example - the weather forecast. Beyond around 10 days the variables compound exponentially rendering further accurate forecast useless conjecture.

Quantum physics is yet another realm in which certainty dissolves into a cloud of ultimately uncertain and merely probabilistic outcomes. Where even the act of measurement itself influences the measured.

The "butterfly effect" suggests that any slight change in initial circumstances alters the entire system eventually. If this is the case, then hard determinism can be cast out the window.

In that case, it is ultimately the agent who is culpable. Because chaos and uncertainty reigns Iver hard determinism.

Reply to Benj96 Just because we can't predict something e.g. weather and earthquakes, etc. accurately it does not mean that they are not deterministic.

I agree that the quantum world is probabilistic but due to quantum decoherence, this does not mean the macroscopic world is like the quantum world.

If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would you not be typing these words when and where I am typing these words? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would I not be reading these words when and where you are reading these words?

We don't choose to be born. We don't choose our genes. We don't choose our early environments, nutrients, and experiences. Although, as an adult we may be able to change our environments, nutrients, and experiences to something different from what we got as a child. This does not apply to all adults - just the fortunate ones. So, how can we claim that we are culpable for our choices?

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I can't do the following things even though I really want to do them:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Given the fact that I am constantly doing things I don't want to do and can't do what I actually want to do, how can I be a free agent who makes free choices and is culpable?

I think that only omniscient and omnipotent beings are omniculpable. Everyone else is a prisoner of causality. Our thoughts are not free from the electrochemical activities that give rise to thoughts. Our choices are not free from the electrochemical activities that give rise to choices.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

I clearly stated my position that "Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences."

Would you agree that the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences can theoretically (not practically) all be reduced to physical phenomena? As in: Changing X gene does, deterministically, result in changes A, B and C. And placying someone in Y environment will, determinisitically, result in changes in D, F and G. And A, B, C, D, F, G are all physical phenomena (think: bigger nose, different neural connections, etc)

I will assume yes.

Do you agree that quantum randomness CAN under certain setups, cause macro level changes? (see cat)

I will also assume yes.

Do you agree that there is a chance that some of these setups actually exist in nature? I don't see a reason to disagree with that one, so I'll say yes.

It then follows that one of these premises is wrong, and I am least confident of the first. Maybe putting someone in environment Y will NOT result in D, F and G, as there is the possibility of quantum randomness causing a butterfly effect somewhere in the causal chain from Y to D, F and G.

Quoting Truth Seeker

There is a 50% probability that the electron would spin right and a 50% probability that the electron would spin left. Due to quantum decoherence, our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences don't behave like electrons do.

Ah, how are you sure of this? How are you sure that none of the setups where quantum randomness can have a macro effect (like with the cat) don't already exist in some environments or within our own bodies?

This is a testable hypothesis, but until we know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences on organisms fully, it will not have been tested. Until we fully understand our body and our world, it's still a possibility that such a quantum-randomness enabling setup already exists within us or our environment.

Currently, our technology is not accurate enough to detect these things. Our technology does not have the processing power to even model classical systems with 100% accuracy, much less be able to tell between "classical noice" and any potential effect due to quantum randomness.

Quoting Truth Seeker

It would be hard for you to predict this with 100% accuracy. It's logical to state that the more you knew about my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, the more precise your prediction would be.

Yes, but it is not clear that it would ever be 100% accurate. The only way it can be is if there is no setups that allow quantum randomness to have a macro effect anywhere. And we don't know that.

Quoting Truth Seeker

, this does not mean the macroscopic world is like the quantum world.

"Like" the quantum world or "influenced" by the quantum world? The macroscopic world is for sure unlike quantum mechanics. But I would imagine the system of reality is holistic from the smallest (quantum) to the largest, interconnected and thus dependent on these behaviours.

If the macroscopic is hard deterministic and the quantum is not hard deterministic then there is some bizarre disconnect between them and I doubt that is the case. Quantum effects effect atoms which effect molecules which effects higher and higher order complexity and systems.

Reply to khaled

Would you agree that the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences can theoretically (not practically) all be reduced to physical phenomena? As in: Changing X gene does, deterministically, result in changes A, B and C. And placying someone in Y environment will, determinisitically, result in changes in D, F and G. And A, B, C, D, F, G are all physical phenomena (think: bigger nose, different neural connections, etc)

I will assume yes.

It depends. If immaterial souls exist, and they are affected by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences then the answer is no.

Do you agree that quantum randomness CAN under certain setups, cause macro level changes? (see cat)

I will also assume yes.

I have never seen your thought experiment as an actual experiment. If you are a physicist, could you please do the experiment and share the actual results with us?

Ah, how are you sure of this? How are you sure that none of the setups where quantum randomness can have a macro effect (like with the cat) don't already exist in some environments or within our own bodies?

I am 100% sure that quantum decoherence occurs, but we don't know if quantum mechanics is involved in the production of consciousness. Quantum features such as superposition, tunneling, entanglement, and indeterminacy all average out - there is indeterminacy about the exact location of any given iron atom but not about the exact location of the centre of mass of a cannonball formed by 10^27 of these quantum-behaving atoms. If it is involved then quantum mechanics could affect our choices which would make our choices random instead of deterministic. How can we be culpable if our choices are random instead of deterministic?

This is a testable hypothesis, but until we know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences on organisms fully, it will not have been tested. Until we fully understand our body and our world, it's still a possibility that such a quantum-randomness enabling setup already exists within us or our environment.

I agree.

Yes, but it is not clear that it would ever be 100% accurate. The only way it can be is if there is no setups that allow quantum randomness to have a macro effect anywhere. And we don't know that.

I am not a physicist, otherwise I would turn your thought experiment into an actual experiment. Is there any physicist on this forum?

I don't see how quantum randomness is any better than macroscopic determinism when it comes to making decisions. I want to remove all determinants and constraints from our choices but it's impossible for me to do that with our current level of knowledge and technology. It may always be impossible to do. So, we are and always will be prisoners of determinants and constraints

Reply to Benj96 The problem is that we don't have a Theory of Everything that unites the quantum world with the macroscopic world. We know that quantum decoherence occurs. Given the fact that quantum decoherence occurs, how would quantum phenomena such as superposition, indeterminacy and entanglement have any effect on the macroscopic world?

How can quantum randomness remove determinants and constraints from the decision-making process in sentient organisms? You haven't answered any of my questions in my previous reply to you. Is that because you don't know the answers?

Reply to Truth Seeker can it do that WITHOUT said sentient beings awareness of such observations occurring meaning avoiding any conscious awareness such attempts to remove determinants and constraints are taking place...observations when sentient beings are aware of them happening, risk unnatural behavior taking place misplaced real data when its bias was just aware and leaning in its favor. The sentient beings level of conscious awareness holds power over attempts, even if they know it or not. Its intuit.

Reply to Kizzy

can it do that WITHOUT said sentient beings awareness of such observations occurring meaning avoiding any conscious awareness such attempts to remove determinants and constraints are taking place...observations when sentient beings are aware of them happening, risk unnatural behavior taking place misplaced real data when its bias was just aware and leaning in its favor. The sentient beings level of conscious awareness holds power over attempts, even if they know it or not. Its intuit.

I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry. Please explain. Thank you.

Reply to Truth Seeker wahhh wah :cry: its fine, ill be back to try again if the will for it exists then for now its gone with the wind, good as gone. carry on, pardon me please.

Reply to Kizzy It's ok. Please don't worry about it.

Quoting Truth Seeker

If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would you not be typing these words when and where I am typing these words? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would I not be reading these words when and where you are reading these words?

All this amounts to is "If I were you, would I be you?" Obviously. But stating that if initial conditions are identical outcomes are identical (determinism) only works in the hypothetical realm where time and space can be controlled as variables. That's why 2 genetically identical twins no matter how similar in behaviour and habits, will never be considered "one person in two places simultaneously". Even the slightest differences compound over time into deviating outcomes.

Quoting Truth Seeker

Given the fact that quantum decoherence occurs, how would quantum phenomena such as superposition, indeterminacy and entanglement have any effect on the macroscopic world?

It already does influence to macroscopic world: quantum computing, the electronic industry and new banking security systems. However if you want an older example of quantum influence than quantum biology is the place to go: Photosynthesis, magnetic navigation in animals and birds, olfaction, enzyme catalysis, many of which use either tunnelling or entanglement. Heres a reference:

https://www.azoquantum.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=281#:~:text=Photosynthesis%20is%20the%20most%20significant,is%20a%20quantum%20mechanical%20effect.&text=Quantum%20mechanics%20is%20thought%20to,at%20the%20micro%20and%20nanoscales.

So it would see that not everything is so determined as one might imagine. Quantum effects influence the macroscopic world.

Quoting Truth Seeker

So, how can we claim that we are culpable for our choices?

Even if reality was entirely deterministic, it's deterministic for everyone. So if someone breaks the law against another person that then suffers, and both were entirely predetermined acts, you can argue the punishment given and justice served as also entirely predetermined. If determinism applies to everyone than it applies to no one in the sense of culpability and what that means to most everyone.

Quoting Truth Seeker

How can quantum randomness remove determinants and constraints from the decision-making process in sentient organisms?

In a moment to moment capacity - quantum effects likely don't impact on decision making unless they are the basis of decision making. We still don't full understand the brain or consciousness. And quantum neuroscience is a new field.

But I think quantum effects likely make a predictive model deviate from actual events over longer periods of time and when larger magnitudes of variables are a contributing factor to the outcome.

Reply to Benj96 Thank you very much for answering my questions and the link. I learned something new which is great.

I far as I can tell, neither quantum mechanics nor macroscopic determinism makes us free from determinants and constraints. How can we have justice when we are not free from determinants and constraints? If a criminal could not have refrained from breaking the law, is it right to punish him or her for breaking the law? If a law-abiding person cannot help being law-abiding, is it right to reward him or her for not breaking the law? Could anyone really have made a different choice in the past than the choice they made? I don't think so. I think our choices arise out of the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences and we are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy.

Quoting ChatGPT 4:

Monozygotic twins, often called identical twins, originate from the same fertilized egg that splits into two embryos. This shared origin means that they start with the same genetic material. However, saying they are completely genetically identical throughout their lives is an oversimplification due to several factors:

1. Mutations During Development
As the cells of the embryos divide and grow, small mutations can occur. These mutations might be different between the two twins, leading to slight genetic differences as they develop.

2. Epigenetic Differences
While the DNA sequence itself may be very similar, the way this genetic information is expressed can differ due to epigenetic changes. Epigenetics involves modifications that affect gene expression without altering the DNA sequence itself. Factors such as environment, lifestyle, and different experiences can lead to epigenetic changes that differ between the twins, influencing how their genes are expressed.

3. Somatic Mosaicism
Somatic mosaicism refers to the occurrence of two or more genetically different cell lines within the same individual, caused by mutations that occur after fertilization and during cell division. This can also happen independently in each twin, leading to differences between them.

4. Copy Number Variations
Small differences in the number of copies of certain genes can emerge during the early stages of embryonic development after the initial zygotic split. These variations can lead to further genetic divergence between monozygotic twins.

5. Environmental Influences
Even in the womb, monozygotic twins can experience different environments. For example, they might have different positions in the uterus or slightly different nourishment from the placenta. These subtle environmental differences can influence their development, both physically and potentially at the genetic expression level.

While monozygotic twins are genetically very similar compared to other siblings, they are not absolutely identical. The small genetic differences that can arise are typically not significant enough to affect the fact that they are more similar to each other than to anyone else, but these differences can be important in the context of medical research, forensic analysis, and understanding how genes and the environment interact to shape individuals.

Reply to Truth Seeker Quoting Truth Seeker

I have never seen your thought experiment as an actual experiment. If you are a physicist, could you please do the experiment and share the actual results with us?

What would that do? I'm not a physicist, but it is well known that Quantum effects can have macro consequences. If you don't believe me there are many articles from reputable institutions that show this, here is one:

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/22/why-do-quantum-effects-only-happen-on-the-atomic-scale/

Quoting Truth Seeker

If it is involved then quantum mechanics could affect our choices which would make our choices random instead of deterministic. How can we be culpable if our choices are random instead of deterministic?

That's a good question. Personally, I think this quantum randomness can provide a "refuge" for souls or spirits or whatever flavor of immaterial stuff you like. One could say that it is consciousness or souls or spirits or whatever that collapses wavestates, or that it at least has something to do with it. That would give "us" (if you define as some sort of immaterial soul) real agency in inacting physical change in the world.

I am not sure about the validity of any of these theories, though they are certainly comforting if true. I just wanted to bring your attention to them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

But if that is NOT the case, if it really the case that quantum processes are completely random, you'd have to believe in some sort of compatibalism to believe in free will.

Quoting Truth Seeker

So, we are and always will be prisoners of determinants and constraints

That is true. My question is, why do you require that we be COMPLETELY free to have ANY responsibility. Let's do a thought experiment.

Let's say that you were omnipotent, free from all constraints, and you decided to kill someone. Your decision was made without any determinants or constraints, surely you are morally responsible for it in that case, correct?

Now let's add a limit. Let's say you are not quite omnipotent, you can only exert enough force to lift 10^9999999 tons. Quite the limit from pure omnipotence, but still extremely powerful. If you decide to kill someone now, would you still be responsible? I would say yes, DESPITE the fact that you have a constraint. Because I cannot see how this constraint would influence your decision on whether or not to kill someone at all, do you agree?

Now we keep adding limitations and limitations, until we get to a point that, say, you're a starving beggar, and steal a bit of food from someone who wouldn't even notice. Most people would say you are not morally culpable for this, because your limitations and constraints are influencial enough that you can be excused.

Now, where does the line lie for you? The line that separates "constrained enough to not be morally reponsible" from not constrained enough. Is it when we've added hunger? When you get confined to a physical body? When you became faced with death? Or was it all the way at the beginning, at the second you lost your omnipotence and got your first limit, that you no longer became morally responsible?

Reply to khaled I know quantum mechanics has macroscopic consequences. I prefer actual experiments to thought experiments as you get actual data from actual experiments instead of what you imagine the data is. Reality is often more complex and surprising than what we imagine it is.

Quoting khaled

Personally, I think this quantum randomness can provide a "refuge" for souls or spirits or whatever flavor of immaterial stuff you like. One could say that it is consciousness or souls or spirits or whatever that collapses wavestates, or that it at least has something to do with it. That would give "us" (if you define as some sort of immaterial soul) real agency in inacting physical change in the world.

That's an interesting idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? How would an immaterial soul or spirit interact with material objects such as atoms? How would an immaterial soul or spirit free us from determinants such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences?

Quoting khaled

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Thank you for the link. I read it. It seems to be speculations rather than evidence-based conclusions.

Quoting khaled

But if that is NOT the case, if it really the case that quantum processes are completely random, you'd have to believe in some sort of compatibalism to believe in free will.

What evidence do you have in support of compatibilism?

Quoting khaled

My question is, why do you require that we be COMPLETELY free to have ANY responsibility.

I don't know how free one needs to be to have any responsibility. How free am I? Could I have made different choices than the ones I made at the time of the choosing? I don't think so. I don't murder, kidnap, rape, torture, etc. It's not some towering moral achievement for me. I simply have no desire to murder, kidnap, rape, torture, etc. Even if these actions became legal from now on, I still wouldn't do these things. I think that if I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of people who have murdered, kidnapped, raped, tortured, etc. I would have done these things. I also think that if they had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences they would have refrained from doing these things and instead would be typing these words when and where I am typing these words. Do I freely choose not to murder, kidnap, rape, torture, etc? No. I simply have no desire to these things. I wouldn't do them even if they were legal and you offered to pay me trillions of dollars. I considered these actions to be morally wrong. I feel compelled to refrain from doing these things. I dont' freely choose not to. Let me give you another example. I don't like chocolate cakes and chocolate ice-creams. I don't like the way they taste. I don't choose this preference. It is just the way it is. I am no more responsible for refraining from murdering, kidnapping, raping, and torturing than I am responsible for not liking chocolate cakes and chocolate ice-creams.

Why would the choice of an omniscient and omnipotent being be free from determinants? Their choices would be from constraints but not free from determinants. They will still have determinants for their choices.

Quoting khaled

Let's say you are not quite omnipotent, you can only exert enough force to lift 10^9999999 tons. Quite the limit from pure omnipotence, but still extremely powerful. If you decide to kill someone now, would you still be responsible? I would say yes, DESPITE the fact that you have a constraint. Because I cannot see how this constraint would influence your decision on whether or not to kill someone at all, do you agree?

I think you have never understood the point I have been making in this thread. Our choices arise in the present continuous out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. So, whether someone experiences the desire to murder or not is not free from determinants. It's not about the kind of limitation you are talking about in your example. Whether an organism can lift a huge amount of weight has nothing to do with whether or not they have the desire to murder.

Let me give you another example. Eighteen years ago, I met two vegans at an environmental event. Until I met them, I had never heard of veganism. I was a vegetarian at the time. They told me about veganism and I immediately became a vegan. All of my family, extended family, most of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are omnivores. Why didn't I become a vegan when I was in the womb or when I was five years old or when I was ten years old? It's because of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Not even our thoughts are free from these determinants, never mind actions. Could you think the thoughts I will think of in one minute's time? No. Just as I can't think of the thoughts you will think of in one minute's time. I don't even know what thoughts will occur to me in one minute's time.

Quoting khaled

Now we keep adding limitations and limitations, until we get to a point that, say, you're a starving beggar, and steal a bit of food from someone who wouldn't even notice. Most people would say you are not morally culpable for this, because your limitations and constraints are influencial enough that you can be excused.

Now, where does the line lie for you? The line that separates "constrained enough to not be morally reponsible" from not constrained enough. Is it when we've added hunger? When you get confined to a physical body? When you became faced with death? Or was it all the way at the beginning, at the second you lost your omnipotence and got your first limit, that you no longer became morally responsible?

My experiments and other people's experiments show that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. No living thing chooses to come into existence. No living thing chooses the genes, the early environments, nutrients, and experiences. As we get older, we try to get our preferred environments, nutrients, and experiences but we don't always succeed. For example, I used to get my nutrients as an omnivore but then I became a vegetarian when I became aware of the suffering and death an omnivorous diet causes. When I became aware of veganism, I saw that it was less harmful than being a vegetarian. So, I became a vegan. I actually want to be a nonconsumer. I tried living without consuming any oxygen, water and food but I failed. So, I am stuck with being a vegan even though I want to be a nonconsumer. Why aren't all living things nonconsumers? Why aren't all living things vegans? Why do omnivores, carnivores and parasites cause harm or even kill to get their nutrients? The answer is due to the interactions of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Are omnivores, carnivores and parasites morally culpable? I don't think so. They are prisoners of causality. Their choices are the products of determinants.To be morally culpable one needs to be 100% free from determinants. I have never met any omniscient and omnipotent beings. As far as I can speculate, an omniscient and omnipotent being would be free from constraints but even such a being would not be free from determinants. That's why I selected "No one" as my answer to the question "Who is morally culpable?" which I asked on the first post in this thread.