Does no free will necessarily mean fatalism or nihilism?
Whenever the hard determinist view is brought up in online discussions there is almost always someone that says no free will or genuine moral responsibility logically entails fatalism and nihilism. If everything that happens couldnt help but happen and peoples choices arent truly free then somehow life is meaningless and morality doesnt exist.
What is your opinion on this common claim in response to hard determinism?
My opinion is that its completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. People still have to do things for things to happen. Very few people would be content or able to lay in bed and stare at a ceiling their entire life because their choices are technically predetermined going back to the beginning of the universe. Choosing not to do anything out of fatalism is still a choice and a very miserable one.
In reference to nihilism I think meaning and morality arent dependent on hard determinism being true or false. Things still have meaning and value to people if only in a practical sense even if there was no other way for things to happen and you couldnt possibly make choices other than the choices you made. Depending on your philosophical views this is likely the most contentious part but I think people would and can still have value and rights that shouldnt be violated with or without determinism being true. Objective rights and value may not exist in a tangible, scientifically provable sense but that doesnt mean they dont exist at all. Pain and pleasure are still very much real things whether theyre determined to happen or not. Whether or not someone like Hitler, Osama, El Chapo Bundy had ultimate control over their choices doesnt make them any less morally abhorrent or their actions any less evil or harmful. As hotly contested as the topic is I cant recall a philosopher ever using the deterministic nature of the universe as evidence that good and evil dont exist and the lives of sentient beings have no actual value.
What is your opinion on this common claim in response to hard determinism?
My opinion is that its completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. People still have to do things for things to happen. Very few people would be content or able to lay in bed and stare at a ceiling their entire life because their choices are technically predetermined going back to the beginning of the universe. Choosing not to do anything out of fatalism is still a choice and a very miserable one.
In reference to nihilism I think meaning and morality arent dependent on hard determinism being true or false. Things still have meaning and value to people if only in a practical sense even if there was no other way for things to happen and you couldnt possibly make choices other than the choices you made. Depending on your philosophical views this is likely the most contentious part but I think people would and can still have value and rights that shouldnt be violated with or without determinism being true. Objective rights and value may not exist in a tangible, scientifically provable sense but that doesnt mean they dont exist at all. Pain and pleasure are still very much real things whether theyre determined to happen or not. Whether or not someone like Hitler, Osama, El Chapo Bundy had ultimate control over their choices doesnt make them any less morally abhorrent or their actions any less evil or harmful. As hotly contested as the topic is I cant recall a philosopher ever using the deterministic nature of the universe as evidence that good and evil dont exist and the lives of sentient beings have no actual value.
Comments (69)
So the question remains, what will you do?
Fatalism and nihilism are of no help here.
Yes, it seems that experiencing is the main benefit of being alive.
May I offer some questions which I'm currently convinced are at the root of this. In order to avoid longwindedness, I must be simplistic. Note that the questions could be posed with all their complex layers; best for another time and place.
First, in the scenario where there is freedom, you naturally say people" but who/what is the "entity" (if even) that "enjoys"/has this so called freedom/choice? Is it as simple as the Subject, "I" of what we conventionally think of as (self)consciousness of people?
Another one is, it is possible, is it not, to have neither freedom (in the sense of a being which can, by its capacity to elect "the next movement", determine the outcome, even if in defiance of cause); nor predeterminsm/predestiny (as in the effects have all been predetermined and thus causes are just steps along the way), in for example, a determinism which operates within a closed system of interdependant causes and effects? In that case, chaos and randomness are also (at least) reduced, but so is determinism, in that the (final)* effect might have been anything given causes are incessantly bouncing off one another leading to effects. Or is what I described simply determinism? (I don't think so). Note, there is neither real free choice since that too is an effect from a cause, and in time, a cause. But there is also no being, no design, no purpose necessarily determining a necessary outcome. There are virtually endless possible outcomes. And it is not chaos since it happens in a closed system of evolved "rules" "mechanics" and "dynamics."
*in this scenario there are no final effects, each effect is a cause (even if, "in waiting").
Lastly, if the scenario above could possibly be imagined to be so, would it not be possible that so called freedom is an effect upon that mechanism, the Subject, "I"
and its having evolved within this hypothetical closed system to be "placed" in each "moment" through time, (time, the "movement" of the system) as the mechanism behind the body's feelings or activity? Hence, if this body texting this message stops, it is not that the body exercised "freedom". Though the body seems to have exercised choice, it is only because the moment manifests in the system (is projected into the world) as, "I'm going to stop typing and press, post comment now"
I realize we don't seem to see eye to eye, and that my thinking may go beyond what seems reasonable. But if you're so incl8ned, I value your input (if not, truly, I get it).
With respect to your statement above, consider the next phrase "...unless "choice" is our "role" participation in the deterministic system. In other words, faced with the dilemma "rescue that cat," or "dont" you're right. The one who rescues has done so in reaction to every "cause" they have also reacted to leading to that final election to rescue. (And same mutatis mutandis for "dont"). The "choice" step was necessary, just as every reaction to every prior cause leading to that last choice were necessary. In other words we are "agents" acting agents, but our agency does not represent ourselves the subject agent. It represents the system. We want our freedom of choice to give ego super power. But really, not only are we agents for the system, but morally are its fiduciaries.
I would say you describe the scenario very well. :up:
First of all, I agree with everything you said. Regarding the above, I don't think determinism (per se) is inconsistent with the existence of objective moral values (OMVs). On the other hand, materialism is inconsistent with OMVs, because OMVs are not material objects.
No worries. I never took anything as adversarial, or an accusation thereof.
Even if determinism is true, we still make choices. It's true that those choices are a product of prior events, but the choices are still made - and we are the agents making them.
But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? I throw a ball into the air, and give it a choice: continue to rise forever, or fall back down. Who are we kidding? The ball doesn't get to choose. It does the only thing it can do.
If I drop a lot of money while walking in front of someone, we can say that the person has the choice of calling out to me to alert me that I dropped it, or quickly picking it up themself and walking in another direction. If determinism is true, and the person's genetic makeup, upbringing, other past experiences, health at the moment, and all other factors, will allow only one option, then calling it a "choice" is as meaningless as with the thrown ball. No, we can't even know what all the factors are, much less see how they all combine to produce the only outcome they can produce. But that doesn't mean it was any more possible for the outcome to have been other than it was than in the cases of the ball.
Wow! So that is a very improperly loaded question there.
So, you equate 'no free will' with 'genuine moral responsibility'? I find that deeply immoral as an idea. Free will is the only thing that exists in the universe. And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed.
Quoting Captain Homicide
Effectively, that would be true. If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. It's a a laughable position, despite what some very well educated cowards like to propose. Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, so everyone is in line to get spoon fed the Kool Aid.
Quoting Captain Homicide
I agree that it would be true if determinism were real and accurate, but, it is not.
Quoting Captain Homicide
You mention here desire (chaos) and practical (fear) side interests and ways of thought. The truth is though that the balance between these two emotions and also a third emotion, anger, CAUSES the balance that supports free will. This precarious balance denies any possibility of determinism.
It can easily SEEM like determinism makes sense. It is of course highly probable and deterministic models are more true than most others. Why then do I dent it as truth? That is because it's a practical short-cut to truth that is effectively an awareness failure. Certainty is not possible. We cannot actually objectively know anything. But even math short-cuts the process describing the limit as x approaches 0 as 0. That is even though we 'know' that the relationship is asymptotic and the limit NEVER reaches 0. So, with that kind of accuracy, finally, the conclusions drawn are not moral, not accurate.
It does not matter that people still have desire to do immoral things and have fear to restrain themselves to practical immoral matters. The RIGHT thing to do, to believe in, is perfection as a goal. We should aim at ideal circumstances and keep adjusting based on consequence patterns. But that is NOT Consequentialism, which is reversed and immoral. That is Kant's Deontological morality, where intent is the what is judged, NOT consequences. THAT is moral.
Quoting Captain Homicide
I agree with your final statement, but, ALLOWING the idea of determinism to stand as 'fact' or 'knowledge' is immoral/irresponsible.
Quoting Captain Homicide
Yes they are. If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter.
If you are trying to say something as relative and weak as 'we can still, some of us, have some fun' tell that to the Palestinians or any of us that suffers so much even before they become self-actualized in any real way. Determinism is mostly a delusion used to avoid responsibility for weak choices. It is a fear-side trap most often that ignores the central function of fear itself, limiting and separating.
Quoting Captain Homicide
This misses the real point, the heavy point. That is that unless choices matter, there is no reason to make the right one. You can murder with impunity, because you were clearly predestined to do so. It opens up a STRATEGY for devious minds to do whatever the hell they want and expect no punishment because you can't punish someone if their choice is not there, if free will is not there; or you SHOULD NOT punish them for that.
Quoting Captain Homicide
Yeah that is deeply immoral thinking, subjectivist nonsense.
Quoting Captain Homicide
I agree, but, that statement undoes your whole argument.
Quoting Captain Homicide
Yet your arguments negate one another, logically and idealistically. So they are just horrid, all the way except that you still seem to pine away for morality while denying it, effectively. Determinism is a cheap fear-based failure of awareness. Robert Sopolsky needs to go back to school!
You do go through a choice-making process, don't you? For important decisions, you may deliberate for a time, weighing the pros and cons of alternatives. Your beliefs and whims will factor in, as will your hopes, desires, risk tolerance - all influenced by your genetic makeup. But all those factors are intrinsic to who you are.
Sure, every one of those factors were caused (by your genetic makeup, upbringing, experiences, education...), but they are bundled together in a unique way to comprise YOU.
Quoting Patterner
Of course, whatever choice you make could not have been different at the point you make it, given your life-history. But you will also learn from the consequences of your decision, adding factors that will influence future choices. This is why I have previously argued that moral accountability is at least somewhat reasonable: future behavior is influenced by reward/punishment.
So, although there are causes that necessitate the choices you make, those causes didn't conspire to make the choice. The machinery that is YOU had to do the processing that led to the result (the choice).
And your choices aren't meaningless. You give meaning to the factors, and those meanings influence the choice. The person who chooses to keep the money you drop is doing so because of what money means to him.
Quoting Relativist
You do go through a "process" yes. But (while I'm not saying you did so deliberately) note how your wording even implies ultimate passivity. This is only partly "tongue in cheek," but, "choose" to go through the process of holding your breath forever and see how much freedom you have. "Yes, but breathing is an organic process governed by laws." Well, so too for our minds, just as so too for Patterner's ball in the air. For breathing and gravity we currently settle at the lack of freedom. For Mind we refuse too. The reasons are so obvious, I needn't elaborate.
You're reading passivity into it; that certainly was not what I was trying to convey. The mental processes are under your control, not someone or something else. Determinism implies the process is mechanistic, but even a machine still has to do the work to produce its output - the machine isn't "passive".
The fact that we lack the freedom to refrain from things like breathing seems irrelevant- not everything we contemplate involves a real choice, and that applies even if we have libertarian free will.
This ignores the fact that your genetic makeup, experiences, etc comprise you. That particular group of cells performs functions, including the cognitive functions of making choices.
[Quote]when you are in a situation where different directions are taken by different people, the meaning that all those factors have determined you have determine which direction you take.[/quote]
I agree that the process is, in one sense, programmed, but you are the program. There's also a sense in which you aren't programmed: you aren't the product of design. You weren't built in order to perform the functions you execute.
Yes, I agree it seems irrelevant. A clumsy illustration. My point--if it makes a difference now--isn't to say, "see? We can't choose whether or not to breathe, therefore... ." My point (which may equally offend your reasoning on this topic) was to suggest that just as breathing is an autonomous organic process, "deliberating" is an autonomous process having evolved in the human Mind. We don't doubt the mechanistic independence of breathing because it is obvious. We doubt the mechanistic dynamics of choosing because, built-into (evolved) that process is the placement of the Subject "I." Hence "I am deliberating," seems like there is a being at the center of the mechanistic process pulling the strings at its will. I say there is not
Quoting RelativistI agree. But that's another conversation entirely.
[Reiterating that anything I say is unauthorative, and literally just my humble opinion, Grant me the freedom to just answer directly...]
The simple "one line" (likely it'll end up being multi-line) response is, because somewhere in the evolution of Mind, or what we call history, "being" emerged in its likely current state, triggering the necessary, but subtle, imperceptible *) organic feelings which correspond with that Signifier (and it's common local structure, like reality, existence, substance, essence,...,subject...). When the subject emerged it (very simplified), 1. "Stood in for" the Body (which has no self consciousness but is only present aware-ing. 2. (Eventually...but then all of it was/is Eventually. It's still eventual. One day, though extremely unlikely, we may be selfless, having evolved a system which drops the Subject...Eventually) Completely displaced the body: its organic sensation of a real world, displaced by constructions of that world, once removed from Reality, filtered, fictional; its feelings became emotions; its drives became the desire of these signifiers to project; from their the Dialectical process moving it along ( I'm leaving out a lot). At some point(s) in this, the Narrative form evolves, the necessary "I" participates in almost every sentence, or at least hangs back in the shadows. And now, (to answer your question when that dialectic takes place, the one "I" say (I know many do, I'm just speaking for myself) moves autonomously, without a being at the center, Mind and its Narrative, which has been structured with "being" with "I" and with "pulling the strings" (explaining our also Fictional concept of God without negating god--just as this negates the self without negating "its" reality albeit in an unspeakable form), constructs the Narrative signifier structure "I (the body) have made a free choice". These "meaningless" (because to the Body "meaning" has no meaning) Signifiers are sent as code through the fleshy infrastructure of the Body, triggering Body to feel those imperceptible feelings. But they are imperceptible as feelings because they are being "perceived" as the meaning, not the feelings. Now, the Body attuned to that Narrative "I" have made a choice. When really, "it" the "choice" was an autonomous process. What the Body did was feel and/or move, as a result of that process. But the Body did not (as it might for a bonobo who chooses to discard an unfinished banana) attune to the Natural feelings, drives, and actions, and then move on to the next in the successive nows (being), the Body attuned to the story and tge subjects role (becoming)...
*imperceptible because the Signifiers -- the very ones constructing free will -- have displaced the body's present aware-ing of the subtle feelings evolved to trigger a drive, to trigger an action.
Quoting Patterner
And now, perhaps, you see how there is a being now; its just that being nows "attention" is diverted by a moving train, it is empty and has no presence, and vainly constructs a self and refers to itself as being, but it is by structure and nature always moving, never there. As for the so called "free will" of the real being, the observer whose attention is diverted, free will? It doesn't care.
The great absurdity I perceive in discussion about hard determinism is the determinist attempts at persuasion. If hard determinism is true, then everything will happen as it will. You will attempt to persuade me because you were determined to do so, and whether or not I am persuaded is ultimately not up to me nor you. Yet, the determinist may still feel a sort of indignation if their argument is rejected, or pride if accepted, which are unreasonable emotions to have, considering the lack of agency involved. Again, you can still observe such phenomena and define terms such that the structure of the concepts like freedom and morals and values are preserved, but I think they lack the necessary property of leeway we intuitively accept in our folk notions of free will.
Needed. Please.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice."
The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral.
Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second.
Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral.
This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares?
But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem.
Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved (because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. Not a single idea on these pages is original. I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting.
The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
And I say there is nothing inherently wrong about making K's deontology the moral structure of history going forward. But where you might say it is anyway, universally and essentially, and we ought abide by it; I say it only is if "we" as in that autonomously moving process will have
made it so.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
All of that doesn't matter if meaning too, and choices mattering, are evolved mechanisms of that process.
What's your point? you might ask. If the system has evolved these sophisticated mechanisms of freedom choice and meaning, for all intents and purposes, they are real and do matter. Right ? I say yes they do. But my point is, whereas we insist on these as absolutes, as essences, the process has no essence, it is fleeting and empty of "thing in itself" etc. So openess and flexibility, are the way to go. reminded me of Taoism recently. Perhaps that is the moral imperative, be always as an uncarved block ready to serve the Way ( ie. Process or system).
But it cant comprehend that there can be no one at the helm, that it can be processes of causes and effects since the the emergence of mind and one's birth, in making a decision to go for an ice cream cone instead of killing the neighbor.
Does indeterminism? It wouldn't seem so to me.
That one is determined, does not entail that they have no free will: determinism does not preclude free will.
However, if one does go the hard determinist route, then, yes, moral responsibility does go out the window: ought implies can. Imagine you are going for a walk and two people crash into each other in a fatal car accident; imagine the cops detain you, although you were not involved in the accident whatsoever, and hold you morally responsible: would that make sense? Of course not! You didn't make any choices which related meaningfully to the car accident. If you are a hard determinist, however, then making a choice isn't a choice at all: it is like this car example. If you don't choose to rape someone and rape them, how would this be different than you walking by a car accident? It wouldn't. If you abandon free will, you abandon moral responsibility.
Fatalism does seem like a suitable position for a hard determinist though, as they do not believe in free will (in any form).
1) My genetic makeup, and every experience I've ever had, and everything about how I feel, and whatever other factors there may be, are all physically reducible. And, at the cusp of decision, they are all weighed against each other, as physical events, and the choice is determined by how all the physical interactions play out.
2) Consciousness is, at least in part, non-physical. A soul, or panpsychism, or something else. This does not rule out determinism. Consciousness still makes choices because of those factors, even though we can't possibly consciously weigh such an incalculable number of things.
3) Choices are [I]not[/I] based on those factors. At least not ultimately. I doubt anyone would deny the past plays at least some role. But perhaps the final instant is not determined by any physical or nonphysical weighing.
I think #3 is what fj means? In what way would we have any say in the matter if we don't make the decision based on factors from the past? Does "indetermed" mean "random"? If so, then how do we have any meaningful say in it?
I often chose randomly. I have been told I have Analysis Paralysis. (Which is very cool, and I now have a shirt that says [I]Master of Analysis Paralysis[/I].) I was told this because I take an inordinately long time to make decisions while playing board games. I often just have to pick an action for no reason just so I don't piss the other players off any more than I already have. But board games is fairly new. I've been unable to decide what to eat at restaurants for decades. I usually hope the waiter says one or another meal comes with noticably more food than the other(s). That's a good way to decide. Alas, there is usually not a clear winner in that regard. So I sit, unable to pick one over the other(s), until I just pick randomly, or my wife picks for me.
Under a standard account where your choices have multiple possible outcomes, and those choices are not fully pre-determined, then yes, indeterminism does give me say. Of course, you're probably wondering how this indeterminism is possible, especially if it's not just pure randomness. I have a theory for that, and though far-fetched, I think free will (which to me includes both sourcehood and leeway freedom) is indispensable to our experience, so so long as there is no contradiction in it's existence, we ought to believe or at least act as if it exists. (Although even if it is impossible, I still think we should probably believe in it anyway, as I've argued before)
I dont think it entails nihilism and fatalism, but it does set the grounds for them. Though Im sure many people are content with the implications of determinism, that they have zero responsibility, and their actions have somehow began outside of them.
I am surprised at how common this view is, albeit expressed in degrees of subtlety. That is, that those who have settled against free-will are doing so out of a psychological desire to be "free" of responsibility.
I don't believe that to be the case. To me the question is more about the nature/structure of human Mind/metaphysics than morality. I.e., the moral implications follow my judgment about whether or not we have free will, rather than informing it.
But I do find it interesting.
Genuinely - get into poker. Getting 'in the tank' is a common thing and the reason some tournaments take a week to play out. Decisions are long, arduous processes in poker. Think you'll enjoy.
I dont believe it to be the case either. The metaphysical judgement sets the grounds for the moral judgement. Thats why I said it sets the grounds for it.
But that crucial point is oddly missing from what you quoted. Did your past state determine that your present state would exclude that line?
God has nothing to do with it: if one doesn't believe in any kind of free will, then the use of a concept such as responsibility is absurd and irrational: they might as well say "you aren't actually responsible, but we are going to treat it as if you were". Do you see the issue?
Shockingly, all one needs to remedy this issue, at worst, is to accept a form of compatibilistic free will (;
:ok: Nice!!
I agree with this much, but disagree with suggesting that the
[Quote]... implications of determinism...[are] that they have zero responsibility.[/quote]
I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. This is in spite of the fact that all of our decision-making components originated outside ourselves. Indeed, we aren't responsible for our genetic makeup, don't fully control what we learn, are (somewhat) slaves to our conditioned responses, etc, but we still make the choices that we make. As the decision-maker, there is inherent responsibility for those decisions. We hold others accountable, and we ought to hold ourselves accountable. Accountability never means the past can be changed; it is only about the future decisions we (or others) will make. So what if we couldn't have made a different decision in that instant within its circumstances? We can learn from the consequences, and this can result in better decisions in the future.
I actually question the notion that Libertarian Free Will (LFW) entails the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) - the notion that LFW implies there's true contingency to our choices. Even under LFW, we are guided by our impulses, knowledge, assumptions, etc. Given some series of deliberative thoughts, how could there be a different outcome? We have followed some chain of reasoning, and are subject to the same impulses.
Now, people think we don't have free will. But we can't not be responsible for our actions. First, because that's just not acceptable. We can't have people getting away with, literally, murder just because we know we don't have free will, and the murderer couldn't have done otherwise. [I]Somebody[/I] has to pay! Second, because we still [I]feel[/I] that we are responsible for our actions. You can't tell me I'm not responsible. Even if I'm [I]not[/I]! Third, because the feeling that we're responsible, and the virtue of holding people responsible, is part of our culture, and our language.
We don't think of punishing a storm or avalanche for killing someone. Or a swarm of bees, although it seems that was their intention. We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. We just can't have it killing again. We don't feel it really had a choice, for whatever reason, and don't hate it. Maybe it was an abused animal. Maybe it was in great pain at the moment it killed. Maybe it was trained to kill (if that can be done without abuse).
But we hold humans responsible. We harbor very bad feeling for humans who do evil. In many cases, we blame the owner of the dog, even when the situation doesn't allow us to impose any legal penalty. All because we are not simply subject to our pasts and physical factors, like storms and avalanches, bees, asked dogs.
Except we are.
I think you are right. It seems to contradict "itself" but the "reason" there is ultimately no freedom (in the more or less conventional way we use that word) is because like, as you say, responsibility, choice and free choice are built-in mechanisms of that process which temporarily ends in a "decision" action or idea. You might say we have freedom and responsibility but they just happen as steps in an overall autonomously moving System.
I note that I may have taken liberties with my expansion on how I interpreted your
point. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood.
Quoting Relativist
Yes, and that too, the "learn from" and "better decisions" are mechanism which evolved in the so called decision making process, so that when we "learn" and when we make "better decisions" of course, we (falsely) conclude it was our freedom which allowed for it. But these are functions of Mind which move "for" "us" but there is no individual particular of that "us" guiding that process and pulling its strings.
Yes. In fact we regret having to "punish" it. So what makes us, the conceited ape, so different? I believe it is only that we use "language," and that language has evolved into a system of such complexity in its storage in the human brain that its laws and dynamics (though awesome and functional as hell) have displaced the truth.
And we "believe" what it says. And it most conventionally says we have freedom and responsibility so we believe it.
Of course all of which creates the deeper problem that believing we have no free will is equally a dictate of that language and it's process. And I haven't settled comfortably yet with how to resolve that seeming paradox other than to say settling at the point of paradox must be the closest we can get to the truth inside that system of Language.
Quoting Patterner
...and there's that paradox...that precipice of truth?
My own test is simple: if the action originates in the agent he is responsible for it. He willed it. It cannot be otherwise. Given that we are our impulses, knowledge, and assumptions, the responsibility for the act remains on the agent whose impulses, knowledge, and assumptions they are. Unless someone else or some other force is moving the agents body, his acts are determined by him and by nothing else, and the responsibility lies there.
So far no determinist has shown that any act or choice was determined by anything else, and until that happens I cannot follow it.
That seems incoherent, on it's face, though. Further, the agent is deluded, on the accounts determinists wield. This is not implausible at all, and fits with your account.
Its a source-hood argument. If his action is not determined by anything else, how is it compatible with determinism?
Well, ... I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. But in this case, objective morality is argued as causal to all concepts of balance. That is to say in my model, the fear, anger, and desire are the only forces in the universe. Instead of reality being a dichotomy as most systems will show, a duality, the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions.
We can go into more depth but suffice it to say that my model would predict that first there SEEMS to be a duality, with a polarity that is set up. In the emotional realm this first order divide is between fear and desire. These are the ruling emotions of any duality. I can't really go totally on and on here, but things like left and right wing, order vs chaos, and even the polarity between male and female as genders is all caused by this 'false' duality. But those energies are MORE OBVIOUS and yet delusional (unstable) within the 'false' duality. I say more obvious because when we talk about such polarities, that delusional model, many based on it, seems to only realize the two sides. Why?
The answer is that the emotive force of anger is unique and strange compared to the other two. Instead of primarily participating in the duality, anger splits in the middle and joins BOTH sides equally. This means its very nature is confusing to the unaware. Why does anger do this? Because anger is all about one thing, and one thing only when it is moral, and that is balance. So, anger is actually the force for unity of all, and balance of all. If you refer back to the Enneagram bit I posted, you will recall that Enneatypes 8, 9, and 1 are anger types. The type 9 is the anger infused anger. So, the sin of that type is laziness and of course they are known for their calm, peacekeeping and unity-seeking ways. The two go together. It seems odd to the unaware that we properly state that anger is the emotion of calm. But, it is.
Amid the three types of love, friendship, passion, and compassion; anger's part is the compassion, the so-called empty love, the love that needs neither friendship, nor passion to exist. It simply IS, balanced love, love equally for all. And yes, that is from anger.
So, how do we relate that to objective morality? These balances are laws of nature. They are not accidents at all. They MUST be this way and only this way. The 'false' duality sets up a tension. But it has no substance. Keep in mind, these are emotions, the working parts of moral or immoral choice.
How does morality relate then to natural law, to physics? Well, fear is the emotion of the past. All order proceeds from the past. And desire is the emotion of the future. All chaos stems from the randomness of desire. Only the eternal moment of now and all of physical reality is 'created' or emerges as a result of the non-delusional third emotive force of anger. Anger says no to fear and no to desire both. So each of the three emotions is acting on both the other two to cause a PERFECT balance. It is only that PERFECT balance that allows for a tiny emotive force in any way, to move things, to choose. This PERFECT balance is the state of free will, and the universe would be impossible without it. It that balance was subjective, was off by even the plank length, the entire universe would not have the balance to form.
Of course, again, because of this balance, so PERFECT, is the background state of the universe, an objective guarantee to all entities, even subatomic particles, are possessed of choice to a degree. Choice is literally the only thing in the universe. It causes everything else. And its basis of empowerment is free will. Determinism is a vast and easy temptation of fear-side foolishness. They are looking at probability and that effort will fail as the limit described by the singular path of each emotion to perfection. Only all three together in balance can arrive at perfection.
It goes further and connected more, this model. Literally the atom shows the truth of my model in every way. The false dichotomy is the proton and electrons match in charge. The protons are manifestations of fear grouping together near the more confident and balanced anger bodies, the neutrons. And, no surprise the chaotic desire monkeys are out making friends in random directions all around that system, the nucleus. All civilizations form this way, all groups form this way. And what is the nature of the system? Trinary! Proton, electron, neutron; fear, desire, and anger; respectively.
So, we have the three tenses of time and the basic structure of the atom, each showing, resonating with the model, the emotive model of reality.
Quoting ENOAH
That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. If you are TRYING to say that some choices are hard and that seems like not free, then that would be a wrong opinion. Yes, admittedly, some choices seem impossible or not free. But choice is infinite and our delusions, lack of awareness, lack of effort, lack of restraint; are the problems, the immoral aims we choose that make it seems not to be free will.
Quoting ENOAH
And then you MUST say what your theory is. You do not here. So, I cannot explain how your theory is wrong, if you do not have one.
Quoting ENOAH
Yes, luckily, freedom and morality both exist and it cannot be otherwise, as shown above. And by the way, luck has NOTHING to do with it. It could only be this way.
If everything were determined, it would feel that way. And the universe would implode to static death in infinitely small time. It does not. So, the imbalance is not there. Instead, we do have a persistent and rigorous balance. Things are so stable, and we so confounded by our delusions, that we are 'stuck' earning wisdom to be better choosers. It MUST be this way.
Quoting ENOAH
No, there is no need. There is no problem with morality. The problem is immoral choice. Imbalances impeded our progress towards perfection. So, we have only ourselves to blame. Progress CAN BE MADE. If morality were subjective, no progress can be made. That is because what subjective morality really means, is that from one nanosecond to the next acting the same way would feel perhaps 180 degrees different. We would literally wake up and feel that quick and rapacious murder was correct. It would be like every M Night Shyamaylan movie all rolled into one. Moving goalposts on feeling would be the least worrying aspect of it. Because of what I just described, atoms themselves would not cohere together. They would fall apart if morality were subjective. Almost instantly, the pressure to make a choice would become impossible to overcome and the entire system would die in frozen lock. Really, people have NO IDEA what they are saying when they suggest that morality could even possibly be subjective. Morality upholds all other laws of nature. Their consistency means morality is objective. Time and the atom and the emotive model are the only thing holding this universe together and all of it is only free will.
Quoting ENOAH
Well, yes. But, the whole idea of subjective morality is just chaos and insanity. People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. Truth and objective morality state quite obviously that perfection is the only worthy aim. Incremental progress is laudable. But this requires the choice to suffer to earn wisdom. Each suffering is a chance, an opportunity to then choose to earn wisdom or to deny it.
It is only with meaning being objective that the concept of balance itself is possible, That simple statement is a writ small proof for objective morality.
Quoting ENOAH
Yes, sort-of. I mean the whole evil thing is really overdone. It's just LESS good. Just by being and having some balance there is a ton of good happening. The universe's constant serving up of the truth of that balance amid free will is being thrown back in its face, in our face, because WE ARE IT. As you no doubt can tell here, 'God', 'All', 'truth', the universe, and Love, are really all just synonymous things. There is no point to separating them. Fear tries to, to limit, to flee in fear from that truth, and is responsible for all separation. And all of those separations are only delusional. Desire tries to get, but, it tries to get everything in every direction, and there is only one step you can make that is perfect at any time and from any state and that is the single next step towards perfection.
And we have REAL evidence. The genuine happiness that is a consequence of a BETTER step towards wisdom and morality exists and is demonstrable in every case. It's all there ubiquitously and omnipresent, free will, and perfection, available to all. Choose, and suffer the consequences. Only free will can support that truth.
Quoting ENOAH
Yes, you can take that tack. I have thought much on this. Is Love and Truth a tyranny? Is it finally some odd form of evil? No. The reason why is that morality IS objective. In other words being biased is ok in one case only, when that bias is to perfection, the GOOD. So, this means GOOD is actually good. It is a natural law of the universe that good is better for you. Because of free will only, we only are to blame for our choices and thus, all suffering we experience is our fault entirely. The infinite nature of choice means we could at any point just choose perfection. But our delusions feed over-expression of fear, anger, or desire; even all three; and we fail.
Love is NOT a tyranny because GOOD is objective. If morality were not objective, then the system of Love would be a tyranny. If free will did not exist, then the system of Love would be a tyranny. Luckily free will exists and morality is objective. And, by the way, luck clearly has nothing to do with it!
Quoting ENOAH
Incorrect. It did not evolve.
It was present as free will at the dawn of time. All particles partake of free will. 'Inanimate' matter is NOT inanimate. It is choosing.
Quoting ENOAH
No, there could not be such a system. It would have no basis. The model I describe explains EVERYTHING. The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible.
The reason why is that you cannot get to here with your model. It would fail long before. And you still need physics to exist for NO REASON. In my model physics is supported wholly by morality. Physics is caused by morality.
Quoting ENOAH
I agree, but you are wrong. You are wrong because that is NOT the contrary of what I stated and you loaded your submission with that assertion.
The contrary of my statement you responded to is that the left and the right DO NOT have vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. But they do. And by the way it's OBVIOUS I mean an immoral interest, not a moral one.
For the left and right TO EXIST at all is immoral. There should be only moral balance. So, you cannot should halfway. If you start with the perfect moral shoulds, there should be no left and no right, let alone each of these 'teams of delusion' working for their side only, which is what happens.
Quoting ENOAH
I disagree. I think many of mine are.
Quoting ENOAH
And yet that is the moral task: to rise above our state and aim at perfection, REGARDLESS of the difficulty. The infinite power of choice and the PERFECT balance of free will make this possible all underpinned by objective morality. ANY OTHER state would collapse into ruin immediately.
Granted we are all one. Granted we are all responsible for the actions of all of us. We can attend the delusion of separation at any scope and there is diminishment. But, we cannot escape then the impression that since fear exists, and separation is plausible and entertained as a notion, that it has a function to join with the other functions of unity and motivation. In other words, AS LONG AS you reunify for the final, you may consider the contributions of each part in that unity. That means the contribution of the individually scoped CHOOSER matters and can be judged separately than the whole, as long as we admit the whole is the final perfection. This means individual blame also matters as contributory.
Quoting ENOAH
The rejection is immoral. It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all.
All words like 'complexity' or 'confusion', etc are there because we are unequal to the will to be perfect to use our infinite choice to transcend our state that we are deluded to believe is 'hard'. It FEELS so hard because we make it hard on ourselves. The more of us that resonate their goodness more, the more the rest will feel it and join in. Of course at some point in this process the TERROR of not measuring up or being able to choose well will erode the progress towards perfection even more. A moral act is the single hardest act a person can choose.
Quoting ENOAH
I mean, it sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you?
Quoting ENOAH
I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. I have a super strong type 4 vector. It is my second highest personality trait in the Enneagram. So I can say that with some understanding and impunity. But that type is the source of the immoral feeling that 'you can't know this because only I experienced it' bovine poo. That is incorrect. We are all one. We are connected despite immoral denial. We DO experience that SAME thing. Even rape victims are wrong to separate themselves or attach only to other such victims as a 'precious' thing. They make their suffering like the One Ring is to Gollum. The thing he should discard, he keeps as precious. OK, do it! It will rankle your happiness until you make the right choice and discard it willingly, never seeking it again, that feeling of being so special that you are separate from all as well. You are damaged goods, born bad, a cursed entity. It's so tiresome. Drama ... The tragic-romantic type is aptly nicknamed.
I ran out of steam and must sleep!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial
I don't think you've quite groked what I'm using to object** - It says nothing about hte 'reality' that it seems indeterminate. The point being, that you feel the source of your decision is internal (in the sense that it is world-independent) has nothing to do with what's actually going on.
Which, obviously, on the contrary account it is, in fact determined and cannot be otherwise. This would be to deny causal relations entirely. If they hold, they hold. All actions/events have prior causes. If you're suggesting that an agent is able to conjure ex-nihilo motivation to act out of literal thin air (in fact, out of Ether) i'm finding that hard to grok. It leads to absurd notions like acting out a reactive behaviour you have not been caused to have. We, generally, call these breaks downs in causality mental illness (though, you'll not this does not change the causal relationship qua relationship, merely qua resulting behaviour - a misfire, as it were, on the causal basis).
Is the suggestion that there's some further fact about decision-making that separates it from the physical facts underlying the brain and body?
** if you in fact have understood this, and your response was the all the same, I'm unsure where to go. That seems to ignore the objection.
In certain contexts, they can have a psychologically soothing effect, releasing brain capacity, thus lending to action.
[i]Katsumoto : You believe a man can change his destiny?
Algren : I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed.[/i]
That's amazing! Holy cow!
Is there some other cause besides you that raised your arm? As I mentioned, the determinist ought to be able to say what else besides the agent caused his action. If youre saying the agent who he was 1 second ago caused the action, then so much the better. The anterior state to the agent is still the agent.
[Theres no point in "going along with it" because it sounds intriguing. Is it compelling? Please indulge me. It is something I need to understand before I settle upon it, continue to play with it, or defer it indefinitely. I prefer settling. But I respect your time and appreciate the agony you felt pushing through until sleep pinned you. So please take your time.] that is, should you wish to reply]
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Thank you. You did. But I am as yet far from having mastered it. And anyway, I wanted to see how it ties in specifically here. Sorry if I seem to be exploiting.]
Quoting Chet Hawkins
"Emotions": are you entertaining any version of universal awareness/consciousness, then, at the root of/the source or essence of reality?
Quoting Chet Hawkins EDIT: The middle of this is my reply; not your quote. I cannot fix it.
Oh. OK. Choice functions as these (so called) emotions? The triad is both what structures moral choice (noumenally?) independent of human mind/existence; and its (moral choice's) function?
You'll likely answer as we proceed. But why must it be the Laws of Nature? Im ready to settle on that these three structure and move choice But isn't it just as possible that these are the Laws of human Mind? I won't argue the point. My intent is to understand yours. But when I offer alternatives as I just did, these are where I need better comprehension or more convincing.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I should've read on.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ok. I've referred to the expression of your ideas as poetic. Now I am fully confident having read the overall structures of your insughts that there are layers upon layers of complexity which led to the projection into the world in its poetic seeming form. Yes that aspect draws me in. But in this paragraph I respectfully say either the poetry is so distracting that I am missing the how-we-got-there; or you're describing it only poetically. Because--I repeat, I know you have reasoned the laws and dynamics--what I'm reading sounds like epic mythology: in the beginning the forces of desire and fear battled it out and anger emerged to balance the two and all of our current morality are projections of that battle etc.
I'm wondering, is it actually that? Out of Being emerged these actual emotions?
If so, would it not make even more (not equal) sense to say that out of human language emerged these now dynamic and law following emotions which form the basis of human moral choice? Why bother even looking for parallels in physics. And as for order and time, I say damn right these too emerged out of human Mind and only for human mind. But again, not now.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Off topic of understanding your hypotheses (who knows, topic might shift if you raise further questions) but to be concise.
An in-between is choice itself is a "final" (for that event effecting the choice) mevanism in a process which runs not by the free wilfully movements of a central being (I.e. the so called self), but runs autonomously in accordance with evolved and well tread laws and dynamics. The end result is the function of the countless triggers which got it there. Like Dominoes falling. But unle dominoes no body set them up, each trigger is the result of a preceding trigger right up to the so called final settlement at belief, and in many cases belief is also choice. Choice then triggers the body to feel and to act. There was no free will, but there was also nothing pre-determined. In between.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I am genuinely surprised at how often variations of that have popped up. I think there might be value in psychoanalysis for the roots of philosophies. But not as an argument against in this way. I could say people want free will to be true because their ego's are terrified at the thought of its own futility (the accurate view us, BTW, not that the ego is futile. It serves a function. Just not the one our Narratives have brought it to, I.e. not the center of being).
Quoting Chet Hawkins
See? I love the sound of that. And God! I want to be convinced. But I still believe choice evolved etc
.Quoting Chet Hawkins
And I say, briefly, the happiness is not some ontological real pre existing force. It is a result of the right choice (right defined by convention, learned by trial and error, conditioned response) triggering happy feelings. Then why choose immoral? Because by the same process they trigger other feelings, power or pleasure related feelings. And that individual was constructed to trigger such feelings. It was written on her "soul" She had no choice. But not fatalism nor nihilism. If some series of triggers came along and fit just right, she might choose happiness over power in the future.
I'm going to stop here and read the rest of your post. Again, thank you.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ok. Please, how? Not just the one I proposed. How does it close the book on everything?
Quoting Chet Hawkins
And (not having reflected deeply on it) this is not the sort of thing I need convincing. What I still cannot comprehend is why that statement must be true pre-human existence; why it is absolute, a law of nature. But I'm going to re-read.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
You may be thinking relatively. What I mean is that you did not simply learn English literacy, reflect, and come up with these ideas.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I'm grinning admiringly at your "That is all"
I sense you might not even mean that is all for moral choice, but maybe for the structure and movement of reality. Why? Even if you were accurately describing the mechanisms at play in moral choice, why are they not functioning within a (for lack) "greater" system?
"Quoting Chet Hawkins
What you were referring to was my recognition of a contradiction in my current leaning. That is, if choices are the result of autonomous processes of cause and effect (triggers) and yet, I recognize that within that system we yet have a duty to act morally. How? My answer was that the duty and the actions in accordance therewith are also movements within that system. And I admit as of yet I cannot articulate further. But in another thread I reached a belief that certain paradoxes might be the result of having reached the boundaries of the system and at a precipice of truth.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Ok it's good I have the chance to clarify. I didn't mean people sharing in this forum as a class. I mean, in response to my self posed question--what triggers us to duty and responsibility if not having a good moral nature-- and i say the mechanism which leads us to make moral choices comes to us from others who simply share the right statement at the right time and it fits (like people sharing statements here. I may read something which triggers me in a certain direction not even intended by the writer).
You'll notice, upon any amount of reflection, you've stated an effect and asked there's a different 'cause'. So, I could leave off here. But..
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm not, though I understand the objection I think it fails the first hurdle: You have to have a further fact view about hte agent for this to be coherent. Unless you can delineate out hte agent from 'its' prior causes, we have no discussion. Do causes go 'into' an agent, and then die? Leaving the agent at it's own whim? This seems absurd unless you're using theology to explain it. What happens to these causes? Are their effect non-existent qua conscious motivator?? It doesn't seem to me open to claim causation is real, but doesn't effect conscious agents.
You can give me any example you like. Does anything else in the universe determine an agents actions? What prior causes? What causes are you speaking of that go into an agent and determine his actions?
I've posed you several questions. I await thsoe answers before embarking on another avenue.
Ill just reiterate the point to which you replied. So far no determinist has shown that any act or choice was determined by anything else, and until that happens I cannot follow it.
Again, I understand the objection. But your position is entirely incoherent and unless you are happy to bite the bullets i've outlined, Why would I take it seriously as your position? Do you bite those bullets, or are you just having a stab at a theory?
Unless you bite the bullet that an agent is something other than a collection of causes and effects, I'm not interested. If you don't bite that bullet, your position isn't even available to you despite your discomfort.
I dont care whether youre interested or not. I note only that you have not provide any counter. Your objection, as far as it was legible, I could not understand. Maybe you can clarify.
An agent is something with the capacity to act. Im not sure what a collection of causes and effects is, nor do I understand what bullet you want me to bite. Not a single ounce of discomfort involved here.
Do you hold a further fact view about agents/identities/persons?
I dont really care about your fee-fees. So maybe we can dispense with them.
I do not hold a further fact view about identities.
I have provided adequate counter in each of my replies. It is not that interesting to see you deny them, and it is an out-right red flag that you would introduce a line like this:
Quoting NOS4A2
Neither my feelings being in play, or your misapprehension of their presence bears here. My objection goes through, currently as you have not even attempted to address it. Please refrain from random underhanded Twitter insults. When you prevaricate, it is hard to converse. This has nothing to do with my feelings, and i'd appreciate you rising to the level of a decent interlocutor, if you're going to respond.
Im talking about human beings, which are not vague, blurry sets of whatever. I happen to identify as one. What further facts do you require?
I thought it should be easy to name one thing in the universe besides yourself that determines your choices or actions.
You have essentially stated the 'further fact' (in the conceptual sense, anyhow) in this: ||Quoting NOS4A2
(A couple of examples of what some posit as the 'further fact' are immaterial souls, Descartes res cogitans (though, that's disputed I believe, as I'm positing it anyhow) or the identity of say a base-code having been input to a simulation (as unlikley as that theory is)).
Hmm, fair enough. If that is your view, then you do not think you can accept that "human being" reduces to the lower-level facts about ourselves such asbiology, mentation, cognition, environment, memory, (adapt)ability, (ir)rationality etc.. etc.. In this sense, you must hold (for your stated position to hold) that there is something other than these things in which "NOS4A2" consists(the conceptual further fact)).
What is that in which you feel you consist? You "identity" as a human being, which is merely to say you are emotionally comfortable with using that label based on your own terminology and, most likely, something akin to my above approximation in italics. Sure. We can, in that sense, allow for a human to identify as a cat, if we like the description. To be clear, what I am saying (and seems self-evident) is that the notion of human being i've italicised in my reply here is in fact, a vague bundle of seemingly weakly-connected attributes that have only a relational property and not a further coherence into some objective identity. They don't really establish any stable, temporally-relevant 'identity' without some further discussion of what identity consists in.
I should probably note that it's occurred you may be doing something I've run into a few times (and that's not wrong or bad or anything negative). If you are speaking on how one identifies then we're at cross-purposes. I am speaking on the debate around how it is that one could be the same person three years part, say. In what does identity per se exist for a human? If you're not, wonderful, that is helpful :)
I am aware humans grow and age, and that I am not identical to myself as I was three years ago. The physical facts and properties change but I do not require any further metaphysical facts beyond them. For the sake of an enduring identity and a further fact for your concept a proper name suffices enough for me.
However you want to identify yourself, there are an infinite amount of other things one cannot identify as. Which one of them would you say determines your actions?
Otherwise your body would run off, hypothetically speaking, and in trying to take you for a ride that's infinitely painful, you would probably float up into space in some ethereal form and exist somewhere in-between this universe and your previous form, and somewhere else, but more somewhere else. There is an element of freedom to will, the part of your life to cause expression, petty imagination, and so on, but most of this universes type of life is predetermined and regularly re-determined(as per sleep and dreaming). There are constraints, you have physical form - meaning that you can only perform within the constraints of physique. The universe's form is physical, meaning a lot of things were determined since the beginning, such as house building and monkeys. However, however small it may be, free will is necessary to prevent fatalism.