Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tinker Grey" data-source="post: 77657771" data-attributes="member: 671"><p>I watched about half. I'd agree, if I understand you, that Sapolsky had the better of the argument.</p><p></p><p>I gave up, in part, because I was disappointed that it appeared that they were talking across purposes. Dan, like Sam Harris in the Moral Landscape, has redefined the terms. In my experience, people debated/discussing free will define it Sapolsky's way. That is, one can not logically escape a chain of causal events that made you decide/choose what you chose. Harris says if we agree that human flourishing is the goal, then we can objectively determine that certain actions achieve that goal. Therefore morality is objective. I agree with the first part but not the second. The choice of "human flourishing" is arbitrary and subjective. (Now, given that we are evolved to be social species and that we cannot help but find paths of cooperation, it's a moot point. We are evolved to find a "moral" path.)</p><p></p><p>As such, I find Dennett uncompelling. I don't talk about free will that way. I don't know of anyone that does. Certainly, our evolution compels us to behave in ways that <em>feel</em> are free. But, that's not the same thing as actually being free to escape our conditioning or genetics or whatever.</p><p></p><p>So, yeah, Sapolsky wins.</p><p></p><p>[aside]</p><p>I was disappointed with Dennett's snark. Last refuge of a scoundrel and all that. (Yeah, I know that's not the original meaning of that phrase.)</p><p>[/aside]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tinker Grey, post: 77657771, member: 671"] I watched about half. I'd agree, if I understand you, that Sapolsky had the better of the argument. I gave up, in part, because I was disappointed that it appeared that they were talking across purposes. Dan, like Sam Harris in the Moral Landscape, has redefined the terms. In my experience, people debated/discussing free will define it Sapolsky's way. That is, one can not logically escape a chain of causal events that made you decide/choose what you chose. Harris says if we agree that human flourishing is the goal, then we can objectively determine that certain actions achieve that goal. Therefore morality is objective. I agree with the first part but not the second. The choice of "human flourishing" is arbitrary and subjective. (Now, given that we are evolved to be social species and that we cannot help but find paths of cooperation, it's a moot point. We are evolved to find a "moral" path.) As such, I find Dennett uncompelling. I don't talk about free will that way. I don't know of anyone that does. Certainly, our evolution compels us to behave in ways that [I]feel[/I] are free. But, that's not the same thing as actually being free to escape our conditioning or genetics or whatever. So, yeah, Sapolsky wins. [aside] I was disappointed with Dennett's snark. Last refuge of a scoundrel and all that. (Yeah, I know that's not the original meaning of that phrase.) [/aside] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom