Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

The complication in this, for me, is that I'm not sure determinism can be Jerry-rigged in such a way that it ONLY applies to our sexual behaviors, and if this is the case, and I think it is, then Determinism is the LAST thing that folks, in say, the LGBTQ+ community or the Ultra-Left will want to subscribe to in defining their own behaviors and ideology because...

This doesn't even reach the level required to be defined as word salad.

 

[Bradskii]

You seem to be confused as to how I'm using "irrational" since I'm speaking of determination by the laws of nature, in which case the semantic content of an argument is irrelevant to whether or not it is accepted. If materialist determinism is true, then our evaluation of semantics in arguments is purely a matter of illusion with the real explanation being found in chemistry and electricity, which the meaning of the various terms of debate have no impact upon.

Every decision you make is based on input. The process whereby it does that is via electrical and chemical means. That's a known. A given. The way the brain works - how you process the input and make a decision based on it is a neurological process. That what neurons do. Also by electrical and chemical means. You cannot separate semantics from any part of that process. Not in any way whatsoever. If you say 'Should I get a cat?' then the meaning of that question, its semantic content, is determined by the process. There's nothing 'somewhere else' that does it. Although you seem keen on this undetectable something that is involved but refuse to give any information about it whatsoever.

Nope, they emerge from the physical fabric of our bodies. Which makes things like the atmosphere we're breathing in, the food we ate for lunch, and such, far more instrumental in "convincing" us than the meaning involved in the arguments we engage with.

This was covered very early on. Any decision you make will likely be determined by many variables; your mood, the weather, whether you are hungry. It's why you are almost always unaware of why you made a decision you did. I'm limiting it to a simple explanation-acceptance/denial-decision to keep it as simple as possible.

If materialist determinism is true, especially of the eliminativist variety that you seem to be pushing, then things like the meaning of the arguments and our reasoning are illusions of a purely physical apparatus. Something you seem to be affirming, while denying with your own participation.

That they cannot be input and you cannot recognise them and determine their meaning and determine a response by any other method other than physical, electrical and chemical changes does not mean that they are illusions. This applies whether you have free will or not. If that method is not the only one, then what do you think an alternative is? I don't think that you are denying that our neurons are what's doing the work when we are thinking of a decision we have to make, but it sures sounds like it at this point. Because what you are arguing would be true, as I said, even if you had free will.

Again, "determined" has a very specific meaning in terms of physical processes which is a subtly different meaning from being swayed by an argument. It seems like it should go without saying, but whether or not something is convincing depends on our active participation with it. We're not simply passively receiving arguments and then flipping a switch from convinced to not convinced, but weighing out the possibilities and considering the implications among other tasks that require a degree of freedom in order to operate.

You are free to consider all inputs. You are generally not constrained in any way unless information is not available. You are actively involved in the decision you make, which will be based on the input. I keep saying this, but how could it possibly be any other way? With or without free will.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This doesn't even reach the level required to be defined as word salad.

I bet if Theodosius Dobzhansky offered you his more existential Christianized explanation, it'd make more sense...

Between Darwin and Dostoevsky

When he was young and Russia was in the throes of revolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) felt the “urgency of finding a meaning of life…in the bloody

publicorthodoxy.org

 

[Bradskii]

I can't speak for @Bradskii (though he flat out denies it in a response I can see on the same page of posts from May), but when I watched Sapolsky talk about these things, it was clear to the extent he was presenting policy changes (for example school discipline) that these were a consequence of his conclusion of (hard?) determinism, rather than political goals that he uses a philosophical position (determinism) to achieve.

I can't imagine I'd deny it as it's one of the conclusions he comes to. That the only real result of coming to terms with determinism is that we have to come to terms with how we treat others. And retributive justice is the example he uses. And which I have brought up a number of times.

 

[Bradskii]

I bet if Theodosius Dobzhansky offered you his more existential Christianized explanation, it'd make more sense...

You might note a quote of his under this sentence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You might note a quote of his under this sentence.

Yes. That's one of two reasons why I cited the article.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. That's one of two reasons why I cited the article.

It's the only valid reason. Dragging an already unwieldly thread off into the bushes looking for an 'existential Christianized explanation' is not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's the only valid reason. Dragging an already unwieldly thread off into the bushes looking for an 'existential Christianized explanation' is not.

So, when do we start talking about ethics ... ? So far, this thread has been anything but that.

 

[Bradskii]

So, when do we start talking about ethics ... ? So far, this thread has been anything but that.

We've had quite a few posts on it. We already consider extenuating circumstances when sentencing someone. We argue that someone's background, or education or family history or IQ are to be taken into account when thinking about culpability. That these factors determine to some extent, his or her behaviour. This is whether free will exists or not. It seems a morally acceptable position to take in either case. Determinism would mean that it's immoral not to take this position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can't imagine I'd deny it as it's one of the conclusions he comes to. That the only real result of coming to terms with determinism is that we have to come to terms with how we treat others. And retributive justice is the example he uses. And which I have brought up a number of times.

The "it" was political/anti-Christian motive for the determinism argument. The response in question can be seen by clicking on the quoted text in my post and scrolling down a few posts to your response.

 

[Bradskii]

The "it" was political/anti-Christian motive for the determinism argument.

Then I have no problem in discounting that. I have seen some Christian apologists working backwards from the soul to then claim that determinism is false. But I can't recall reading anyone who was using a claim of determinism as some means to attack Christianity.

 

[Fervent]

Every decision you make is based on input. The process whereby it does that is via electrical and chemical means. That's a known. A given. The way the brain works - how you process the input and make a decision based on it is a neurological process. That what neurons do. Also by electrical and chemical means. You cannot separate semantics from any part of that process. Not in any way whatsoever. If you say 'Should I get a cat?' then the meaning of that question, its semantic content, is determined by the process. There's nothing 'somewhere else' that does it. Although you seem keen on this undetectable something that is involved but refuse to give any information about it whatsoever.

Only if you assume a deterministic materialism is this statement supportable, and it seems to miss the critical element in that the semantic content becomes superfluous to the whole description. Certainly, it is the underlying process that determines what semantic content is present, but the driving force is not the semantic content but the physiological elements within the body which engage without reference to the semantics of it all. Chemical and electrical processes depend on chemical and electrical relationships, so if thought is nothing more than a byproduct of chemical and electrical signaling then it is incapable of acting as a prior determinant, instead you have an illusion of being convinced by evidence and arguments but the real instrument that lead to your conclusions is the chlorine in your drinking water or some other chemical constituent.

This was covered very early on. Any decision you make will likely be determined by many variables; your mood, the weather, whether you are hungry. It's why you are almost always unaware of why you made a decision you did. I'm limiting it to a simple explanation-acceptance/denial-decision to keep it as simple as possible.

When it gets down to brass tacks, it all comes down to physiology according to you. Mood is an illusion, though weather may be a causative force. But when we break down what you are claiming, it undermines your own justification because the only reason you would have arrived at the conclusion if it were true is by a complete accident of nature. It is only when we accept some form of free will that our reasoning and evaluation of arguments and evidence comes into play. And the fact that you're not defending the claim that free will is an illusion as an accident of physiology implies that you don't actually believe that free will is an illusion and instead merely adopt that position because it serves some other end.

That they cannot be input and you cannot recognise them and determine their meaning and determine a response by any other method other than physical, electrical and chemical changes does not mean that they are illusions. This applies whether you have free will or not. If that method is not the only one, then what do you think an alternative is? I don't think that you are denying that our neurons are what's doing the work when we are thinking of a decision we have to make, but it sures sounds like it at this point. Because what you are arguing would be true, as I said, even if you had free will.

If the reality is purely physical, then it does follow that they are illusions. Though perhaps you are confused as to what "illusion" means and are taking it as some statement of unreality? And yes, I am denying that our neurons are solely doing the work. Though that isn't to say they aren't a significant part of the process, but it seems apparent to me when nonsense like what you are gleefully swallowing despite your inability to live in a consistent manner with your supposed beliefs is taken seriously that those who believe in the completeness of the physical are desperate for an explanation despite all current explanations being completely incapable of capturing our phenomenal experience accurately.

You are free to consider all inputs. You are generally not constrained in any way unless information is not available. You are actively involved in the decision you make, which will be based on the input. I keep saying this, but how could it possibly be any other way? With or without free will.

I am free? How does that happen without free will? Am I not pre-determined to only consider the inputs that I am determined to consider?

 

[Bradskii]

And yes, I am denying that our neurons are solely doing the work.

You have spend umpteen posts and many days trying to avoid explaining what this undetectable something is. Are we finally going to find out?

 

[o_mlly]

We've been here before with this OP. In the 2+-year-old thread below, he attempts to rationalize a "good rape".

We can only guess why he continually attempts to illogically debunk Christian morals in these forums. Some people living immoral lives, or who have others they care for living immoral lives, attempt unsuccessfully to rationalize away the guilt associated with those immoral life choices. It would be better that they acknowledge their bias and give up attempts to have others join them in their irrational denial of morality.

• Post #1,106
• Oct 14, 2021
• Forum: Ethics & Morality
• Is there an objective morality?

Now the debate reduces to the essence of objectivity in claims. If the claim that the earth is spherical is an objective claim (even though not all agree) why is that so? What is essentially different in the epistemology that determines a spherical earth and an immoral act? Both are based on evidence and reason.

Some claim that objectivity is reserved for claims that are only external to human beings themselves. When the subject becomes its own object, there is a greater possibility that bias might impregnate the knowledge. However, just because we can be more objective in observing things outside ourselves does not mean that we cannot objectively observe things about ourselves. Bias, a preference or an inclination, inhibits impartial judgment. If I know bias exists, I should be reasonably skeptical of any all-inclusive claims based on such knowledge. However, if all rational persons agree on a claim made regarding an observation about ourselves (as in the immorality of rape) then we know bias does not exist. An unbiased claim is an objective claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We've had quite a few posts on it. We already consider extenuating circumstances when sentencing someone. We argue that someone's background, or education or family history or IQ are to be taken into account when thinking about culpability. That these factors determine to some extent, his or her behaviour. This is whether free will exists or not. It seems a morally acceptable position to take in either case. Determinism would mean that it's immoral not to take this position.

It's great to know that with "determinism," we'll still have to "argue" about what the factors actually "are." And in that ongoing argument, the most interesting thing will be who it is that gains enough political power to push others to the side and .................... fill in the blanks of these determinant factors for all the rest of us, which is what I've been attempting to say here without much perlocutionary success.

So no, your insistence about how "determinism" infers that it's necessarily immoral to not take this position [in all cases] doesn't quite fully solve the "Is-ought Problem," let alone prescribe a new order of inquiry for Human Rights.

And Sapolsky wants to further instantiate the already ethereal notion of "determinism"??????????

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Hans. It's one of the better ones I've seen you write.

(Your post was in reply to @Bradskii . I leave in all of your original text, but I'm not going to reply to the first paragraph.)

I ran into this post in my review yesterday. I have watched the video you recommended and have some further thoughts about the "political motives" you have mentioned here and elsewhere.



Yep, that's the thing I want to talk about, but first...

Alright.

You seem to think that an "atheistic" view is some how harsher/stronger (or it would seem worse) than an agnostic one. I don't think there is any real difference between the two. Most who self-identify as agnostics are atheists who either think that "atheist" must include a belief in the non-existence of god, or don't want to sound so "extreme" and do so to soften impressions for social reasons. A small portion fall into the uncanny middle of (Huxley?)'s original proposed coinage of the word. We're just non-believers, nothing more.

No, I don't actually think that an "atheistic view" is harsher/stronger than an agnostic one. I have plenty of books on atheism, have studied the atheistic view point for quite some, listened in on many atheist's podcasts, and have had times in my own life (believe it or not) where I felt/perceived/evaluated the world through an atheistic sieve.

So, take it seriously when I say that there is a reason I identify as a mild existentialist---------because I realize how difficult it is to pull something like a religious book into the orbit of one's frame of reference, especially if that frame is scientific in nature, and then "see" something like Christianity as having any truth within the pages of its sacred book. I understand the difficulty of it and the taxonomic differentiation that exists in types of atheistic outlook.

I don't know why you think Sapolsky is carrying out his work in association with FFRF. He's a scientist and FFRF doesn't do any science of any type. FFRF doesn't publish pondering tomes on philosophy either. They are an advocacy (including legal) for that radical notion that everyone should be free from the government imposing other people's religion on you.

Sapolsky has an association with the FFRF, as seen in the following. And I've been aware of the FFRF since the late 1990s when I first read one of Dan Barker's earlier books:

Robert Sapolsky

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, the first “Emperor” awardee, says that although few of his scientific colleagues believe in a god, they keep their atheistic/agnostic views to themselves. But not scientist

ffrf.org

​

Freethought Radio: Robert Sapolsky

Featured guest is bestselling science author, Stanford scientist and atheist Robert Sapolsky, with a lively discussion of primates, atheism, evolution and naturalistic explanations for the origin of religions. The show includes an update on the Foundation's faith-based challenge, going before...

ffrf.libsyn.com

On to the video, which I was reminded after finding it yesterday, that I had watched (well, listened mostly) it a few days after you posted it while making Sunday dinner. The conversation on the thread had moved on from your injection of political motivation into the thread, so I didn't respond to the video then.

ok

The discussion of the neurological aspects of gender identity was enlightening. I've probably forgotten most of the details, but I do retain the impression of how much work has been done to understand this phenomenon. I don't recall if Sapolsky actually works on the neurobiolology of gender himself, or he just keeps up to date on the literature of the field. The depth of his knowledge was clear. I recognize the game of a fellow expert.

As do I. But keep in mind, I haven't said that I discount his work across the board.

The smaller part of this podcast was about free will/determinism, particularly the consequences for correction and punishment of wrong-doing and ill behavior. Since this was the podcast of a state teacher's union, the focus was clearly on juveniles in school (and I think in criminal justice). What changed approaches to student behavior that have been made are based on actual studies of the origins of those behaviors and how to prevent them. Schools have moved away from retributive punishments for correctable behaviors as is discussed in the video.

I can't speak for @Bradskii (though he flat out denies it in a response I can see on the same page of posts from May), but when I watched Sapolsky talk about these things, it was clear to the extent he was presenting policy changes (for example school discipline) that these were a consequence of his conclusion of (hard?) determinism, rather than political goals that he uses a philosophical position (determinism) to achieve.

We'll see how far his definition of "determinism" is proposed to apply at various levels of law and society. Time will tell.

Perhaps you intuition is a bit off. I don't think all of your philosophy is going to help you work out motivations or how you assess them.

In the same way that you don't want me to misconstrue the denotative and connotative nature of "atheism," you might consider applying the same to the term "Philosophy." As I've said before, while philosophy can at times be used for the sake of speculation, it is not a synonym for speculation. If anything, Critical Thinking as we know it today is, essentially, the synonym we should be applying here.

As for me, politics, and "atheism", I'll be blunt here:

There are a few political positions that I have that are nominally related to my non-belief, but only one is driven by it.

1. Restoration of strong separation of religion and government. (This is actually my oldest political position and one I started holding to around the time of my first communion. I even had a generally good view of FFRF for many years as a Christian in the 90s.)

That's fine. I'm not particularly given to the idea of the unification between empire and religion either.

2. Various social issues. Here it is my removal from religious doctrine that removed the "conservative pull" from my thinking, though I was drifting slowly to the "left" for at least a decade before leaving religion. (Fourty years ago I participated in the "March for Life" and met my senator. My position on that issue is now about as opposite as it could be.) It is not so much motivated by my belief that there are no gods than it was by the lack of moralizing by priests from the pulpit in my life and that I no longer take seriously arguments from religious morality.

Ok. I can understand that.

3. "Science issues" (teaching of evolution, climate change), again, while these either aren't religiously driven issues or are not a problem for many believers. There certainly many in religion that view such things as "atheistic" and I've lost count of the number of times that I have been accused of accepting (or rather, they usually say "believe") in evolution, climate change, the old earth, the big bang because I am an atheist. Neither my acceptance of those science or the political consequences of them are caused by my "atheism", and most date back to the days when I was a believer. In actuallity, my positions are based on science and its implications, not on "atheism" or ideology.

Ok. That's reasonable.

4. Atheist visibility (finally, at the end, politics tied to my "religious status"). My interactions here have made it clear to me that there are many who have difficulty dealing with the existence of non-believers. Where possible, non-believers need to be unapologetic about it. (Ironically, the only place where I am fully "out" is on this "Christian web site". There are a couple dozen people who know my real name that I am an atheist. None are family.)

I'm all for people having the freedom to express their views and ideas. But like Pascal, I apply a criterion of discernment between two types of non-believers, and as in the past so I still do now in calling that criterion "Pascal's A.A.S.S." (or Argument Against Sarcastic Skeptics)...........especially those who like to invoke too much social advocacy of the more Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Che flavor.

On something a bit closer to the topic of the thread...

I don't know what my position on determinism is, but a natural Universe seems to imply some form of it. This thread would be a lot more useful if it had less emphasis on motivations and attempts to define decisions w/o free will as inherently irrational.

Sure. I think that as scientifically minded people, we can work with a "methodological determinism" as a part of our "methodological naturalism." It is an expression of our assuming the physical regulation of our universe. But in doing so, we don't want to fuse, or confuse, the method of using determinism as a scientific concept with the political madness of "Pure/Hard Determinism." Folks like Karl Marx already partly made that mistake ....

As for my "causal chain"...

First I came to the conclusion that the Universe was fully naturalistic (or nearly so)
Then I stopped believing in God. (unknown time later)
Then I stopped going to church. (unknown time later)
Then I realized I'd stopped going to church. (3 months later)
Then I realized I was an atheist. (3 years later)

Ok. Thank you for sharing your personal chain of reference. Again, I understand how this comes about, and it's not that difficult for me to do so and empathize with you on it.

For me everything flows from the conclusion of naturalism based on evidence as best as I can assimilate it. (If I had never been indoctrinated, I probably would have been a full-on naturalist by age 8.) That does seem to lead to some form of physical determinism. What this means for the phenonomenon I experience as consciousness and free will, I don't know and this thread has made little assistence in any understanding of it.

Yes, I get that, and I think the difference between you and me here is that, in my felt skepticism about either free-will or determinism, I identify more with Chewbacca than I do with Han Solo.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Hans. It's one of the better ones I've seen you write.

Thanks. Time in composition matters, I have at most 15 minutes to complete this one...

Alright.

No, I don't actually think that an "atheistic view" is harsher/stronger than an agnostic one. I have plenty of books on atheism, have studied the atheistic view point for quite some, listened in on many atheist's podcasts, and have had times in my own life (believe it or not) where I felt/perceived/evaluated the world through an atheistic sieve.

It was this quote from you that I was thinking of (and replying to):

"I say this because his is not an agnostic outlook upon the world but an atheistic one, carried on with an association with organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation"


Especially the "not agnostic outlook .. but atheistic". It follows in parallel to many statements I have seen from believers that characterize "agnosticism" as a softer or less dogmatic form of "atheism". (We'll get to the FFRF part in a bit.)

So, take it seriously when I say that there is a reason I identify as a mild existentialist---------because I realize how difficult it is to pull something like a religious book into the orbit of one's frame of reference, especially if that frame is scientific in nature, and then "see" something like Christianity as having any truth within the pages of its sacred book. I understand the difficulty of it and the taxonomic differentiation that exists in types of atheistic outlook.

1. I don't know what you mean by "mild existentialist".
2. The general topic is free will/determinism, the sub-topic was the injection of political motivation in to argumentation about said topic. I don't recall any discussions of religious texts.

Sapolsky has an association with the FFRF, as seen in the following. And I've been aware of the FFRF since the late 1990s when I first read one of Dan Barker's earlier books:

Robert Sapolsky

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, the first “Emperor” awardee, says that although few of his scientific colleagues believe in a god, they keep their atheistic/agnostic views to themselves. But not scientist

ffrf.org

​

Freethought Radio: Robert Sapolsky

Featured guest is bestselling science author, Stanford scientist and atheist Robert Sapolsky, with a lively discussion of primates, atheism, evolution and naturalistic explanations for the origin of religions. The show includes an update on the Foundation's faith-based challenge, going before...

ffrf.libsyn.com

I'm going to put this in the category of "so what?". (I've been aware of FFRF since the early 90s, but not of Dan Barker until after I found CF. )

ok

As do I. But keep in mind, I haven't said that I discount his work across the board.

I didn't say you were. What I'm concerned about and what you don't seem to have any backing for is the alleged political (or dogmatic) motivation for Sapolsky's determinism as a weapon against Christianity. (the whole focus of this sub-sub-thread)

We'll see how far his definition of "determinism" is proposed to apply at various levels of law and society. Time will tell.

In the same way that you don't want me to misconstrue the denotative and connotative nature of "atheism," you might consider applying the same to the term "Philosophy." As I've said before, while philosophy can at times be used for the sake of speculation, it is not a synonym for speculation. If anything, Critical Thinking as we know it today is, essentially, the synonym we should be applying here.

I find it hard, especially after you tries to subsume all of science in to the "empire of philosophy". In contrast, the question of "atheism" is very narrow: "Do you believe in a god? If yes, you are an atheist, elsewise, you are not." That's all there is to it.

That's fine. I'm not particularly given to the idea of the unification between empire and religion either.

I oppose both.

Ok. I can understand that.

Ok. That's reasonable.

I'm all for people having the freedom to express their views and ideas. But like Pascal, I apply a criterion of discernment between two types of non-believers, and as in the past so I still do now in calling that criterion "Pascal's A.A.S.S." (or Argument Against Sarcastic Skeptics)

Is it any better than his "Wager"?

...........especially those who like to invoke too much social advocacy of the more Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Che flavor.

I don't recall any Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Che stuff in this thread, or frankly anywhere on CF.

Sure. I think that as scientifically minded people, we can work with a "methodological determinism" as a part of our "methodological naturalism." It is an expression of our assuming the physical regulation of our universe.

I see no need to distinguish a "methodological determinism" in science. The question of "determinism" here only matters to the notions of mind/free will, etc., that we are discussing on this thread.

But in doing so, we don't want to fuse, or confuse, the method of using determinism as a scientific concept with the political madness of "Pure/Hard Determinism." Folks like Karl Marx already partly made that mistake ....

The question of free will/determinism isn't politics if it is to be evaluated objectively. If the answer is that we can't make an objective determination and the only thing left is opinions formed from dogmas, then fine. I don't think we have reached that point yet.

Ok. Thank you for sharing your personal chain of reference. Again, I understand how this comes about, and it's not that difficult for me to do so and empathize with you on it.

Thanks. However sharp our arguments may become, I don't hold any ill feelings toward you. (Only a couple CF posters have garnered those....) My point was to emphasize that the my naturalism is the cause of my atheism and any leaning toward determinism I may have, rather than any other way 'round.

Yes, I get that, and I think the difference between you and me here is that, in my felt skepticism about either free-will or determinism, I identify more with Chewbacca than I do with Han Solo.

Seeing Han succumb to the force brings the pain that he might abandon his trusty blaster.

 

[Bradskii]

It's great to know that with "determinism," we'll still have to "argue" about what the factors actually "are."

Whut? I "thought" you wanted to "talk" about the ethical and moral implications of "determinism". Let me "know" when you want to "start".

 

[Bradskii]

We can only guess why he continually attempts to illogically debunk Christian morals in these forums.

I'd like it if everyone kept religion out of this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd like it if everyone kept religion out of this.

I'd like it if everyone kept their politics and alternative paradigms out of this. But being the Critical Realist that I am, I know that's not fully possible.