Total posts: 7,093
@Grugore
Indeed all faith based beliefs can be used to justify inhumane actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Why would that preclude rational thought? Rational thought cannot be a choice as one must simply go with what is rational. I would go so far as to say that rational thought precludes choosing what to think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Choice is simply the wrong word. I think you mean that they are unable to face the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It doesn't matter unless you can somehow demonstrate that being irrational is a choice.It's not as if people interpret evidence that suggests something the same way. Some people have rational interpretations and some have irrational interpretations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Neither love nor rational thought involves choice. Is it then not also possible that the feeling you refer to as freewill also does not involve choice but rather the post hoc justification of thoughts and actions that your brain makes for you before you are consciously aware of them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Someone is 'compelled' to believe something based on the amount of evidence it has going for it.
The above statement does not suggest that the below statement is accurate. After all you do not have control of how much evidence is available or what that evidence suggests.
Our final conclusion on the matter isn't necessarily beyond our control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
What is the practical observable difference? How would freewill differ from the illusion of freewill?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
As soon as the subject of free will is mentioned, any thread will explode.
Yes it is almost as if we are reacting rather than choosing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It's impossible to convince someone that free will doesn't exist if free will doesn't exist. All human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules.
This is only true if being convinced is a choice. In what way is convincing someone not compelling them to believe something? In what way is being compelled to do something not an example of cause and effect? If cause and effect have explanatory power then anything more than cause and effect would need to be demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Punishment is only worthwhile if it serves some utility. If there is little chance of a repeat offence then there is little reason to implement a punnishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can make determinations and act on them. I'm not sure what you mean by choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not sure what you mean by not as they seem. It would seem that you would like to assert freewill without first demonstrating it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If we agree that cause and effect is taking place then cause and effect doesn't need to be demonstrated but anything more would need to be demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The point is, though I may not have a ready example that is probably nonphysical/concrete, even if there was one it would still be a cause. This would demonstrate cause and effect not freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What happened is reading the story upped your seratonin levels etc so you felt sad and produced tears.
So cause and effect then.
Created:
Posted in:
maybe 'Dualium' is what allows brains to manifest consciousness and real free will :(That pushes us further down the chain of proof it doesn't resolve anything. Now we have moved from having to demonstrate freewill to having to demonstrate dualism and freewill.(EITHER) ghosts, spirits, souls, and angels and gods act based on previous influences (OR) they don't.(IFF) ghosts, spirits, souls, and angels and gods act on previous influences, (THEN) they are part of the causal chain.(IFF) ghosts, spirits, souls, and angels and gods do not act on previous influences, (THEN) they act randomly.So called "dualism" solves none of the fundamental logical problems with free-will.
And also this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Logic and reason are human systems of thought. We have evolved into rational beings. Evolution is the cause and our past evolution would seem to be a mindless force that is beyond our control.
We agree that cause and effect are demonstrably real so I don't need to fulfill a burden of proof in that regard so I'm not sure what you are asking for proof of. It is impossible to prove a negative that is why the burden of proof always lies.upon the shoulders of the one making the undeminstrated claim not the one denying it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Mental causation."The phenomenon of mental causation, as may be apparent, is thoroughly commonplace and ubiquitous. But this is not the only reason why it is significant. It is absolutely fundamental to our concept of actions performed intentionally (as opposed to involuntarily), which, in turn, is central to those of agency, free will, and moral responsibility. An action, as philosophers use the term, is not a mere bodily motion like involuntarily blinking one's eyes. It is something one does intentionally, as when one winks to grab someone's attention. The distinction between a mere bodily movement and an action hinges on the possibility of mental causation, since actions have mental states, such as intentions, as direct causes. This distinction, in turn, is critical for gauging moral responsibility, since we attribute or withhold judgments of moral responsibility depending upon whether the agent acted intentionally."
Our concept. That is key I feel. Because our concept of reality is not reality. If you were programmed to think that you had freewill how would that be distinguishable from actual freewill from your perspective. What is an intention anyway? How do we get them? Is there A reason you might intend to wink (like getting someone's attention?) If so then we are still discussing cause and effect. If there is no cause then you are not behaving rationally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
maybe 'Dualium' is what allows brains to manifest consciousness and real free will :(
That pushes us further down the chain of proof it doesn't resolve anything. Now we have moved from having to demonstrate freewill to having to demonstrate dualism and freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How do we demonstrate the ability to have chosen otherwise? We cannot go back in time and choose again. Even if we could our knowledge of the future outcome would be a potential cause and the test would be inconclusive. If You have a method of testing your hypothesis please present it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Why would mental causation necessitate Freewill? Mental causation only necessitates cause and effect so far as I know. You are falsely conflating the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A reason may be concrete (A boulder is falling so I have reason to move) or abstract/nonmaterial (I am of the subjective opinion that a story is sad so I have reason to cry) in both cases cause and effect is demonstrably taking place. My point in my last post to you is that it doesn't matter if a reason is concrete or abstract.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Why would you go against instinctual inclinations? If there is ANY reason the reason is a cause. If there is a cause then cause and effect is demonstrably taking place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Is a cause a material thing or an abstract, non-material concept?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Why would you quell your reactions? If there is ANY reason the reason is a cause. If there is a cause then cause and effect is demonstrably taking place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Wether the reason sighted is abstract or concrete if you have a reason to choose between one action or the other then you are subject to cause (the reason you are doing something) and effect (the thing you are doing). If there is no reason to do something and you do it anyway then you are not behaving rationally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
That and reacting to external environmental factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you suggesting that a reason does not qualify as a cause?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Free/unfreewill may be nonsense terms. There is either determinism (cause and effect) or indeterminism (completely random chance) neither requires will at all and that you have a will does not make it automatically free or unfree. It is rather determined or undetermined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Choose is simply the wrong word. Rationality only requires that we can determine the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You can have any position you like but until you demonstrate that position it would be irrational to accept it. What you call choice may simply be determining the cost/benefit of any possible action, not that different from a robot actually. Also why would an advanced enough robot not be considered rational?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
If there is ANY reason the reason is a cause. If there is a cause then cause and effect is demonstrably taking place. Can you equally demonstrate freewill or do you just feel (Are of the subjective opinion/have a gut feeling) that your "choices" are free?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Choose is simply the wrong word. We can rationally determine the difference between two outcomes or ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Does that mean you don't have any answer as to why? Do you simply do things for no reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You are welcome to your subjective opinion. I dare say beetles fancy other beetles.Imagine a woman being morbidly obese, smelling like rotten cheese, acne all over her face, patchy and stringy hair, deep and raspy voice, a beard under her neck, has only two rotten front teeth, a giant and crooked nose, and ears that stick out of her hair.She is just as beautiful as Jessica alba.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
The real question is not how it is why. Why would you do any of these things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Cause and effect are readily demonstrable. Freewill less so. Until freewill can be established the default is cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I gather from your response that you assume freewill. That may have something to do with our disconnect. Until you can establish freewill there is no reason to accept that we make "choices". In any case you are using harm/wellbeing as your standard of morality which is fine but wether or not that us an objective standard it is only a subjective opinion that this standard is directly interchangeable with moral/immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Ok but what makes a thing immoral if not humans judging it immoral? What non subjective standard is at work here? It is not generally considered immoral to harm a human (or a non huuman) accidentally. A crocodile is rarely judged as immoral even when it does great harm to humans (or non humans). A volcano is even less often judged by this standard. Doesn't that sound like a subjective standard to you? If harm were an objective standard unintentionally harming humans (or non humans) would be immoral and if intention is a part of our standard then crocodiles harming humans (or nonhumans) would be immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
And again this would be considered immoral by humans and as far as I know humans only. That makes it subjective. An objective standard would be independent of human opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Indeed even if the universe is illusory (not unnecessarily simulated but that is included under this umbrella term) we can still learn "facts" about how our "universe" works and interact with it reliably. The question is ultimately less important than we make it out to be. It is important however to accept human epistemology and it is impossible to prove a negative. There can never be any evidence for something that does not exist. I tend to accept reality provisionally and provided we accept reality we can also provisionally accept the findings of modern science until such time as we know more (and of course the human experience continues to evolve and as we come to understand our "universe" better).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm sorry to keep on this point but the answer has the potential for great utility in discovering whether we can say whether or not some objective morality exists and yet observe human epistemology. The only way to procede is for you to present a non subjective standard so that we can explore the idea further. If you are unable or unwilling then you have not presented evidence that there must be an objective morality. Because an objective morality is unnecessary to the physical operations of the universe and because we have no evidence beyond gut feelings that this is right and that is wrong (both subjective distinctions) occam's razer would suggest that we dismiss it as unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Without a sensible understanding of what constitutes an offense why dies it matter if it is an offense? What is the difference in practical terms? Is it wrong to eat meat? Is it wrong to have a state sanctioned death penalty? Is it wrong to watch pornagraphy? And more importantly, much more importantly for the purposes of our discussion, what makes them weight or wrong? You see that is what I am looking for. The basic underlying principle. What non subjective standard are you judging by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Innocent of what? By what standard? What if punnishing an innocent person has the ney effect of discouraging immoral behavior? Do we then measure it by the immorality of punishing the innocent or by the measure of the moral good derived from preventing future immorality?
And really none of that matters unless we know whether the thing the inoccentbperson is accused of is even an immoral act.
Now please present your non subjective standard unless this has just been one long non sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I'm sorry but my last question is actually beside the point. Again I apologize. Unfortunately the issue is not what is harmful but why harm should be our standard at all. What makes promoting wellbeing moral? What makes preventing harm immoral? I submit to you that it is the fact that humans find it immoral (a subjective opinion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Are they? If I think violent video games are harmful to a young person's psychy and you disagree how do we go about determining which of us is correct if indeed either of us is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"He is guilty" is different than "I believe he is guilty" without a standard with which to determine what qualifies as immoral we are just referencing a personal attitude about the subject of guilt/innocence. Now again please present your non subjective standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
No. We have constantly evolving standards. That makes them the opposite of always true.they are in fact only provisionally true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
An objective standard would remain true even if there were no humans to observe it. That humans regard harming humans immoral does not make harm the objective standard. And again I do not disagree with the utility of this moral standard but utility does not equal objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
By determining whether chocolate is better than vanilla or not. Even if chocolate being better than vanilla is subjectively determined, the statement itself can still be factually true.
The thing in question is the proposition.
Created: