Materialists......

[69dodge]

Free will is freedom from hard determinism. It is the freedom to act against what your biology is telling you to do. When you resist the temptation to do something you really want to do, simply because you know it is wrong and you feel a moral duty not to do what your biology is telling you to do, that is free will.

You think biology plays no part in determining what you "know [...] is wrong" or what you "feel a moral duty" about? What makes you think that?

I think it's all biology.

Wouldn't you agree that if you end up not doing something, there is an important sense in which you didn't "really want to do" it? So, how can your definition of "free will" ever be satisfied, then?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hang on a minute, '69 . (Can I call you '69?) If I'm saying morality is imposed by a group and you say it's genetically determined, we ain't leaving Geoff much room to manouevre. He's damned if we do and danged if we don't.

I'll agree that morality is remarkably similar world wide, which supports genetic determinism, but I think it is imposed by peer pressure.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But how do we "know" something is "wrong" unless we are told so?

That is a big question. It comes from a combination of rational thought and purely-subjective things like empathy. The rational component is essential though - we have to think about the consequences of our actions.

I would certainly disagree with anyone who claimed there is no way of distinguishing between right and wrong other than following other peoples intructions. On the contrary, to be truly moral one surely has to be able to think for oneself and weigh up different situations as they come along. Blind application of rules would probably be a disaster. For exampe, how does one define a rule to choose where and when it is appropriate to exercise forgiveness?

If I start making up my own mind about morality, I might rationally establish a morality of self-interest.

You might do. But if you did, it would be a morality which had nothing to do with free will, IMO.

Is a child "wrong" when he wets his nappy?Not from his point of view.

No, this isn't wrong.

Morality is a herd property, imposed by the group.

I disagree strongly. I think that is just a shadow of morality - a placeholder for true morality. True morality comes from thinking about the issues for yourself and acting as you genuinely believe you ought to act.

Whether i't's a god or the group hardly matters though. If there is imposition, then by your definition there is no free will in moral behaviour; there is free will only in immoral behaviour.

In these cases there is no free will at all, IMO.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You think biology plays no part in determining what you "know [...] is wrong" or what you "feel a moral duty" about?

No, I didn't say that. Rational thought plays a big part, and the capacity of human beings to think rationally is the result of biological processes. It is only the will itself which transcends biology, not the processes of gathering knowledge which is required before moral action is possible.

You can know something is wrong, try to resist doing it, and still end up doing it anyway. Like having a one-night stand with that pretty thing you met one weekend when you were away on a business trip, after 20 years of being faithful to your wife.

Wouldn't you agree that if you end up not doing something, there is an important sense in which you didn't "really want to do" it?

No, I wouldn't agree with that in all cases. Sometimes its true, but that is because there are all sorts of grey areas here. It's not often clear cut. Sometimes we don't really know what we want, sometimes we want contradictory things, sometimes we genuinely can't decide what the right moral action is. Other times, all these things are clear to us.

So, how can your definition of "free will" ever be satisfied, then?

Sometimes we don't do something even though we really did want to do it - and we refrained from doing it for the sole reason that we knew it was wrong. This is a major complaint I have about Christian theology. If people spend their entire lives genuinely believing they will go to hell if they sin, it can hardly be free will that is in control. Instead, fear is in the driving seat.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'll agree that morality is remarkably similar world wide, which supports genetic determinism, but I think it is imposed by peer pressure.

It could just easily be argued to be global because God programmed us to be moral. Although maybe not - since God is supposed to be perfect and our morality programs most certainly are not.

As far as I am concerned, if somebody's actions are being driven either by genetic determinism or peer pressure, they have no free will. The application of free will demands that both these constraining factors be transcended. Most people's will is unfree most of the time, for exactly the sorts of reasons you have both suggested. Most of the time, biology is in control. And "peer pressure" is nothing more than a manifestation of evolution-determined tribal behaviour. It is about status and not wanting to be expelled from the tribe. There was massive selection pressure for this behaviour, since being expelled from a tribe of early modern humans would have entailed serious consequences, possibly fatal.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just as an aside....

This is, IMO, what the mythology of "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is all about. Before evolution finally produce a creature capable of rational thought, no free will was possible. Some highly advanced mammals show the beginnings of a capacity for rational thought and the beginnings of the capacity for things like free will and empathy. There is a recorded case of a captive Bonobo which found a fledgling bird flopping about on the ground in its enclosure. A chimp would probably have eaten it, or played with it like it was a toy - but the bonobo gently picked it up and climbed to the highest point in its enclosure and threw it into the air, presumably trying to help it to fly. Similar behaviour has been observed in cetaceans - such as dolphins trying to assist divers who are in trouble to get back to the surface. [edit: dogs are also capable of similar act - they will endanger their own life to save their owner - but in their case I think it is entirely instinctive and "mindless" rather than the result of rational thought and empathy] But only in humans has the capacity for empathising with other conscious beings and the capacity for rational thought reached the point where we are faced with genuine choices about what is right and what is wrong, and at this point we develop the capacity for free will. However, the same evolutionary advance which gets us to this point is also arguably the point where it all goes wrong for humanity. From that point onwards, we were doomed to destroy ourselves.

 

[Robin]

Sometimes we don't do something even though we really did want to do it - and we refrained from doing it for the sole reason that we knew it was wrong.

And presumably we knew it was wrong by using the rational processes of our minds. And we refrained from doing it because we must have believed that we should not do a wrong thing.

Presumably the belief that we should do what was right would, in this case, have been stronger than our desire to do otherwise.

Whether you think the will is based in biology or not, it all comes back to causes.

 

[Robin]

Just as an aside....

This is, IMO, what the mythology of "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is all about. Before evolution finally produce a creature capable of rational thought, no free will was possible.

Interestingly, Carl Sagan says something very similar in "Dragons of Eden".

However this would entail Genesis being written in the context of a knowledge of evolution, which would have meant that either the writers made a remarkably good guess or the book really was divinely inspired.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And presumably we knew it was wrong by using the rational processes of our minds.

Yes.

And we refrained from doing it because we must have believed that we should not do a wrong thing. Presumably the belief that we should do what was right would, in this case, have been stronger than our desire to do otherwise.

The issue here is why we believe we should not do things we have judged for ourselves to be morally wrong. How would you answer that question?

Whether you think the will is based in biology or not, it all comes back to causes.

Yes, but the debate is about whether one of those causes is libertarian free will.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

However this would entail Genesis being written in the context of a knowledge of evolution....

I don't agree. I think there are other ways of coming to very similar conclusions.

, which would have meant that either the writers made a remarkably good guess or the book really was divinely inspired.

I would argue that it was divinely inspired, as are many other ancient scriptures. Not the faultless word of God, but divinely inspired nevertheless - or maybe I'd say it was the result of transcendent/spiritual insight.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Robin,

Just as another complete sidetrack.....

Ancient taoism managed to come up with yin and yang, which is a symbol representing dynamic polarities, without ever having done any science. They shunned experimentation. Yet, modern science has found the same pattern all over the place, from newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. You could argue that yin and yang is a mythological representation of the same basic relationship which pervades the whole of physics, but it was written long before anyone invented physics. The situation with Genesis and evolution is exactly the same. The mystics came to the same answer via a different route.

 

[Robin]

Robin,

Just as another complete sidetrack.....

Ancient taoism managed to come up with yin and yang, which is a symbol representing dynamic polarities, without ever having done any science. They shunned experimentation. Yet, modern science has found the same pattern all over the place, from newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. You could argue that yin and yang is a mythological representation of the same basic relationship which pervades the whole of physics, but it was written long before anyone invented physics. The situation with Genesis and evolution is exactly the same. The mystics came to the same answer via a different route.

Similarly early Christian mystics said that time did not exist before the creation of the world and that all order came into the world in the time it takes for light to pass through amber.

It could also be argued that with the amount of mystic writing in the world it would be more astonishing if some did not co-incidentally match some scientific insights.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Similarly early Christian mystics said that time did not exist before the creation of the world.....

On which point they were correct.

It could also be argued that with the amount of mystic writing in the world it would be more astonishing if some did not co-incidentally match some scientific insights.

It could be, yes. But I personally do not believe the Taoists stumbled upon the concept by accident. Even in the context of ones own life, it applies. What goes up must come down. It feels great to fall in love, but you open yourself to the risk of terrible pain when you fall back out again. 0 = 1 + -1.

 

[Robin]

Yes, but the debate is about whether one of those causes is libertarian free will.

On the contrary the debate appears to be as to whether there is some component of an act of will that is uncaused.

If so then it is not caused by anything, not even by us.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is this inspired by science?

Both Sides Now (Joni Mitchell)

Rows and flows of angel hair
Ice cream castles in the air
Feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way
But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really dont know clouds at all

Moons and junes and ferris wheels
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real
I've looked at love that way
But now its just another show
Leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know
Don't give yourself away

I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take, and still somehow
Its loves illusions I recall
I really don't know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud
To say I love you right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds
I've looked at life that way
But now old friends are acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I've changed
Well something's lost, but something's gained
In living every day

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's lifes illusions I recall
I really dont know life at all

(Joni Mitchell)

Or this sublime example of philosophical lyrics.....?

The Gin Soaked Boy (The Divine Comedy)

I'm the darkness in the light
I'm the leftness in the right
I'm the rightness in the wrong
I'm the shortness in the long
I'm the goodness in the bad
I'm the saneness in the mad
I'm the sadness in the joy
I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the ghost in the machine
I'm the genius in the gene
I'm the beauty in the beast
I'm the sunset in the east
I'm the ruby in the dust
I'm the trust in the mistrust
I'm the trojan horse in troy
I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the tigers empty cage
I'm the mysterys final page
I'm the strangers lonely glance
I'm the heros only chance
I'm the undiscovered land
I'm the single grain of sand
I'm the christmas morning toy
I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the world you'll never see
I'm the slave you'll never free
I'm the truth you'll never know
I'm the place you'll never go
I'm the sound you'll never hear
I'm the course you'll never steer
I'm the will you'll not destroy
I'm the gin in the gin-soaked boy

I'm the half-truth in the lie
I'm the why not in the why
I'm the last roll of the die
I'm the old school in the tie
I'm the spirit in the sky
I'm the catcher in the rye
I'm the twinkle in her eye
I'm the jeff goldblum in the fly

Well, who am i?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

On the contrary the debate appears to be as to whether there is some component of an act of will that is uncaused.

If so then it is not caused by anything, not even by us.

See Divine Comedy lyrics.....who are we?

It all depends what you mean by "I".

 

[Robin]

The issue here is why we believe we should not do things we have judged for ourselves to be morally wrong. How would you answer that question?

If you are conceding the point that a belief can be a cause of an action then we could pass to the secondary question of whether that belief was in itself caused.

Obviously I could not say for sure whether it was or not - but I believe it to have been caused. That is the only way that makes sense to me.

If I believe I should do the morally correct thing it may be because my parents taught me to and because I have examined this belief and found it to be a rational basis for conducting my life.

There may also be an element of, "if I get caught doing the wrong thing then I will be punished, or at least severly embarrassed".

Perhaps I am unconsciously afraid of Hell, or desirous of getting to Heaven. Or that I will be reincarnated as something unpleasant.

It may also be genetically determined - genetic determination and self interest are not the same thing.

In short I cannot claim to know exactly why I believe in doing the right thing. I can think of a number of possible causes for this belief.

But I can't understand how this belief could have been uncaused - there must be some reason that I have this belief. So if the belief was a cause of my actions, and the belief itself had causes then we have a causal chain.

 

[Robin]

See Divine Comedy lyrics.....who are we?

It all depends what you mean by "I".

If I am not who I think I am then I am nobody.

If my actions did not stem from this conscious self then they did not originate from me.

So if any action originated from some entity that I am not capable of knowing then I could hardly take the credit or the blame, could I?

So I am my thoughts - my beliefs, my attitudes, my emotions, my desires, my predujices, my intelligence or lack thereof.

I am who I think I am.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There are other alternatives to these two, like explanations involving QM, for example.

The explanations I've heard involving QM make it sound as if the brain is some sort of receiver for mystical QM-based thoughts.

Also, you've just said "X is Y" again without explaining the "is". If you can't translate it into E-Prime, it doesn't mean anything.

Brain processes result in internal behavior which has characteristics we name with mind words.

No.

So no experiment can distinguish these monisms. That means we have to find a logical proof of one of them. Otherwise, we really are just engaged in a giant masturbation fest.

Yes, but they aren't going to help you. If you allow some mental terms to "slip throught the net" then you lose the benefits of being an eliminativist in the first place. It becomes pointless. You've gone back to being a dualist-in-a-not-very-good-disguise.

I agree, if you allow some folk psychological mental terms to slip through, you've got a problem. So you have to define mental terms to be consistent with scientific explanations of the brain. As far as philosophy is concerned, I agree we should drop mental terms completely, otherwise we'll spend the rest of our lives in merry-go-round conversations like this one.

Penrose claims conciousness is a manifestation of quantum gravity in the microtubules.

Wait, you just used the verb is. What is Penrose really saying? Do you seriously find this more satisfying than "consciousness is a brain process?"

In other words, it is possible that when the bigger picture is glimpsed that you will look at the part of it that corresponds to the materialistic worldview and say "Well, we were sort of right all along, we just didn't have the whole answer."

And I won't mind saying that, since I'm not discussing this because I think I'm right. I'm discussing it because I don't think there is any difference between all these monisms, but I await the greatest logical proof ever devised by mankind.


~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But I can't understand how this belief could have been uncaused - there must be some reason that I have this belief. So if the belief was a cause of my actions, and the belief itself had causes then we have a causal chain.

Ultimately, the critical causal factor is our own experience of what it is like to be a conscious being. We need reason to understand that there are other concious beings but it is our own experiences of life and our feelings of moral duty to other conscious beings which we assume to have had similar experiences of life which leads to our belief that what we should act morally (there is no reason for solipsists or p-zombies to act morally.) Anything else is not true morality - it is just human beings trying to get recognition/status or avoid going to hell. So yes, it was caused - in so much as there was a reason - but the cause is directly associated with the experience of being a conscious being - the very same things which the materialists need to eliminate (or to avoid crediting with any causal power.)