That whole free will doesn't exist in the universe thing:

Feb 2019
611
Thrace
If you believe in determinsm, you're whole statement is no more than a mere perception, and you cannot claim it to be the reality, it's just what you're programmed to percieve as reality.
And if there is no such things as good or bad... well I suppose, because it's for you "reality", that you live according to your beliefs.

Claiming determinism and absence of free will is just saying: believe in what I'm programmed to believe to be true. Well, sorry, I can't.
When I'm programming a software, I believe him in computing matters, not for claiming what is truth or reality. Now if this software was just the product of hazard and blind selection, I would not belive him for anything.
Like the above posts says, morals are just a human invention to keep societies going. And regardless of ideology, some of us have empathy, which is an evolutionary product and can be found in animals.

Also yes, every statement you and I make are no more than perceptions. Correct! ;)
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,609
Las Vegas, NV USA
It's well established that quantum randomness is a fact. However Many Worlds (MWI) is deterministic because all states actually exist at any given time. Quantum states occur in their simplest form at the subatomic level. A human being could be described as a quantum object of very great complexity, far too great to calculate. The net result of all these interactions is our consciousness and behavior. So for all practical purposes we do have what appears to be free will. Given the precise history and current conditions down to the smallest level we can say our behavior at any given time is predetermined. But it's meaningless because it can't be calculated although in some situations people can be expected to behave in a similar way.
 
Feb 2019
611
Thrace
It's well established that quantum randomness is a fact. However Many Worlds (MWI) is deterministic because all states actually exist at any given time. Quantum states occur in their simplest form at the subatomic level. A human being could be described as a quantum object of very great complexity, far too great to calculate. The net result of all these interactions is our consciousness and behavior. So for all practical purposes we do have what appears to be free will. Given the precise history and current conditions down to the smallest level we can say our behavior at any given time is predetermined. But it's meaningless because it can't be calculated although in some situations people can be expected to behave in a similar way.
Agreed. But although it holds 99% only academic relevance, there's still some wisdom to be drawn from this conclusion. Namely on what does the legal system needs to be predicated on. Many people seem to think it's some sort of punishment system when in light of how reality actually works, it should be solely viewed and designed as a quarantine system with rehabilitation attempts.
 
Sep 2013
449
France
Evolution is all about what give you an advantage in survey or reproductive matters.
Binding you with moral laws go far beyond what empathy is.
Feeling sadness or pain when you see a cow being killed, or even a tree being cut, give you no such advantage.
And I highly doubt you can prove that moral laws, distinction between good and evil are an invention.
Claiming something to be true in a system which cannot permit it is a dead-end.
The argument contradicts itself.
In my system, truth exists and cohabits perfectly with modern science.
 
Feb 2019
611
Thrace
Evolution is all about what give you an advantage in survey or reproductive matters.
Binding you with moral laws go far beyond what empathy is.
Feeling sadness or pain when you see a cow being killed, or even a tree being cut, give you no such advantage.
It absolutely does. You think there is no advantage for humans in feeling the need to preserve trees? Empathy has a whole range of benefits, most notably cooperation.

And I highly doubt you can prove that moral laws, distinction between good and evil are an invention.
Morals are only a thing for beings who can experience pain and pleasure. The universe doesn't care about right or wrong. So, because we humans do actually belong to this spectrum of suffering and ecstasy, the concept of good and bad applies to us according to what guides us in that spectrum. However, "ought" can't be derived from "is," therefore there are no objective morals. They are just subjective.

Claiming something to be true in a system which cannot permit it is a dead-end.
The argument contradicts itself.
This system most certainly permits everyone to claim something is true, just that their conclusion is to various degrees uncertain. It depends on how much you let yourself be burdened by uncertainty. Even if we ultimately rely on intuitions, I don't loose sleep over every claim equally. Some of them (like 1+1=2) feel just about as right as it gets so I can carry on with other enquirers.

In my system, truth exists and cohabits perfectly with modern science.
I'd say that the only truth claim one can make (but only to himself) is that you are conscious. Even if you're programmed by someone to be so or not, it's still the only self evident thing I can think off. Any other claim is based on assumptions, however subtle. If you think free-will is real, tell me how your system works. How is your brain outside of the realm of causality?
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,457
T'Republic of Yorkshire
That is a theory

There are theories that particles can actually move faster than light....

Also you can "see into the future" , we do that every day..... For example we know the exact time when the sun will rise tomorrow or when a tide will occur or even the time when mother in law will visit (maybe not no exact in this last case depending on mother in law)
That's prediction, not seeing into the future.
 
Sep 2013
449
France
It absolutely does. You think there is no advantage for humans in feeling the need to preserve trees? Empathy has a whole range of benefits, most notably cooperation.
Some times it can be an advantage, some other a disadvantage. Humanity also grow "against" nature. You cannot prove that it is an absolute advantage, it's just a guess. It can be, sometimes. Fact is, you care about a cow's death, but no cow cares about yours.


Morals are only a thing for beings who can experience pain and pleasure.
Animals can experience pain and pleasure, there is no such thing as moral law in their organisation.


The universe doesn't care about right or wrong. So, because we humans do actually belong to this spectrum of suffering and ecstasy, the concept of good and bad applies to us according to what guides us in that spectrum. However, "ought" can't be derived from "is," therefore there are no objective morals. They are just subjective.
You can write as many times as you want that good or bad are purely subjective, the only people who live according to this kind of view are mentally ill. Because in your everyday's life, you act as if moral law was 100% objective, and it has very few to do with an advantage in reproduction (which is what evolution is about). So thinking that there are no objective moral laws, but acting as they were objective, is kind of schyzophrenic to my point of view. It's lying to oneself, and to everybody else, even the ones that you love (or that you are programmed to love, according to determinism; or that you care about to be ok with the laws of your country).


This system most certainly permits everyone to claim something is true, just that their conclusion is to various degrees uncertain. It depends on how much you let yourself be burdened by uncertainty. Even if we ultimately rely on intuitions, I don't loose sleep over every claim equally. Some of them (like 1+1=2) feel just about as right as it gets so I can carry on with other enquirers.
No, a computer programmed by laws of hazard, or any computer by the way, cannot claim anything to be true. Because it has no access to what Truth is, precisely because he is programmed to think as he does, following the laws of determinism, and because he has no free will. Doing so is fooling oneself.


I'd say that the only truth claim one can make (but only to himself) is that you are conscious. Even if you're programmed by someone to be so or not, it's still the only self evident thing I can think off. Any other claim is based on assumptions, however subtle. If you think free-will is real, tell me how your system works. How is your brain outside of the realm of causality?
That's more or less what Descrates wrote centuries ago. Interestingly, his conclusion to his cogito is the existence of god, but very few actually read whatfollows "cogito ergo sum".
For your last question, it's precisely what free will is, and what freedom is: not being entirely tied to causality. That's why humans have history, which is all about bifurcations, and why animals have no such thing; because their instinct, which is kind of what they were programmed for, is pre-eminent.
 
Feb 2019
611
Thrace
Some times it can be an advantage, some other a disadvantage. Humanity also grow "against" nature. You cannot prove that it is an absolute advantage, it's just a guess. It can be, sometimes. Fact is, you care about a cow's death, but no cow cares about yours.
Evolutionary tools don't need to be "absolute advantages." And I don't know much about cows but dogs have empathy.


Animals can experience pain and pleasure, there is no such thing as moral law in their organisation.

I meant that morals are exclusive to beings that can experience suffering or pleasure, not that it's mandatory among them.

You can write as many times as you want that good or bad are purely subjective, the only people who live according to this kind of view are mentally ill. Because in your everyday's life, you act as if moral law was 100% objective, and it has very few to do with an advantage in reproduction (which is what evolution is about). So thinking that there are no objective moral laws, but acting as they were objective, is kind of schyzophrenic to my point of view. It's lying to oneself, and to everybody else, even the ones that you love (or that you are programmed to love, according to determinism; or that you care about to be ok with the laws of your country).
Not so. Humans with empathy were more likely to collaborate and achieve greater things, hence, their communities flourished and their genes had a greater likelihood to spread. It's why many of us today care for one another to some degree (not as much as we should admittedly). Moral axioms are just behaviors that would be beneficial for a society. Hence, less civilized cultures have what we would call "backwards morals" and had you been born there, some of these supposed "moral laws" would have been self-evident. But I can even have 0 empathy and simply rationalize that killing and stealing from each other wouldn't get my community very far, so even in a purely psychopathic society, they would still reach an agreement that it's better to have a few rules in place.

No, a computer programmed by laws of hazard, or any computer by the way, cannot claim anything to be true. Because it has no access to what Truth is, precisely because he is programmed to think as he does, following the laws of determinism, and because he has no free will. Doing so is fooling oneself.
Wouldn't be very helpful for keeping discourse coherent, but yes, what I call on a regular basis factual would be better phrased "almost certainly true." A degree of uncertainty, however small, still remains because we ultimately rely on perception.

That's more or less what Descrates wrote centuries ago. Interestingly, his conclusion to his cogito is the existence of god, but very few actually read whatfollows "cogito ergo sum".
For your last question, it's precisely what free will is, and what freedom is: not being entirely tied to causality. That's why humans have history, which is all about bifurcations, and why animals have no such thing; because their instinct, which is kind of what they were programmed for, is pre-eminent.
I don't follow your logic with animals and history. If you mean history as field, sure they don't, because they're not intelligent. But a dog certainly has a past. Also don't understand how that's proof of the brain operating outside causality.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,457
T'Republic of Yorkshire
And in the case of sunrise, what is the difference ?
Because the Sun *might* not rise. Seeing the future means you've seen that it's going to happen and that won't change. Predicting means you're guessing. Maybe with a very high probability, but you're still guessing.