Determinism

[iambiguous]

separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website

I’m objecting to the view that morality requires free will. I’m not as interested in taking a stand on how people learn morality, or whether there is such a thing as objective morality, or whether it’s just a social consensus, except that I would like to use terms so that it’s still possible to think about these issues.

I actually do make an effort to make sense of arguments like this. And it either does not make sense or I am simply unable [up to now] to make sense of it myself.

From my own perspective [compelled or not], without free will any objections raised by any of us about anything at all – as with anything that might interest any of us at all – are necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

Seriously, if morality does not require free will, would that not make morality as embodied in human interactions just another set of nature’s dominoes toppling over only as they must.

Those hypothetical autonomous aliens really do choose of their own free will to make note of human existential interactions in which morality comes up…but it is only to note how we are not aware that these interactions are not really of our own choosing as autonomous beings. And that’s because they know that we are not autonomous being.

Thus any terms that we “choose” to use in discussions like this are no less wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Kant’s view at best confounds the problem of choosing values, and the problem of free will. At worst, it makes the problem of values impossible to think about, whether or not you believe in free will.

And yet if Kant was unable to freely choose his view then any problems that are derived by anyone of us in regard to the value judgments that we are in turn not free to choose gets subsumed in whatever is finally discovered to be true about the human brain/mind/consciousness by those scientists who are actually grappling with that experientially/experimentally even as I, compelled or not, post this.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@phyllo

In fact, his “I” appears much less fractured and unstable than he makes it out to be. And compared to many people, it’s practically ossified.

yes, there has been incredible stability for years.
What does the question

How ought I live?

mean if one cannot tell if there are morals, one does not experience an I, and one seems to be utterly determined?

It seems to me that such an entity would not set such Quixotian tasks for itself. Though I suppose it would answer that it is compelled to.

[WendyDarling]

Those actions are to accrue view counts while playing the clever card.

[iambiguous]

Over and over and over again, I note that in regard to Mary choosing an abortion or Trump choosing to attack The Squad or you and I choosing to do anything at all, I have taken a subjective/existential leap “here and now” to the argument/belief that nature compels all matter to unfold in accordance with its immutable laws.

In other words, all the way up to me typing these words and you reading them.

@phyllo

If that's true, then ...

My argument with the objectivists is that they assert certain things to be true. And that, if others refuse to toe their own dogmatic line – to become “one of us” dittoheads – they become the equivalent of morons.

@phyllo

Calling you a moron must also be in accordance with nature's immutable laws. 

So what’s the problem?

The problem of course is that my current thinking is not compelled by nature and that in fact we do have some measure of autonomy in this exchange.

Clearly, if my thinking and your thinking and his thinking are in fact compelled by nature then so is your reaction to my reaction to his reaction to me.

I become a moron only because he was not able to not call me one.

But, again, if I am wrong, we can in fact autonomously explore the extent to which, in referring to others who do not share our own value judgments or do not share our own assessment of the Big Questions, as morons, they really may well be morons. That, in other words, we do have a way in which to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as we do.

Now, your turn. How do you differentiate Trump being “free” to attack The Squad, from Trump being free to attack those women of color in Congress?

And how do you then actually demonstrate to us that you are either “free” or free to make this claim?

@phyllo

Why are you asking me? Ask nature's immutable laws instead. 

And while you are at it, explain to them why you sometimes write the word ‘free’ in quotes and sometimes in italics. Cause I have no idea what you mean by it.

I am asking you because it gives me yet another opportunity to note how you will continue to avoid answering it.

And “free” is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into “I”.

How? Well, scientists are still working on that

All I was asking of Mr. Philosopher – or Mr. Objectivist – was to note their reaction to a particular context in which a particular woman chooses an abortion.

@phyllo

Oh, the reaction to a context is the important part of the discussion. That being different from what? A description of what is happening in the context? 

Again, we’ll need an actual context in which to explore the meaning of those words more descriptively. There is an actual Mary who had an actual abortion in an actual context that triggered actual conflicting reactions.

But: Was any of this embodied in autonomous beings? Or are all Marys and all abortions in all contexts merely the embodiment of nature’s mechanical laws.

@phyllo

For example :  I love this car. I think this car is ugly. I think this car is underpowered. Versus. This car is red. It seats 5. It accelerates to 60mph in 2.5 seconds.

Is that it? You want the subjective reaction to a context?

Note to others:

Get back to me on this, please. What really, really important point is it meant to convey?

[WendyDarling]

Biggie, you are unwilling to balance your inner subjective reality with the greater outer objective reality so you are always wrong in every example and context you try to disagree about.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@WendyDarling

Those actions are to accrue view counts while playing the clever card.

I hadn’t thought of that, but I think I hadn’t thought of it because I am incredulous. Do you really think he gets pleasure out of view counts?

[WendyDarling]

Of course, that the reason KT’s Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@WendyDarling

Of course, that the reason KT’s Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.

He decided to put him in the dungeon because he thinks biggie is posting for views? Did he say that somewhere? How do you know this? Not saying your wrong, but I would have thought he would do that because he found his posts wanting in some way, not because of what he thinks the motivation for the posts is.

[WendyDarling]

It’s for both reasons, manipulative nonsense posts and count seeking. At KT, Satyr has commented on biggie’s need for attention and yes, the view counts. Go to KT and ask Satyr if you doubt me. Has biggie ever posted in the rant house where no one would read his stuff? I can’t recall ever seeing him post there, but I’m going to stop my personal commentary about biggie and stop derailing this thread.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@WendyDarling

It’s for both reasons, manipulative nonsense posts and count seeking. At KT, Satyr has commented on biggie’s need for attention and yes, the view counts. Go to KT and ask Satyr if you doubt me. Has biggie ever posted in the rant house where no one would read his stuff? I can’t recall ever seeing him post there, but I’m going to stop my personal commentary about biggie and stop derailing this thread.

Need for attention I tend to agree with, though that’s a bit different from post views. If people just viewed his posts but did not respond, I think he would stop posting outside his two or three collection threads.

I think argument about the Rant House is an odd one. What reason is there for anyone to post in the rant threads if they don’t want anyone to read their posts. I mean, they could just type it into a word document.

You may be right about the view count, but it seems unlikely to me. Attention, or really a dynamic that includes attention and the failure to convince him and solve his problems, sure.

[WendyDarling]

The rant house is like KT’s dungeon, both are only visible to members. But Biggie wants non-member views to elicit a high view count for him to continue posting to continue his game. His collection threads have high view counts which feed his ego. He has tried to get Satyr to publish all his KT threads in the KT Agora numerous times to no avail (cuz Satyr don’t play). By not allowing all of his posts to be seen by non-member views, he is not interested in the content material of the rant house for it doesn’t fuel his ego in represented high view counts.

[iambiguous]

@WendyDarling

Those actions are to accrue view counts while playing the clever card.

Okay, let’s assume that this is true. Ought we then to assume that I choose to do this of my own free will?

Ought we, in turn, to assume that you possess the autonomy necessary to pass judgment on this assumption that you make about me?

Or ought I to assume this is something that you just know to be true? In other words, ought I to assume that you have no sophisticated empirical evidence to back up this?

And, just out of curiosity, how, assuming some measure of free will on your part, am I playing the “clever card” here?

[WendyDarling]

Satyr has your number which is a fact in action. I really do not wish to waste anymore time on the subject of your antics.

[iambiguous]

@surreptitious75

@iambiguous

@surreptitious75

It is doomed to failure as there is no such explanation as each individual has to decide for themselves what is true to them

Assuming some measure of human autonomy how do you go about demonstrating that it is doomed to failure ? Instead you merely assert it to be so
embodying what I construe to be the objectivist frame of mind . You have come to accept certain assumptions / premises about the human condition

Stating an obvious truth is not an assertion - namely that you cannot apply an objective metric to the human condition
Because there are no objectively true answers to the question of our existence or of how we should live our lives
If you disagree then say what are the objectively true answers to them - ones that can actually be demonstrated

So, what do you do? You assert anew that your previous assertion is an obvious truth. Even though you still have no capacity to explain what that means given all that you can’t possibly know about the human condition in the context of all there is going back to however it all came to be in the first place.

As for myself, my point could not be clearer: “I” have no capacity to provide objective answers to questions like these.

Instead, I assume that the answers that anyone gives to these questions [or answers revolving around conflicted value judgments] are rooted subjectively in the fact that day in and day out we encounter new experiences, new relationships and access to new information/knowledge/ideas etc., that we can never be sure won’t change our minds.

“I” here as an “existential contraption” that objectivists will do almost anything to avoid confronting.

[iambiguous]

@WendyDarling

Satyr has your number which is a fact in action. I really do not wish to waste anymore time on the subject of your antics.

First, he kicked me out of the agora, then he abandoned our exchange in the dungeon.

Why? Well, I can only hazard a guess: that I was making a fool out of him?!

Compelled or otherwise.

Now, compelled or otherwise, I am all for management here allowing him to participate on this thread. No huffing and puffing, no ad homs, no personal attacks.

He can even bring Lyssa back.

[promethean75]

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” - anonymous entry level logical positivist

[phyllo]

So what’s the problem?

The problem of course is that my current thinking is not compelled by nature and that in fact we do have some measure of autonomy in this exchange.

Clearly, if my thinking and your thinking and his thinking are in fact compelled by nature then so is your reaction to my reaction to his reaction to me.

I become a moron only because he was not able to not call me one.

That’s your answer??

I am asking you because it gives me yet another opportunity to note how you will continue to avoid answering it.

I explicitly stated that I didn’t want to change to another context. I wanted to deal with Mary’s abortion and come to at least one conclusion about it. You can’t even respect that.

The very next post you switch to Trump.

Yeah, I’m not going to talk about it.

And “free” is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into “I”.

I don’t know how “the psychological illusion of freedom” works in practical terms. Nor do I know how “an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter” works in practical terms. You seem to think that they are very different.

They seem functionally equivalent - people presented with choices making decisions.

Again, we’ll need an actual context in which to explore the meaning of those words more descriptively.

We already had a context : Mary’s abortion. My reaction is to describe the freedom she has in the situation (when we are discussing freedom).

For some reason, that’s the wrong reaction.

phyllo wrote:
For example : I love this car. I think this car is ugly. I think this car is underpowered. Versus. This car is red. It seats 5. It accelerates to 60mph in 2.5 seconds.

Is that it? You want the subjective reaction to a context?

Note to others:

Get back to me on this, please. What really, really important point is it meant to convey?

That’s me presenting you with an example in order to get some feedback from you because I have no idea what you expect a reaction to be.

(And I don’t get any feedback. )

But: Was any of this embodied in autonomous beings? Or are all Marys and all abortions in all contexts merely the embodiment of nature’s mechanical laws.

I’m a robot moving around on this planet. I’m autonomous because I make my own decisions based on sensory input. I would not be autonomous if someone was making those decisions for me though a radio or wired connection.

That’s what autonomous means both in a free-will universe and a determined universe.

[phyllo]

I’m looking for the Enchanted Castle and I come to a crossroad. I can go left, straight, right or I can go back the way I came. (I could also wait, in case someone who knows the way comes along to help me. I could go off the path, cross-country.)

How does “the psychological illusion of freedom” work in this case?

How does “an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter” work in this case?

How are they different from picking a path based on my understanding of the current situation?

I’m free to take some action.

[iambiguous]

@WendyDarling

Biggie, you are unwilling to balance your inner subjective reality with the greater outer objective reality so you are always wrong in every example and context you try to disagree about.

Okay, note for us how you are willing to balance your own inner subjectivity with the greater outer objectivity.

How is it applicable to the behaviors that you choose? Cite a context.

As for, “you are always wrong in every example and context you try to disagree about”, note in turn how this is not applicable to you.

Well, after first explaining to us what it actually means for all practical purposes.

[iambiguous]

@Karpel Tunnel

@WendyDarling

Of course, that the reason KT’s Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.

He decided to put him in the dungeon because he thinks biggie is posting for views? Did he say that somewhere? How do you know this? Not saying your wrong, but I would have thought he would do that because he found his posts wanting in some way, not because of what he thinks the motivation for the posts is.

Note to others:

They are both missing the point of the thread. And the point of the thread is to explore the extent to which nature may well have compelled them to miss the point. Given that their minds are but more matter necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

And then the extent to which they believe that their own point of view here in an autonomous universe reflects that which all rational men and women are obligated to think.

The objectivist mind.

Finally, given whatever it is they believe, to what degree are they able to demonstrate using an actual collection of evidence and data that what they believe is in fact true?

Me, I’m the first to admit that my own ideas here are just the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption ever and always subject to reevaluation given new experiences, new relationships and encounters with new information and knowledge.

You know, in a world “bursting at the seams with contingency chance and change.”