separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website
This sort of thinking continues to baffle me. In order to confront “the already-difficult-enough problem of what actions and values are moral”, we would first have to determine if the confrontation itself is embedded in at least some measure of autonomy. Otherwise we will never really know if that which we do “choose” to confront is not only that which we were never able not to choose to confront.
So, I might suggest here that we can only take a subjective leap to autonomy. But: never really knowing if I was never able not to suggest that. Why? Because what I think is subjective here is but another necessary component of the objective reality embedded ever and always in matter unfolding only as it ever can and must and does.
First and foremost, I need a way to determine if “I” have any capacity to choose freely. Otherwise, I have no way in which to be certain that this very post is not but another inherent component of the very fabric of reality itself.
But only to the extent that it can be determined definitively that, of his own volition, Kant might have come to a different conclusion can we determine if Goetz in turn might have opted freely to argue the opposite.
Again, as though even our reaction to this may not be the only reaction that nature accords us.
Then it’s just going around and around in circles depending on which set of assumptions you either were or were not free to choose.
“Defending Free Will & The Self”
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine
So, the human brain evolves to be in sync with what matter had already evolved into before. But how to explain this “extra layer of cognition” going all the way back to the time when the universe is described by the folks at CERN by noting that…
“It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas.”
So, in a determined universe, we go from matter that is just electrons trapped in orbits around nuclei, to atoms, to mostly hydrogen and helium, to clouds of gas, to stars, to super novas exploding and producing all of the heavier elements that managed to become living matter that has evolved on planet earth into a species compelled to have this extra layer of cognition.
And this extra layer now includes a human psychology that, in having the capacity to choose among alternatives, is also able to delude itself into thinking that it can do this of its own free will.
What’s wrong with this picture? Or, more to the point, how do we demonstrate what’s right with it? Other than in the manner in which over time nature compels us to. If nature doesn’t compel us to destroy ourselves first. Or if nature doesn’t compel one or another aggregation of mindless matter to commence the next “extinction event” here on earth. One that this time includes us.
Freedom evolves. That’s a good way to put it. We just don’t know if it was ever able not to evolve as it did. Or to evolve as it did because we had an actual say in in choosing the direction.
But: Sans God there would be no advantages or disadvantages in the evolution of matter. That would imply some manifestation of teleology. Matter evolving one way rather than another in order to achieve some purpose or a goal.
From my frame of mind, it seems that compatibilism was compelled by nature [re human psychology] because this extra layer of cognition allows “I” to make that crucial peacegirlian distinction between participating in the evolution of matter in a way that mindless matters [like dominoes] cannot. Even though nothing at all could or would ever be other than what it must be.
After all, it’s not like Mother Nature actually does exist as an entity pondering the advantages and disadvantages of a big brain and then freely opting herself to choose the one we’ve got.
The uncertainty of any divisive ness implies that quantum time considers events as signals rather than measurable sign posts.
The subjective manifestation of this cam not enter into a cosmological certainty, as, discussed above while Peacegirl was still involved in the discussion of the present moment.
Any positivist addirmatio negating this ultimate constructed object therefore, does not predicate an intentional pre-created objective, without compatibility with the transcended reality which has been subscribed by philosophers of all ages.
That is to say, a big brain does prove little, since huge elephantine brains cam not evolve by virtue of their size.
Rather the schematic points to miniaturization toward more and more inclusive content in less and less space, sans the time it takes.
The necessity to jump out of this loop is only a pleasant to those who believe an exclusive quantitative substance.
At the smallest level known to exist - the quantum - there are zero minds and the world of human interaction simply does not exist in any shape or form
But without the quantum world the world you and I and everyone else experiences could not exist as everything is ultimately dependant upon that world
You may not be at all interested in that world when contemplating the nature of human interaction but you cannot deny the causal link between the two
Why would anyone deny it? I must be missing your point.
From the tiniest bit of quantum matter to the reality that encompasses “all there is” in what may well turn out to be a multiverse, there are either causal relationships wholly in sync with the laws of matter or there are not.
And, as well, on top of that profoundly enigmatic relationship is the part where the matter here…
“It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas.”
…evolved into living matter that, over billions of years, evolved into human minds able to discuss it as/in the embodiment of “I”!
From zero minds to this exchange. And how it all became possible going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. And then going forward to how those of own species thousands of years into the future will clearly be more informed than we are now.
But: informed autonomously?
Will that finally be resolved once and for all?
And what does it mean to resolve anything at all in a wholly determined universe?
More from our Mr. Abstractionist.
By way [of course] of Mr. Assumptionist.
In other words, in any and all contexts that any and all of us might find ourselves in, this is true because…he says so?
Then let him focus in on one context in particular. Let him describe for us how power unfolds between two conflicted minds that he is, in turn, able to demonstrate are wholly aware of their options as autonomous beings.
Instead of just presuming [in a world of words] that this is the case.
Indeed, how fascinating it might be to follow an exchange between him and peacegirl in regards to how in fact “choice”/choice actually does play out in regard to human interactions.
Therefore, if, compelled or not, you concur with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words he “chooses”/chooses in this particular intellectual contraption, it’s all settled.
But, again, we will need an actual context in which to explore what makes one of us a “higher organism” in regard to whatever on earth it means for an entity to “mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli.”
Yet another assertion regarding determinism that refuses to acknowledge the fact that he has yet to demonstrate that this assertion in and of itself is not but a necessary manifestation of “natural law”.
In other words, he merely makes the assumption that his own general description assertions here are the product of his free will. A free will predicated in turn on the assumption that it is far, far superior to the free will of all those who refuse to toe his own genes-all-the-way-down line.
And how ironic is that?
It’s genes, you see, until it comes to his own particular “I”. Then somehow there is some mysterious “phenomenon” unfolding in his own brain that allows him to reconfigure the laws of matter autonomously into an actual entity able to “transcend” them. Willfully as it were.
And in a matter that his own will to power makes him one of the…ubermen?
Just don’t ask him to prove this empirically…such that all rational men and women are obligated to share his point of view. Well, other than in the manner in which the laws of nature compel everything that we think, feel, say and do.
You know, if that’s true.
In no way, shape or form, however, does he offer us an argument that is able to be tested. An argument able to be confirmed neurologically, chemically, scientifically.
And then going back to that which I doubt he considers at all: the relationship between what he thinks he knows here and now and all that there is to be known [ontolgically, teleologically] about existence itself.
Again, the point isn’t what one claims about the past, present and future, but the extent to which one can demonstrate that one’s claim is verifiable. And a claim not able to be falsified.
Other than as encompassed in an argument – an intellectual contraption – such that verification revolves around the definition and meaning that one gives to the words used in the argument itself. The argument here being a particular understanding of determinism.
And in which falsification revolves around insisting that his argument is wrong because another’s definitions and meanings constitute a truer understanding of the matter.
And who could that possibly be other than God Himself? Awareness here being embodied in omniscience. But what of mere mortals? What can they be aware of regarding the future? And how is it to be determined that their awareness of being aware of anything at all is not as necessary in their waking hours as it clearly seems to be in their dreams?
The brain as matter embodied in the laws of nature creates our dreamscapes. But: does it stop there?
I’m at least willing to acknowledge that “I” have no capacity to know this for sure.
But then I’m not an objectivist.
See how it works? This is merely asserted to be the case. Where is the substantive evidence to actually back it up?
In fact, one suspects that his only recourse here [as with mine and probably yours] is to Google those folks who are in fact exploring this experimentally, scientifically, phenomenologically etc., and extracting the arguments most in sync with his own particular subjective prejudice.
Yes. It makes sense to distinguish past, present and future. It’s more useful than seeing then as essentially the same. Past actions are fixed and unchangeable but nothing is yet fixed about the future.
Yes. That’s the difference between a person and a rock.
Or are we to presume that because you presume that you possess the autonomy to profess that his point seems clearly to be true that makes it so.
Because you say so?
Why don’t you provide us with a context in which to explore these general descriptions.
Yes, presuming that you are able to provide us with a definitive argument that establishes beyond all doubt that this freedom to act is not in fact merely a manifestation of the psychological illusion of autonomy built into human consciousness built into the human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
Also, as I noted above:
Why don’t you take a stab at what this might mean out in the world of actual human interactions.
Yes, but as I noted above:
All I can come back to here is this: Why don’t you and I bring this down to earth?
Okay, now react to the point I made above in regard to this:
Of course, his frame of mind here is embeded in a No God world. A world where the ubermen become the closest thing to God. Naturally as it were.
Not only that but rocks don’t dream. And neither do dominoes, right? They don’t even get to “choose”. Then we are back to the manner in which you and peacegirl and our perceptive gentleman are either able to or not able to demonstrate that in fact we do get to choose. Freely, as an autonomous “I”.
And when I suggest instead that…
You bluntly assert that this is not the case. Why? Because, indisputably, of your own volition, you say so.
The Perceptive Gentleman made what appear to be correct statements about the nature of freedom and choice.
I don’t require “a definitive argument that establishes beyond all doubt that this freedom …” to agree with his ideas about what is considered freedom. Let doubts and uncertainty remain. Let revisions take place at a later date.
Perhaps rocks and dominoes do dream. I don’t know. But I do know that rocks and dominoes are unable choose to act on those dreams as humans and animals are able to act. A rock on a hill moves where gravity pulls it. But even an ant can choose to move in a direction other than where gravity pulls it - it can choose to go up or to the side of a hill. Is there something more that needs to be demonstrated?
My autonomy or lack of autonomy don’t enter into any of this.
You posted quotes from someone who is not here and who is not able to defend himself. That’s not how you have a discussion.
Your comments were completely inappropriate.
For example :
What kind of shrill comment is that?
Obviously he thinks it’s true and lots of people will agree as a result of straight observation of human behavior.
You don’t provide any examples of where it is not true or any reason to think that it is not true. You don’t provide any contradictory contexts.
If there is a conflict, then the more powerful person gets to choose what happens from his available options.
Then this :
The meaning of the words is fairly clear to anyone with an average understanding of English. And there’s nothing outlandish about the ideas. A lot of people/philosophers would consider it to be obviously true.
We don’t need a context to explore it.
You characterize it all as intellectual contraptions and “worlds of words” without actually showing that any of it is not true or that it’s not based on valid observations.
1] As you might recall, in our early exchanges at KT, he booted me out of the agora, assuring that I would be unable to respond to him
2] He permitted me to post only in the dungeon. And yet I have often suggested to the powers that be here that we create an equivalent at ILP — thus allowing him to post again here in that forum.
And let’s not forget that he is unable to post here because in having utter contempt for those who don’t share his own point of view – the morons, the chimps, the desperate degenerates – he often violated the posted rules for particapating here.
Again, all of this providing that we do have some measure of autonomy. And I have never argued that we don’t. Only that, from my frame of mind here and now, it seems more reasonable that, given the assumption the human brain/mind/consciousness are wholly in sync with the laws of matter in a No God world, “I” possess only the psychological illusion of “choice”.
Right, and at no time has he or you ever stooped to being “shrill”.
You know, whatever that means.
I can only leave it to others to decide for themselves if my reaction to him is appropriate. I’m certainly not insisting that they are actually obligated to if they wish to be thought of as ever and always correct. That’s his thing.
Or, with respect to points of view regarding your reaction to things like Communism, your thing.
But my point revolves around him being able to demonstrate this beyond the claim itself. And beyond the intellectual contraptions he invariably falls back on.
Straight observation of human behaviors? In other words, assuming that the observations themselves are necessarily autonomous. Why? Because he argues that they are.
That’s the part about me acknowledging I’m in the same boat that you and he are.
This part:
In no way, shape or form am I attempting to argue that my own point of view here isn’t in turn an existential contraption. A subjective/subjunctive vantage point rooted in dasein rooted and in the conflicting [though often quite reasonable] assumptions made by those on both sides of the scientific and philosophical divide. And going back now literally thousands of years.
In other words, they would agree with the definition and the meaning that he gives to words that then defend the definition and the meaning he gives to other words. None of which are connected to actual human interactions other than by way of assumming that an understanding of human interactions are necessarily in sync with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words to describe human interactions in general.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about that then. Sure, we can just assume that Mary was free to choose an abortion; and that in choosing to have one, she either was or was not behaving morally.
And that if others don’t flat out share our own assertions about this, they are morons or desperate degenerates.
My argument is this: that if the assumption about human behaviors and the observation of human behaviors is but the embodiment of nature having evolved into living matter having evolved in human minds wholly in sync with immutable laws of matter, this very exchange is just another inherent component of that.
But I have no way in which to demonstrate this myself.
Can something that profound ever be truly resolved to the satisfaction of all ? For will there not always be some philosophical objection to it ?
Also a wholly determined Universe cannot be possible because randomness is an observable feature within it so it is only partially determined
[ Randomness here does not mean absolutely anything happening by chance but only possible outcomes having an equal chance of happening ]
"It took 380 000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei forming the first atoms . These were mainly helium and hydrogen which
are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe I . 6 million years later gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas
… evolved into living matter that over billions of years evolved into human minds able to discuss it as / in the embodiment of I !
From zero minds to this exchange . And how it all became possible going back to a complete understanding of existence itself . And
then going forward to how those of own species thousands of years into the future will clearly be more informed than we are now
But : informed autonomously ?
Will that finally be resolved once and for all ?
And what does it mean to resolve anything at all in a wholly determined universe"
{{{{{{{{Yes it can become autonomously sourced, because the referential temporal/spatial inductive gap will approach to an undifferentiable limit.
In other words, the technological/technical memory will reduce general-field multi function devices to few specific ones, where autonomy will be thus generated. ]]]]]]]]]
If you are going to post his statements here, then at least counter them instead of dismissing them as “worlds of words”, “intellectual contraptions” and “not demonstrated”.
That’s what’s being discussed … the meaning of ‘choice’. And your take on it is different from his.
Obviously you know what ‘shrill’ means since you just accused him and me of being shrill sometimes.
It looks to me like his claims can be seen in ordinary human behavior. Now, you can try to demonstrate we are wrong about those observations.
Autonomy has nothing to do with. It’s a description of human behavior. It’s true or false whether we are autonomous or not. It’s like saying “people hit tennis balls with tennis rackets”. One can analyze how often it happens if at all, who does it and where.
So by not providing a demonstration , you are demonstrating that demonstrations are not possible. Is that it???
It seems that he is correctly describing human behavior. That’s the bottom line as far I’m concerned. I don’t care if you call it an existential contraption. That’s basically an empty label.
He didn’t make up the meanings of the words … they are listed in the dictionary. And those words and meanings were created based on human experiences. I don’t see the lack of connection to human interactions. Which words are you claiming are disconnected?
Mary has choices. She chooses one which she has the power to enact and acts. There are consequences to her decision.
That’s not really an argument against what he is saying is it?
“this atheist believes in free will”
James Kirk Wall from the ChicagoNow web page
In a way, this encompasses just how absurd it seems to believe in a truly “hard determinist” assessment of human reality.
Something exist. Either out of nothing at all or because there was never not something. And if somehow we can unravel all the pieces that encompass all there is, we’ll find that nothing in it could ever have been other than what it only could have been.
Right up to me typing these words and you reading them.
And yet from somewhere deep down inside our “hearts and souls” we just know that this is completely preposterous. “Prove it” is the obvious reaction. But then those who argue for it can always come back with “prove that it’s not”.
Then what? Where’s the definitive argument coupled with the definitive evidence that finally resolves it beyond all doubt?
But, in my view, most folks can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge it has not been pinned down yet. They merely assume that their own point of view need be as far as they go. They become objectivists. Why? Because, psychologically, convincing yourself that you have the answer is more important than whatever the answer might possibly be.
In other words, “I” being but another “celestial body” on a celestial body that we call Earth.
Only, for all mindless celestial bodies, there does indeed seem to be a set of laws – the either/or world – that they must obey going all the way back to the Big Bang.
It’s mindful bodies that throw everything for a loop. Surely they must be an exception somehow. Either through God or through some extraordinary component embedded in the evolution of mindless matter into minds into “I”.
Something we will just have to wait for science to figure out so that one day in the future it will be confirmed that, yes, we do indeed have at least some capacity to freely shape our own lives.
Still, folks like me then go on to suggest that, even to the extent our will is free, “I” in the is/ought world is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That, in the is/ought world, the subjective/subjunctive “I” still appears to prevail.
He walked out on that exchange. You know, compelled to or otherwise.
Again, in regards to this, we are in two different exchanges. Either he will embed his general description assessments of determinism in contexts in which he makes an attempt to demonstrate that his will is free or he won’t.
Or, if you are convinced that he already has, cite examples of it.
You’re missing my point though. Assuming we do possess some measure of autonomy, my point is less in regard to the points being raised themselves and more in regard to the extent to which one insists that only his or her points reflect that which all rational men and women are oblgated to embrace.
[i]Or else they become “morons” or “desperate degenerates” too! [/i]
Let’s face it, with him there are any number of your own arguments that make you a moron or a desperate degenerate.
What does it mean to speak of ordinary human behavior when to the best of my knowledge here and now it has not been demonstrated definitively that what we choose to do we choose to do of our own volition.
And then the part I always come back to: the way in which the human brain seems able to create both ordinary and extraordinary behaviors in our dreams such that, while in them, we are convinced that we are calling all the shots of our own volition as well.
At least that’s how it works in my dreams.
Autonomy has everything to do with it. Are we compelled by the laws of nature to describe what we do? Or to hit tennis balls with tennis rackets? Or to analyze to one conconclusion rather than another?
Everything here seems to revolve around a comprehensive understanding of how the brain actually accomplishes this. And then going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
Sure, many will just shrug off, “but there are also unknown unknowns…there are things we don’t know we don’t know”.
They already know what they do know and they’re ready to just move on to the next thing that they already know that they do know.
Well, I’m not one of them.
I don’t know if demonstrations are possible. And someone can always insist that he did in fact demonstrate it but that I really am a “moron” and keep failing to grasp it. Or, in turn, that you have in fact demonstrated your views about Communism…only I keep missing that too.
I never deny the possibility of that. It always comes down to that which any particular “I” is convinced has been demonstrated. Then it becomes a matter of how one demonstrates in turn that enough folks are convinced of the demonstration that it is accepted as true for all of us. The either/or world interactions for example.
Where I draw the line here myself is in regard to “I” in the is/ought world; and in regard to “I” going all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb where questions such as this are explored.
Those demonstrations. Or the lack thereof. The part where your “empty labels” kick in?
Yes, and you merely assume that these choices are free. That these consequence are solely as a result of that assumption. And that becomes a demonstration enough for you.
It’s my argument. An argument predicated on my assumptions. An argument, however, that I am not able to demonstrate one way or the other is of my own actual volition.
Another person who walked out on an exchange with you. I wonder why?
Look at how you handle yourself in these discussions. You don’t embed your general descriptions in contexts and you don’t demonstrate them.
Why should he? Or anyone for that matter?
In your last post, you brought up the context of Mary and her abortion. But what did you actually analyze about it? What did you explain with it? What did you demonstrate?
Who wants to discuss “what all rational men and women are obligated to embrace” when you can’t even agree to some simple dictionary definitions of words??
You act as if he has some crazy ideas about ‘freedom’ which he has completely fabricated out of a web of words. Settle that before moving on to the obligation of all rational men and women. Please. [-o<
I don’t have any control over what he thinks of me. Therefore, I’m not concerned about it.
It’s observed human behavior whether it’s chosen of “our own volition” or not.
No. Once you describe something, then the description is either accurate or inaccurate. The words correspond to a high degree with the something or they don’t. Autonomy doesn’t enter into it.
Sure, you may not be capable of producing an accurate description but that’s separate from the evaluation of the description.
Notice that I did not use the word ‘free’. After one establishes that she has choices and that she acts on a choice that she has the power to execute, then one can go on to discuss what it means for the choice(s) to be ‘free’.
Do you concede that she has choices, power to act and that she acts?
There was this guy in like the 70s Eric Berne, a psychologist, who came up with a set of games. Patterns people engage in where it looks like their goal is one thing, but really it is another.
In this case, the real problem is not on the table. On the table are conflicting goods, determinism and having no way to know what the real ‘I’ is.
In context we could ask if he can help but play this game. And then the next issue of would hearing of the game offer a chance for change - even in a deterministic universe.
Often these two things are conflated.
[i]A: In a determinist universe I can’t help to act this way.
B: Sure, but now that the problem has been pointed out a new cause is in play.
A: But what if it’s a determinist universe?
B: Well, some people do change when their patterns are pointed out.
A: But perhaps I can’t help but not be affected.[/i]
B: Sure, but that means, even in a deterministic universe, that you are a particular kind of person, and likely have motivations that you cannot face. IOW, you are a poor discussion partner, even if you can’t help that.
And when this is pointed out, he plays…
Look how hard I tried. In this scenario he is the husband, the wife is anyone who is a discussion partner, and the therapist is the gallery he appeals to with ‘I leave it to others to decide…’
There’s even a game called ‘Let’s you and him fight.’ LOL
Now Berne’s empirical evidence for these games was not rigorous. It was based on his experiences with clients, his observations. But I find it amusing how a number of them keep coming to mind with these threads.
Does ‘playing games’ mean anything in a deterministic universe?
I think so. It wouldn’t be about blame, but still about what people are like. IOW saying that one kind of interaction is more gamelike, less honest, more convoluted, in some sense a con, could still have meaning. It’s just we ‘shouldn’t’ really blame the person. I put citation marks around ‘shouldn’t’ because in determinism without blame we also lose moral shoulds.
A sign at a beach bathing area saying that poisonous jellyfish have been seen in numbers in the water so bathing is considered dangerous today are still useful, however, in a deterministic universe.
