Bulgaroctonus

Also, since this thread started out as a discussion of disease, the New York Times has an update on the Asian Bird Flu, now known as H5N1.

The story is "Danger of Flu Pandemic Is Clear, if Not Present" and is availible at the following site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/na...rtner=homepage

Praxus

Any claim to know that we lack free will is self-refuting. If we do lack free will, we lack the capacity to chose between what is true and what is false. If we hold a false idea, we would be incapable of changing it. So assuming the lack of free will, we must also accept the possibility that you are accepting a false idea because chemical reactions in your brain are telling you it is true. Any claim to knowledge dissolves at this point.

Furthermore, the fact that you are arguing against me, tells me that you are assuming that I am capable of changing my opinion, but your own ideas hold that I can not.

There is something seriously flawed with it, and you want to use it as the basis of your argument to prove that volition is an "illusion".

Science is based upon philosophic truth.

You don't seem to be understanding me. Something does what it does, because it is what it is. Probability has nothing to do with it. Something can not act against it's nature.

Bulgaroctonus

Yes, unfortunately. Our very thoughts are subject to physical laws so there really is no way to verify our own knowledge. Thats something I'm aware of, I'm glad you picked up on it.

That doesn't refute the 'no free will' theory, that just means that its hard to draw any certainties about anything.

Stephen Hawking was aware of the problem when he wrote A Brief History of Time. He could think of no clear resolution, except for the fact that evolution often selects for those people that have ideas in accordance with reality. Although in today's world, the evolutionary mechanism is hard to discern.

You opinions can change, although it will not be of your own volition. My ideas don't outlaw thought, they just say that its happening in a way different than we had intuitively thought.

Going back to my earlier metaphor, a river can change cours, although it did not determine that action.

I have obligations now that draw me away from the WAB. Its clear to me that I'm not doing a good enough job of convincing you. Oh well, blame sub-atomic particles.

When I have time, I'll try to draft a longer and more comprehensive approach. Meanwhile, take a look at the issue for yourself on some philosophy sites. Also, neurology deals with the issue somewhat.

Leader

"That doesn't refute the 'no free will' theory, that just means that its hard to draw any certainties about anything."

If you can have knowledge about anything, not only can't Praxus refute your theory, you can support it. Therefore, there's nothing to refute.

__________________

Praxus

What it means, is that you are incapable of knowing if we do or do not have volition. You can never know something, when you are incapable of changing your opinion on something if it is false.

I think we have hit a brick wall here. You reject the very idea that we can know anything. So there is no real point in arguing with you any further.

When one ball collides with another, they react in a certain way. They react like that (at the fundamental level) because it is in their nature to do so. There isn't an infinite number of causes and effects for each action. You can only deduce it so far, then the only explanation for why something does something, is because it is in it's nature to do it. Causality is the interaction of various things acting in accordance with their nature. This does not at all discredit volition.

Modern Philosophy leads to the very problems you are running into. Science can not negate true philosophy.

barrowaj

Okay. I have to interject here. Praxus and Bulgaroctonus are talking about nearly the same thing but can't agree on the meaning of morality and free will. I've thought about these issues before, and here's how I resolve them.

First, I agree with Bulgaroctonus that the universe is inherently amoral. And if human nature is simply a deterministic expression of the universe, then how can human behavior be labeled moral or immoral. The answer is simple. Morality is defined by humans, and is developed by consensus. People have different views on exactly what is moral and immoral, but almost everyone would agree that killing under most circumstances is immoral. So we see that morality is relative to the society that devolops it. This is a sort of limited moral relativity. For instance, a man who believes that stealing is not wrong is still committing a moral offense by stealing a purse, because the society which he is a part of believes stealing is wrong.

Finally, if we look at the development of morality along with society, we see certain trends are present in almost all societies. For instance nearly all civilizations deemed killing and stealing to be wrong. Why is that? Christians might point to that and say it is evidence of absolute morality. But how could this absolute morality exist independent of the physical world and affect it? It is more likely that morality stems from what is good and necessary for the development and survival of mankind. Therefore, morality is a social concept that has evolved to help increase the fitness of certain societies.

Hope that wasn't too boring... on to freewill...

If humans are composed of deterministic interactions between matter and energy, how can free will exist? The answer is that our *perception* of freewill is sufficient. What we perceive as free will is the ability to integrate lots of different sources of information, develop choices, and act on them. It doesn't matter if those choices are only because of different neurons in our brain firing at the same time. But then, bulgaroctonus can say, how can you blame a criminal for making the decisions that he did, given that he is composed of amoral matter just like the rest of us? The answer is that the criminal didn't give priority to the morality of the society that he lives in. Ok, but if that is just a deterministic process, how can we blame him? The point is that we are not laying down blame by imprisoning him. We are punishing him for a moral transgression. If we didn't do so, than other individuals would not consider obeying in a moral fashion a high priority, and the fabric of society would disintegrate.

Bulgaroctonus

If morality is just a social convention, that it has no important reality. Most human organizations can be easily overturned and destroyed, and their morals along with them.

The universe is essentially amoral, neither good nor bad. And thats just fine, things simply occur.

I enjoyed Barrowaj's hinting at morality being an evolutionary outgrowth, I think this is very close to the truth.

Praxus, you are talking about the point at which causality is not applicable anymore? I suppuse this is the most fundamental level of existence. It would indeed be hard to find that 'final cause,' without at some point saying, "it just happens." Indeed, it seems that the probabilistic framework that governs the universe in an inherent property of the universe, you can't go much lower that that. There becomes a point when humans can look no lower or deeper into the essence of things.

But I want to return to my central point. If the universe is essentially amoral, and I think barrowaj agrees with me on this point, then why do morals still hold up. Aren't human institutions infinitely more fragile and passing than universal, interglactic realities?

Also, I am one of those rare people that does not hold killing one way or another.
Of course, I have an emotional provlivity that will make me feel bad if I kill someone. But I recognize that as just emotions, not a universal commandment or truth.

Praxus

No, it is part of causality, all causes and effects stem from the nature of the acting/reacting objects.

The universe is amoral, but not man.

Bulgaroctonus

I need to put more thought into what you're saying. I can't reply concisely at this time because it deserves serious attention.



But man is inseperable from the universe at large. He is made of the same particles and obeys the same laws. I don't understand how a division between man and nature can be made, except on the most superficial levels.

Praxus

The law of identity, as has been said before states that something not only has an identity but that something can not be what it is not. This means that man has a specific identity. Something that differentiates it from all other living things, and inanimate matter in general. So what it is it that man possesses that other living things do not possess? The answer: a volitional and rational consciousness. Man does not have instincts, we have to chose among options, which leaves open the possibility that we may chose incorrectly. Since we are all alive and we wish to remain so, we need a code to live by. A code that promotes our own lives. Since the law of non-contradiction tells us that we can not both be acting morally and immorally in the same respect and at the same time, a single act can either be life affirming, or self destructive.

This is the foundation of morality, as you can see, what is life affirming is objective. It has nothing to do with what we think is life affirming, but with what truly is.

Bulgaroctonus

I very much disagree with this. Saying something "can not be what is not," is just a tautology. Of course that's true, a rock is a rock. "Law of identity" sounds good, but doesn't really advance our debate.

I don't think man is at all different from inanimate matter. There is only matter and energy. 'Animate' refers not to fundamental difference in constitution. 'Animate' only helps scientists group certain kinds of reactions, for instance the neurological reactions and cellular respiration that make up the human body.

The human body, as decades of scientific research has confirmed (and let's momentarily assume we have the ability to know things) is made up protons, electrons, and neutrons just like everything else. I don't see where you inject the difference between humans and the rest of matter.

Man does have instinct, try the sex instinct. Its hard to rationalize that desire except that its essential for the preservation of the species and has thus become an instinct. Humans across the board show a real susceptibility to this desire, and that leads me to believe its not just a decision (assuming we have free will anyway) and is instead an instinct. If you want more of my thoughts on the matter, I'm happy to oblige.

Humans also pull away from something that is burning them, run away from danger, flinch at loud noises, and will try to find food an shelter. Humans run on instincts. Indeed, looking at our brains, the prefontal cortex and other parts of the brain that determine rationality and personality are new compared to the more primal brain stem (which controls many of the instincts I'm talking about). Man is still firmly in control of his animalistic past.

Only some morality promotes life. Its hard to see how Catholic celibacy promotes life, or Islamic suicide bombing. It seems to me a lot of morality just keeps people under control and makes them more easily controlled.

You say humans are distinguished by a rational consciousness. I think most morals are irrational products of emotion and sentimentality (just like religion).
What is rational to me, may sound fascist to you.

Finally, I'd like to see some sources on the "Law of Non-Contradiction." That sounds like metaphysics to me.

All the same, glad to continue the discussion.

Praxus

A bomb can explode, a book can not. A human can reason, a brick can not. Are you going to tell me that these things (though made up of the same basic components) are not fundamentally different?

*EDIT*
Although everything is made up of the same things (sub-atomic particles), the variations in the bonds (and such) changes the nature of the sub-atomic particles. So the particles in our brain has a different nature then the particles in the sun. They act and react in a different manner then anything else.

An instinct is automatic knowledge/reaction. We have a desire to have sex, but we do not know that we must, and we certainly have the capacity not to have sex.

Pulling away is not an automatic reaction, as we have the capacity to not pull away; to overcome that desire. So yes, we are fully in control of our "animalistic past" as you put it. So would it not be proper to call these things "desires" instead of "instincts"?

Then that morality is false, as it contradicts the purpose of morality.

I also said man was volitional, that he has the capacity to be rational or not. Yes I agree though that all false moral systems are the products of emotion and sentimentality, or at the very least ignorance.

Read Aristotle's Metaphysics.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html

So you're in New Jersey aye? Where abouts? (I live in NJ too)

Leader

"Pulling away is not an automatic reaction, as we have the capacity to not pull away"

Not necessarily. When you touch something very hot or otherwise painful, your nervous system will pull your hand away without you choosing to to do it. In fact, your brain doesn't even receive the message until after your hand is pulled away. It might be possible to keep your hand on something that is burning you but it would be rather difficult. It would be impossible for most people to unexpectedly touch something very hot and not pull away. I don't think this changes the underlying argument however. Reactions like that are like other bodily functions.

Bulgaroctonus

I'm very much in agreement.

Leader

Yeah except that I don't think it changes anything.