Philosophy

[Monk]

Main Post II (Free Will 2)
From the Routledge Encylopedia of Free Will
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014SECT3

Pessimism
One way of setting out the no-freedom theorists' argument is as follows.

(1) When you act, you do what you do, in the situation in which you find yourself, because of the way you are.

It seems to follow that

(2) To be truly or ultimately morally responsible for what you do, you must be truly or ultimately responsible for the way you are, at least in certain crucial mental respects. (Obviously you don't have to be responsible for the way you are in all respects. You don't have to be responsible for your height, age, sex, and so on. But it does seem that you have to be responsible for the way you are at least in certain mental respects. After all, it is your overall mental make-up that leads you to do what you do when you act.)

But

(3) You cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all, so you cannot be ultimately morally responsible for what you do.

Why is that you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are? Because

(4) To be ultimately responsible for the way you are, you would have to have intentionally brought it about that you are the way you are, in a way that is impossible.

The impossibility is shown as follows. Suppose that

(5) You have somehow intentionally brought it about that you are the way you now are, in certain mental respects: suppose that you have intentionally brought it about that you have a certain mental nature N, and that you have brought this about in such a way that you can now be said to be ultimately responsible for having nature N. (The limiting case of this would be the case in which you had simply endorsed your existing mental nature N from a position of power to change it.)

For this to be true

(6) You must already have had a certain mental nature N-1 , in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you now have nature N. (If you did not already have a certain mental nature, then you cannot have had any intentions or preferences, and even if you did change in some way, you cannot be held to be responsible for the way you now are.)

But then

(7) For it to be true that you and you alone are truly responsible for how you now are, you must be truly responsible for having had the nature N-1 in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you now have nature N.

So

(8) You must have intentionally brought it about that you had that nature N-1. But in that case, you must have existed already with a prior nature, N-2, in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you had the nature N-1 .

And so on. Here one is setting off on a potentially infinite regress. In order for one to be truly or ultimately responsible for how one is, in such a way that one can be truly morally responsible for what one does, something impossible has to be true: there has to be, and cannot be, a starting point in the series of acts of bringing it about that one has a certain nature - a starting point that constitutes an act of ultimate self- origination.

Bulgar, If I strip away all the redundancies what you are doing is stating Quantum Mechanics again. I am not a master of this subject, but I understand that what you are saying is this : No one has control over action "A", it is decided by event "A-1", it is purely our delusion of freewill to try and attempt to explain ourselves as both the cause (Free will) and the originator of all our actions. This was the same statment you made in Freewill I, which is why I pointed out Quantum Entanglement.
I will summarize Q.E as best as I can for you:
If something moves faster than light then viewed from action "A" it would be apparent that event "A-1" has been preceeded by event A. Quantum mechanics when viewed in operation over vast distances accross space seems to have proved this very point. Sub-atomic particles seem to have breached deterministic physical laws by exhibiting different characterestics. As you said before our knowledge of the universe is insignificant for us to definitely prove that event "A" is preceeded by event "A-1". Therefore you can't use this deterministic model to dissmiss free will.

There is a more concise way of putting the point: in order to be truly morally responsible for what one does, it seems that one would have to be the ultimate cause or origin of oneself, or at least of some crucial part of one's mental nature. One would have to be causa sui, in the old terminology. But nothing can be truly or ultimately causa sui in any respect at all. Even if the property of being causa sui is allowed to belong (unintelligibly) to God, it cannot plausibly be supposed to be possessed by ordinary finite human beings. 'The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far', as Nietzsche remarked in Beyond Good and Evil :

it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic. But the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. The desire for 'freedom of the will' in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Baron Münchhausen's audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness.

(1886: §21)
In fact, nearly all of those who believe in strong free will do so without any conscious thought that it requires ultimate self-origination. Nevertheless, this is the only thing that could actually ground the kind of strong free will that is regularly believed in, and it does seem that one way in which the belief in strong free will manifests itself is in the very vague and (necessarily) unexamined belief that many have that they are somehow or other radically responsible for their general mental nature, or at least for certain crucial aspects of it.

I have you again at a disadvantage sir, Care to explain the following:
1) Why did the first thought occur? Why was conciousness percieved?
2) How did the first single cell organism form or why?
3) Why did it split or procreate?

We did pull out ourselves by our hair out of the swamp of nothingness. I seem to have even nietzsche pinned here.

The pessimists' argument may seem contrived, but essentially the same argument can be given in a more natural form as follows. (i) It is undeniable that one is the way one is, initially, as a result of heredity and early experience. (ii) It is undeniable that these are things for which one cannot be held to be in any way responsible (this might not be true if there were reincarnation, but reincarnation would just shift the problem backwards). (iii) One cannot at any later stage of one's life hope to accede to true or ultimate responsibility for the way one is by trying to change the way one already is as a result of one's heredity and previous experience. For one may well try to change oneself, but (iv) both the particular way in which one is moved to try to change oneself, and the degree of success in one's attempt at change, will be determined by how one already is as a result of heredity and previous experience. And (v) any further changes that one can bring about only after one has brought about certain initial changes will in turn be determined, via the initial changes, by heredity and previous experience. (vi) This may not be the whole story, for it may be that some changes in the way one is are traceable to the influence of indeterministic or random factors. But (vii) it is foolish to suppose that indeterministic or random factors, for which one is ex hypothesi in no way responsible, can in themselves contribute to one's being truly or ultimately responsible for how one is.
The claim, then, is not that people cannot change the way they are. They can, in certain respects (which tend to be exaggerated by North Americans and underestimated, perhaps, by members of many other cultures). The claim is only that people cannot be supposed to change themselves in such a way as to be or become truly or ultimately responsible for the way they are, and hence for their actions. One can put the point by saying that the way you are is, ultimately, in every last detail, a matter of luck - good or bad.

You have outdone yourself here, you have stated that one cannot change oneself in entirety and of course random events cannot be used to justify such change.

Can you explain Richard Branson to me? He is dyslexic and following your logic he should be nowhere close to where he is since his hereditory and past experiences do not allow for it. But he is where he is and he has changed himself to the point where he has caused his upheavel in life despite the bad hand dealt to him by luck. So the change has occurred without any random event. We can examine other examples if you wish.

[THL]

Is there anyway we can put a cap on the number of letters Monk and Bulgar are allowed to use in a single post? My eyes hurt.

J/K gentlemen...keep on with it....

[Bulgaroctonus]

First you made utilitarian statements and then denied you were utilitarian. then you claimed Nihlism, now thats denied too. So what is your belief system then, do you have one? I am getting tired of this now. Step up to the plate.

I have do not a set of beliefs that can be exclusively contained within either utilitarianism or nihilism. I think it's restricting to think only in those ways. Try not to view my thoughts within the context of a greater philosophical system.

1) How does it not advance my argument? According to you free will doesn't exist therefore morality is an illusion to give meaning to your life, is that not what you said? Cant keep going back on your words. So when I have established the existence of freewill throughout our previous debate you go back to square one again? Did you not concede "Self-interest", which is why I asked you to go back to Post 67 and reply, for Monsieur Bulgar I have nailed you.

No more 'Monsieur,' I am American. Its statements like "I have nailed you" that annoy me.

Read my 'Free Will 2" post, I think this clears up some misunderstanding. Morality can be treated as a psychological phenomenon that may convey meaning to people's lives. However, this psychological phenomenon does not relate to any objective facts. Also, you have not demonstrated the existence of free will, and I am not trying to evade you or 'go back to square one.'

2) Another statement which I disagree with, Morality can be enforced even where there is lack of free will. What do you think our legal system does then? Do you think all criminals have a change of heart? In certain situations morality can be enforced.

Sure, morality can be enforced without free will, but what is the worth of your moral system then? It means that you are punishing people for actions they had no control over, that seems a very empty system.

The Justice system also cannot exert free will. Thus, its 'decision' to punish people is also a scientifically determined result. There is no escape from the dilemma.

Fine, we will be pulling ourselves up with the help of our shoe laces all our life.

I don't understand this.

[Monk]

Is there anyway we can put a cap on the number of letters Monk and Bulgar are allowed to use in a single post? My eyes hurt.

J/K gentlemen...keep on with it....

LOL. Bulgar and me would have had a better debate in person, with praxus included of Course. Bulgar is just 17 and he has held my attention really well. He is quite fascinating.

These debates remind me of another friend of mine who is a researcher at princeton.

[Monk]

I have do not a set of beliefs that can be exclusively contained within either utilitarianism or nihilism. I think it's restricting to think only in those ways. Try not to view my thoughts within the context of a greater philosophical system.

Then you must say you are a proponent of all those ideas.

No more 'Monsieur,' I am American. Its statements like "I have nailed you" that annoy me.

Why should my choice of words affect you? Get past the redundancies. I have not insulted you in any way.

Read my 'Free Will 2" post, I think this clears up some misunderstanding. Morality can be treated as a psychological phenomenon that may convey meaning to people's lives. However, this psychological phenomenon does not relate to any objective facts.

I have replied to Freewill 2.

Also, you have not demonstrated the existence of free will, and I am not trying to evade you or 'go back to square one.'

Post 67.

Sure, morality can be enforced without free will, but what is the worth of your moral system then? It means that you are punishing people for actions they had no control over, that seems a very empty system.

The Justice system also cannot exert free will. Thus, its 'decision' to punish people is also a scientifically determined result. There is no escape from the dilemma.

I pointed out one situation. It is an exception and doesn't relegate my moral system to the backwaters. Think harder don't get caught up in narrow channels.

I don't understand this.

That was in repsonse to your reluctance to split philosophy and Science.

[THL]

LOL. Bulgar and me would have had a better debate in person, with praxus included of Course. Bulgar is just 17 and he has held my attention really well. He is quite fascinating.

These debates remind me of another friend of mine who is a researcher at princeton.

Great. New costumes everyone. Can I be the tournament director?

And I also have to commend Bulgar for his persistance... To be honest, I figured he would have given up or gone running from the board with all his crazy dictatorship ideas he was throwing out mere days ago. Bulgar, you have turned out to be quite the little competitor.... ;)

[Bulgaroctonus]

Bulgar, If I strip away all the redundancies what you are doing is stating Quantum Mechanics again.

Free Will posts 1&2 are from a deterministic position. I promise you I will post a Quantum Mechanical post (Free Will 3) tonight when I get time.

I am not a master of this subject, but I understand that what you are saying is this : No one has control over action "A", it is decided by event "A-1", it is purely our delusion of freewill to try and attempt to explain ourselves as both the cause (Free will) and the originator of all our actions. This was the same statment you made in Freewill I, which is why I pointed out Quantum Entanglement.

Alright, I will grant you that determinism may be false. I'm going to address this later in Free Will 3. However, it seems to me then that we cannot have free will if we live in a deterministic world. Thus, a quantum mechanical world is the last arena for our contest.

I will summarize Q.E as best as I can for you:
If something moves faster than light then viewed from action "A" it would be apparent that event "A-1" has been preceeded by event A. Quantum mechanics when viewed in operation over vast distances accross space seems to have proved this very point. Sub-atomic particles seem to have breached deterministic physical laws by exhibiting different characterestics. As you said before our knowledge of the universe is insignificant for us to definitely prove that event "A" is preceeded by event "A-1". Therefore you can't use this deterministic model to dissmiss free will.

Again, I will post Free Will 3: Quantum Mechanics tonight. Quantum mechanics predicts a fundamentally probabilistic universe. However, this probability doesn't help human free will, since the probability is not the product of human cognition. I don't see how probability aids the situation. Even if the chronological order A and A-1 were reversed, that wouldn't make humans in charge of the situation.

I have you again at a disadvantage sir, Care to explain the following:
1) Why did the first thought occur? Why was conciousness percieved?
2) How did the first single cell organism form or why?
3) Why did it split or procreate?

1) The first thought was the product of an electrochemical reactions. the basis for these electrochemical reactions was the human brain, created during gestation. Thus, my first thought is ultimately dependent on the developmental course that my brain followed in utero. Following this chemical chain further back, we come to the origin of life, and ultimately to the origin of the universe.

I view my own thoughts as one part in an immense chain reaction set off by the Big Bang.

2) The origin of life is still up to debate. However, it appears that it happened according to chemical tendencies. That is, a few simple hydrocarbons bonded together because it was their 'natural tendency' to do so. Similarly, Oxygen naturally bonds together as a gas. Each oxygen molecule consists of two oxygen atoms. Certain chemical compunds have proclivities, ways that they frequently combine with other compunds.

This may be unsatisfactory, but Praxus may know what I'm talking about. Ultimately, we have to look more into the reasons why particles act as they do. Quite possibly, the creation of life was a probabalistic outcome dictated by quantum mechanics.

3)Again, its splitting or procreating was an event that had a high probability. It seems that there was a primordial cell, very much simpler than any human cell, that reproduced along the tendencies of chemical laws.

All of this warrants a biology debate.

We did pull out ourselves by our hair out of the swamp of nothingness. I seem to have even nietzsche pinned here.

How? He certainly wouldn't think so.

You have outdone yourself here, you have stated that one cannot change oneself in entirety and of course random events cannot be used to justify such change.

Can you explain Richard Branson to me? He is dyslexic and following your logic he should be nowhere close to where he is since his hereditory and past experiences do not allow for it. But he is where he is and he has changed himself to the point where he has caused his upheavel in life despite the bad hand dealt to him by luck. So the change has occurred without any random event. We can examine other examples if you wish.

In Richard Branson's case their were other chemical factors that influenced his life outcome. There was a long string of events that influenced Branson's life. For example, maybe his parents were very supportive of him, and he remebered their dictate he 'try harder.' Or he had a great elementary teacher that taught him methods to overcome dyslexia. No doubt his life was complex, but the proper exterior causes can be found.

[Bulgaroctonus]

Great. New costumes everyone. Can I be the tournament director?

And I also have to commend Bulgar for his persistance... To be honest, I figured he would have given up or gone running from the board with all his crazy dictatorship ideas he was throwing out mere days ago. Bulgar, you have turned out to be quite the little competitor.... ;)

Thank you. The dictator ideas were just the opening act.

[Monk]

Bulgar, I am not convined with your post. you are trying to explain everything away as chemical reactions, I have come to expect something more logical from you. Think and come back with something more substantial.

And your statement that Q.E. doesn't help my case. Review what I said very carefully. I am not pointing out an anamoly but something which is deeper than that. Read my whole post in depth again and come back to me. :)

[THL]

Bulgar, I am not convined with your post. you are trying to explain everything away as chemical reactions, I have come to expect something more logical from you. Think and come back with something more substantial.

And your statement that Q.E. doesn't help my case. Review what I said very carefully. I am not pointing out an anamoly but something which is deeper than that. Read my whole post in depth again and come back to me. :)

Bulgar - Beware! Now Monk is grading your posts to him and marking them as unnacceptable. Makes me a little self concious about my own...

Too Funny!

[Bulgaroctonus]

Bulgar, I am not convined with your post. you are trying to explain everything away as chemical reactions, I have come to expect something more logical from you. Think and come back with something more substantial.

What else is there? Is their a non-physical aspect of the universe that I'm missing? I don't think so. My views are somewhat unrelenting and bleak, but not illogical.

And your statement that Q.E. doesn't help my case. Review what I said very carefully. I am not pointing out an anamoly but something which is deeper than that. Read my whole post in depth again and come back to me. :)

Please do more than just tell me to review the post. I review everything as I write it. If I don't receive a specific complaint, I can't properly respond to you. Write a long post in response, point out how quantum mechanics support free will. My Free Will 3: Quantum Mechanics will be posted at about 11 PM Eastern US Time. I'll answer your doubts then.

[Bulgaroctonus]

He has human skin and hair...that makes him real

I will not agree that the Kenobi is 'real' just because Lucas portrayed him as a human. He is still imaginary. After all, Praxus' scientist had hair and human skin, as well as Monk's Greek Sophist. All the same, I won't take this too seriously.

I stick with Kenobi.

Don't forget this is a philisophy thread and hasn't it already been discussed that none of us actually "exist"?

We exist, but not exactly as we thought previously.

[clegane]

About the morality of the AIDs crisis of Sub-Saharan Africa- remember that one the greatest reasons why HIV can spread so effectively is the ten year dormant period in which the virus is dormant but when it can still spread. Also remember

Monk, you're trying to refute the principles of mathematical induction by claiming that causation is broken by time travel, which is accomplished by traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. That nothing travels faster than the speed of light is a principle more fundamental to physics than even F=ma.

Bulgar's argument is simple as viewed from a mathematical standpoint. Take the base state of mind N=0, which can be defined as either the first concious thought or the moment of birth. Either way, N=0 could not have been determined by the individual as the individual did not have any previous thoughts to try and determine N=0. Now assume any state of mind, N, was not determined by the individual. The next state of mind, N+1 is created by the conflux of such elements as N itself, the person's genetic predisposition, any outside events and the randomness inherent in a quantum-mechanical model of the universe, none of which could have been determined by the individual him/herself.
Thus, more mathematically, for propostion that any state of mind N, could not have been determined by the person of state of mind N
N=0 is true
and N is true ==>N+1 is true
by induction, proposition holds for all N
Q.E.D.

Of course with all the possible influences on a person's actions, there's way we can know exactly how things are going to turn out even if we don't have control over that. So we can still live life and everything can be a suprise, but we just have to understand that we, ourselves did not determine anything.

I disagree with with Bulgar that moral responsibility is contingent upon free will, but that belief is very subjective.

[THL]

About the morality of the AIDs crisis of Sub-Saharan Africa- remember that one the greatest reasons why HIV can spread so effectively is the ten year dormant period in which the virus is dormant but when it can still spread. Also remember

Monk, you're trying to refute the principles of mathematical induction by claiming that causation is broken by time travel, which is accomplished by traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. That nothing travels faster than the speed of light is a principle more fundamental to physics than even F=ma.

Bulgar's argument is simple as viewed from a mathematical standpoint. Take the base state of mind N=0, which can be defined as either the first concious thought or the moment of birth. Either way, N=0 could not have been determined by the individual as the individual did not have any previous thoughts to try and determine N=0. Now assume any state of mind, N, was not determined by the individual. The next state of mind, N+1 is created by the conflux of such elements as N itself, the person's genetic predisposition, any outside events and the randomness inherent in a quantum-mechanical model of the universe, none of which could have been determined by the individual him/herself.
Thus, more mathematically, for propostion that any state of mind N, could not have been determined by the person of state of mind N
N=0 is true
and N is true ==>N+1 is true
by induction, proposition holds for all N
Q.E.D.

Of course with all the possible influences on a person's actions, there's way we can know exactly how things are going to turn out even if we don't have control over that. So we can still live life and everything can be a suprise, but we just have to understand that we, ourselves did not determine anything.

I disagree with with Bulgar that moral responsibility is contingent upon free will, but that belief is very subjective.

Ha Ha, Gentlemen!! I have no idea what Clegane said, but since I was not mentioned specifically he must be on my side, whatever my side is, if I even have a side since I may or may not actually exist!!

[clegane]

Ha Ha, Gentlemen!! I have no idea what Clegane said, but since I was not mentioned specifically he must be on my side, whatever my side is, if I even have a side since I may or may not actually exist!!

Ignore my first paragraph, I meant to delete it, but forgot