Free-will or determinism - a question.

[Stranger]

Material determinism has nothing to say about morality although it is used to deny human moral responsibility.

   Somebody else wanting to attach 'material' to determinism as if it makes a difference. See #36.

Dennett actually makes the case for moral responsibility despite (possible) determinism via compatibilism.

If determinism is at base concerned with the movement of basic particles and their arrangements...

Determinism is a more general concept than that - again see #36.

...[morality] therefore has to be determined independent of material determinism.

Irrelevant term indicated.

That means morality is akin to say maths or the scientific method unchanged by material processes but manifestly governed by their own internal rules which are proved by experience.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Morality does not contain a means of proof (mathematics) and is not a methodology (the scientific method).

Material determinists have no warrant to comment on moral responsibility.

Why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   Somebody else wanting to attach 'material' to determinism as if it makes a difference. See #36.

Dennett actually makes the case for moral responsibility despite (possible) determinism via compatibilism.

Determinism is a more general concept than that - again see #36.

Irrelevant term indicated.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Morality does not contain a means of proof (mathematics) and is not a methodology (the scientific method).

Why not?

If determinism is above the material then you undo your own arguments elsewhere
Point out if you will where I am denying determinism?
You are agreeing with me if you suggest that there is more to determinism than material.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Morality does not contain a means of proof (mathematics) and is not a methodology (the scientific method).

Yes I haven't said that is untrue but that does not in itself counter my claim that morality is independent and  not derived from any classic materialist view.

It also explains how you can have a morality and be right or wrong according to its rules.
A scientific morality is misplaced and doomed because the hunch that there are moral laws is correct but not that they are to do with materialist determinism.

[Stranger]

If determinism is above the material then you undo your own arguments elsewhere

Who said anything about 'above'? Determinism is a logical property of systems.

Point out if you will where I am denying determinism?

I didn't say that you were.

You are agreeing with me if you suggest that there is more to determinism than material.

FFS - it's a logical property of systems - what's hard?

All Alan seems to be saying to me is that in all scientifically observed phenomena there is unconscious agency then when it comes to us other considerations need to be considered.

Why? And what about other animals?

A scientific morality is misplaced and doomed because the hunch that there are moral laws is correct but not that they are to do with materialist determinism.

I really have no idea what you are trying to argue against. You introduced morality into this discussion and it doesn't seem directly relevant to me. How about you start another thread and say what you mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said anything about 'above'? Determinism is a logical property of systems.

I didn't say that you were.

FFS - it's a logical property of systems - what's hard?

Why? And what about other animals?

I really have no idea what you are trying to argue against. You introduced morality into this discussion and it doesn't seem directly relevant to me. How about you start another thread and say what you mean?

What about other animals?
You seem to be the ones suggesting behaviour is determined by movement and arrangement of matter. We don't know what moral philosophy lies within animals do we?

[Stranger]

What about other animals?

You said 'us', which I took to mean humans, and contrasted it with "unconscious agency" - do you regard other animals as being unconscious?

You seem to be the ones suggesting behaviour is determined by movement and arrangement of matter.

You have a quaint view of physics - but my argument here is that the only alternative to determinism is randomness for purely logical reasons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said 'us', which I took to mean humans, and contrasted it with "unconscious agency" - do you regard other animals as being unconscious?

You have a quaint view of physics - but my argument here is that the only alternative to determinism is randomness for purely logical reasons.

Firstly we experience our own consciousness. We assume it in other people, we accept it to various degrees in animals. What we cannot do is assume moral capability in animals. I hope that clears things up.
I am not arguing against determinism here am I all I am arguing against is the physicalist interpretation of it.
Novelty constitutes a random event.

[Stranger]

Firstly we experience our own consciousness. We assume it in other people, we accept it to various degrees in animals.

Agreed.

What we cannot do is assume moral capability in animals. I hope that clears things up.

We'd be wrong to assume it but, from what I've read on the subject, there is some evidence for (for example) a sense of fairness in other apes and, to a lesser degree, in some other species.

I am not arguing against determinism here am I all I am arguing against is the physicalist interpretation of it.

That seems tangential to the subject here, so if you want to discuss it, I suggest another topic.

Novelty constitutes a random event.

A random event would constitute novelty - the other way round would depend on how exactly you define novelty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agreed.

We'd be wrong to assume it but, from what I've read on the subject, there is some evidence for (for example) a sense of fairness in other apes and, to a lesser degree, in some other species.

That seems tangential to the subject here, so if you want to discuss it, I suggest another topic.

A random event would constitute novelty - the other way round would depend on how exactly you define novelty.

How can a question about determinism be out of place on a thread about determinism?

That apes have a sense of fairness can only be trouble for the moral irrealism don't you think..

[Stranger]

How can a question about determinism be out of place on a thread about determinism?

It's about free will and determinism - if minds are deterministic what is the relevance to free will if they are realized in a physical structure or in some non-material 'soul'? This seems to be Alan's hang up but he clearly doesn't understand what determinism means.

That apes have a sense of fairness can only be trouble for the normal irrealists don't you think..

If by 'irrealists' you mean those of us who don't think it's objective - I don't see how. It's indicative that it evolved in social animals.

[Nearly Sane]

How can a question about determinism be out of place on a thread about determinism?

That apes have a sense of fairness can only be trouble for the moral irrealism don't you think..

Does that mean that because apes, like us, have a sense of preferred food, that's a problem for food taste irrealism? And that marmite is objectively good or bad for a taste?

[wigginhall]

I suppose AB is trying to conflate determinism with materialism or physicalism, so then he can announce a non-determined system, which is variously called 'spiritual' or to do with a soul.    However, it's not clear how this is a non-determined system, since we are not given further details.   It sounds a bit like traditional views of God, who does not arrive at a decision, since all decisions are already latent in him (or something).   However, this just pushes the issues further back.   

But I think this has caused some controversy in theology - since in one sense, God is prior to all decisions and feelings, yet in another sense, is considerably anthropomorphized, so gets angry, punishes people, and regrets making humans in the first place!   But there is also a cute version that God keeps experimenting, and we are one of the experiments, that didn't go all that well (not orthodox Christianity).  Try again, eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does that mean that because apes, like us, have a sense of preferred food, that's a problem for food taste irrealism? And that marmite is objectively good or bad for a taste?

Are you saying that morality is taste or like taste?
If it is taste then taste is an observed behaviour pattern of preference which is neutral there is no question that one ought to have a taste, ought to have one taste or another.
It would be sufficient to encompass  taste in a scientific observation. A prefers B to C.

Such a report though is inadequate to describe moral behaviour

Issues also arise for science if A prefers B toC today but tomorrow prefers C to B.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying that morality is taste or like taste?
If it is taste then taste is an observed behaviour pattern of preference which is neutral there is no question that one ought to have a taste, ought to have one taste or another.
It would be sufficient to encompass  taste in a scientific observation. A prefers B to C.

Such a report though is inadequate to describe moral behaviour

Issues also arise for science if A prefers B toC today but tomorrow prefers C to B.

Why do you think it is insufficient to describe moral behaviour? And your last sentence can surely apply to morality as well?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you think it is insufficient to describe moral behaviour? And your last sentence can surely apply to morality as well?

Because there is no moral arbitration.
I can observe your preferences but put no judgment on them. That is not the role of science.
I can see that you like Marmite because I can design an experiment to look at your behaviour.

Indeed the Milgram experiment shows that our moral faculties are suspended if we are embarked upon a scientific experiment.
Roger is copulating with his wife. Roger is copulating with somebody else's wife. Science makes no judgment or arbitration.
If your morals are based on taste there is no arbitration. From whence are your morals arising?

[Nearly Sane]

Because there is no moral arbitration.
I can observe your preferences but put no judgment on them. That is not the role of science.
I can see that you like Marmite because I can design an experiment to look at your behaviour.

Indeed the Milgram experiment shows that our moral faculties are suspended if we are embarked upon a scientific experiment.
Roger is copulating with his wife. Roger is copulating with somebody else's wife. Science makes no judgment or arbitration.
If your morals are based on taste there is no arbitration. From whence are your morals arising?

This is quite good as free form poetry. But it isn't an argument. Why is moral arbitration, whatever that means, related to saying morality is something where someone expresses a preference? And how would it show that that was 'insufficient'.

What is the relevance of science in your post? 

[Alan Burns]

Except that "spiritual power of the human soul" is just a string of words without any concrete meaning, it is not a counterargument to the one I presented, and it certainly does not excuse you from what appears to be a blatant disregard for truth and honesty.

Even if we were to imagine for a moment that there is something non-physical that we might label with your words, it still doesn't offer an alternative way in which decisions can be made that isn't some combination of determinism and randomness.

Once again for the hard-of-thinking: the argument is LOGICAL and assumes only that the system involved is subject to logic, NOT that it is physical.

We are also still left with your dishonest use of the phrase "...we must understand what comprises conscious perception, and this property still defies any material definition". When you haven't actually got any understanding or 'definition' of it yourself and you haven't ruled out a material understanding or 'definition'.

Can you not understand that the implication that a material understanding is impossible and that you have an alternative understanding amounts to dishonesty?

It all boils down to what it is that determines our thought patterns and conscious actions.  Is it an end result from physical chains of cause and effect events within our brain, or is it derived from whatever comprises our conscious awareness?  Of course if you assume that conscious awareness comprises nothing but physical events, then everything must be determined from physical chains of cause and effect.  But what is conscious awareness, and how can it interact with the physical properties of our brain?   I do not know the answer to this, and neither does anyone else.  I just know without any doubt that my thoughts and conscious actions are ultimately determined by me, not by the uncontrollable reactions to past events.

[Nearly Sane]

It all boils down to what it is that determines our thought patterns and conscious actions.  Is it an end result from physical chains of cause and effect events within our brain, or is it derived from whatever comprises our conscious awareness?  Of course if you assume that conscious awareness comprises nothing but physical events, then everything must be determined from physical chains of cause and effect.  But what is conscious awareness, and how can it interact with the physical properties of our brain?   I do not know the answer to this, and neither does anyone else.  I just know without any doubt that my thoughts and conscious actions are ultimately determined by me, not by the uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Alan, that is a complete misrepresentation of Stranger's post. I suggest you reread it because it very clearly does not say this.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, that is a complete misrepresentation of Stranger's post. I suggest you reread it because it very clearly does not say this.

I am just putting down my own thoughts on the topic which came to me after reading Stranger's post.

[torridon]

I just know without any doubt that my thoughts and conscious actions are ultimately determined by me, not by the uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Consider what is that 'me'.  The 'me' that responds is itself a consequence of, a product of, all those past events.  Given also that we cannot change the past, we cannot 'control' what we are in the present.

[Nearly Sane]

I am just putting down my own thoughts on the topic which came to me after reading Stranger's post.

Does that justify misrepresenting what he said?

[Alan Burns]

Does that justify misrepresenting what he said?

I did not try to misrepresent anything - I just put down my own thoughts.

[Nearly Sane]

I did not try to misrepresent anything - I just put down my own thoughts.

And yet you managed to do it. Which is why I asked you to reread the post so you could try not to misrepresent Stranger. It seems basic courtesy to me that you should want to do that.

[Alan Burns]

Consider what is that 'me'.  The 'me' that responds is itself a consequence of, a product of, all those past events.  Given also that we cannot change the past, we cannot 'control' what we are in the present.

So are you saying that control does not exist?
Are we entirely and uncontrollably defined by past events?
And I can't agree with your definition of "me".  I am a conscious entity in control of a physical body, not just a consequence of past events!

[Stranger]

I just put down my own thoughts.

While totally ignoring everything I said. What was the point? You didn't address my points and you didn't even say anything you haven't said thousands of times (or so it seems) before.

How about you read what I said, think about it and then write an actual response to it - or would that be asking for too much honesty?