Morality or Obedience?

[seer]

Because we don't see strict determinism in many aspects of our universe: quantum mechanics, emergent properties, etc.

And because my experience of life isnot a deterministic one. Well - except when it comes to my bread baking. I know, without doubt, that loaf will NOT come out right!

Well I don't know how quantum mechanics could lead to the freedom of the will. Unpredictability does not necessarily lead to conscious freedom of thoughts and acts.

[carpedm9587]

Well I don't know how quantum mechanics could lead to the freedom of the will. Unpredictability does not necessarily lead to conscious freedom of thoughts and acts.

I don't know how it does either. What I do know is that strict determinism has been shown, at least in a couple places, to not be true. I know that I experience myself as having the freedom to choose and the constrained freedom to act on those choices. How that is possible falls in my "I don't" know bucket. As you well know, I don't replace "I don't know" with "god did it" just to make myself feel better. When I don't know - I don't know.

[seer]

I give up, Seer. You constantly claiming it is unfalsifiable in the face of a clear methodology for falsification is unsurmountable. It's like trying to tell someone how to open a car door and having them continuously deny the car that is right in front of them actually exists.

I leave it to you. The discussion has ceased to be rational.

Carp, first, you can not falsify the claim (any trait/aspect of my person is a result of the evolutionary process) and I would add ONLY result of the evolutionary process - if you can falsify it please do. Second, this was a response Tass's broad brush claim that belief in a God or the divine is only the result of evolutionary pressures. That is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one - and again, if you can not falsify a theory how is it science?

[seer]

I don't know how it does either. What I do know is that strict determinism has been shown, at least in a couple places, to not be true. I know that I experience myself as having the freedom to choose and the constrained freedom to act on those choices. How that is possible falls in my "I don't" know bucket. As you well know, I don't replace "I don't know" with "god did it" just to make myself feel better. When I don't know - I don't know.

You do know that science is moving away from the idea of free will - correct? But you believe in freedom of the will because of your experience! Interesting...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/

[element771]

You do know that science is moving away from the idea of free will - correct? But you believe in freedom of the will because of your experience! Interesting...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/

I would not pay attention to Scientific American for ideas of where science is going. I know that the importance of my work has been overstated when translated to to media outlets. It was an eye opening experience and has lead me to be skeptical of all popular science articles. Not to mention that there are alternate interpretations of the data that would not negate free will.

Also, science doesn't move as a monolith. Sure there are determinists out there but there are also people who are skeptical of the strict determinism that would negate free will.

[carpedm9587]

You do know that science is moving away from the idea of free will - correct? But you believe in freedom of the will because of your experience! Interesting...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/

I have read the various articles out there about this. We're at the very early stages of understanding how all of this works, so definitive clams are simply pre-mature. And popular periodicals are not exactly peer-reviewed sources. I'm also leery about statements that treat all of science as if it is one, monolithc thing that moves in unison.

You also (again) seem to fall prey to binary thinking. There is little doubt in my mind that some of our thoughts/actions are more deterministic, and others are more free-will - just as some of our actions/choices are instinctual and others are reasoned. It's not all one or all the other.

HOW that all works, I don't know. As for belief being based on experience - name ONE belief you hold that is not grounded, in any way, in an experience in your life.

[seer]

I would not pay attention to Scientific American for ideas of where science is going. I know that the importance of my work has been overstated when translated to to media outlets. It was an eye opening experience and has lead me to be skeptical of all popular science articles. Not to mention that there are alternate interpretations of the data that would not negate free will.

Also, science doesn't move as a monolith. Sure there are determinists out there but there are also people who are skeptical of the strict determinism that would negate free will.

Well it is not just that article, there is the Libet experiment and the numerous follow ons reaching the same conclusions. I mean if you take the ghost out of the machine what do you left but the machine? I do BTW believe in free will despite what science may conclude since I am not a materialist.

[seer]

I have read the various articles out there about this. We're at the very early stages of understanding how all of this works, so definitive clams are simply pre-mature. And popular periodicals are not exactly peer-reviewed sources. I'm also leery about statements that treat all of science as if it is one, monolithc thing that moves in unison.

You also (again) seem to fall prey to binary thinking. There is little doubt in my mind that some of our thoughts/actions are more deterministic, and others are more free-will - just as some of our actions/choices are instinctual and others are reasoned. It's not all one or all the other.

HOW that all works, I don't know. As for belief being based on experience - name ONE belief you hold that is not grounded, in any way, in an experience in your life.

I agree with that, and I'm glad that we agree that science is not the last answer on every question.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, first, you can not falsify the claim (any trait/aspect of my person is a result of the evolutionary process) and I would add ONLY result of the evolutionary process - if you can falsify it please do. Second, this was a response Tass's broad brush claim that belief in a God or the divine is only the result of evolutionary pressures. That is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one - and again, if you can not falsify a theory how is it science?

My response was specific to falsifying the claim that "a moral compass provides survival advantages."

For the rest, the traits we show are either directly a result of evolution, or are tangentially related to them based on genetics (i.e., some traits can "carry along" in a species because they are closely associated with a beneficial trait on the same DNA strand). Every single part of our being is coded for by our genes, and genes are manipulated through reproduction, mutation, and the force of natural selection. Since no part of our body is NOT governed by genetics (and we now have the entire genome sequenced), then all aspects of our being are related to thus process. You falsify the claim quite easily: find a part of the human body that is not coded for by our genome. Such a trait cannot be the product of an evolutionary process.

If you are making spiritual claims about aspects of our being - those are nonscientific and cannot be assessed or falsified scientifically.

[element771]

Well it is not just that article, there is the Libet experiment and the numerous follow ons reaching the same conclusions. I mean if you take the ghost out of the machine what do you left but the machine? I do BTW believe in free will despite what science may conclude since I am not a materialist.

Right but there are other interpretations of the Libet experiment that don't negate free will. There are several lectures by neuroscientists on the Faraday Institute website that cover this topic. Even Libet himself didn't believe that it negated free will.

[seer]

My response was specific to falsifying the claim that "a moral compass provides survival advantages."

But that was not what I was asking, and I have no problem with this.

For the rest, the traits we show are either directly a result of evolution, or are tangentially related to them based on genetics (i.e., some traits can "carry along" in a species because they are closely associated with a beneficial trait on the same DNA strand). Every single part of our being is coded for by our genes, and genes are manipulated through reproduction, mutation, and the force of natural selection. Since no part of our body is NOT governed by genetics (and we now have the entire genome sequenced), then all aspects of our being are related to thus process. You falsify the claim quite easily: find a part of the human body that is not coded for by our genome. Such a trait cannot be the product of an evolutionary process.

So is your will coded through the genome, governed by genetics? How then is it free, in any sense. But back to my point, Tass' claimed that our belief in the Divine is merely or only the result of evolutionary processes is not a scientific claim, but a metaphysical one. He can not demonstrate that scientifically.

If you are making spiritual claims about aspects of our being - those are nonscientific and cannot be assessed or falsified scientifically.

I agree that some things are not open to the scientific process. And?

[seer]

Right but there are other interpretations of the Libet experiment that don't negate free will. There are several lectures by neuroscientists on the Faraday Institute website that cover this topic. Even Libet himself didn't believe that it negated free will.

It is where this is going element, towards determinism. As you know there have been follow up experiments that are even more stark than Libet's. Not that this is settled science.

[element771]

It is where this is going element, towards determinism. As you know there have been follow up experiments that are even more stark than Libet's. Not that this is settled science.

I don't agree. We don't really know where this is going. We still don't know how quantum effects, which are inherently indeterministic, affect the brain and neuroscience.

An alternative view to Libet denying free will...

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/E2904

Which studies are you referring to specifically?

[JimL]

Yes - if the metric is "increases survival value," that would follow.

No, I think that actually the metric would serve equally well no matter the human value at issue. I think the problem we have with understanding morality is that we tend to look at it from a personal, individual perspective, rather than from a societal perspective.

[seer]

I don't agree. We don't really know where this is going. We still don't know how quantum effects, which are inherently indeterministic, affect the brain and neuroscience.

An alternative view to Libet denying free will...

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/E2904

Which studies are you referring to specifically?

For instance the John-Dylan Haynes study at the Max Planck Institute.

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080....2008.751.html