Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

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.

As far as I understand it, quatum effects are not indeterministic, the Schrodinger equation is completely deterministic.

[element771]

As far as I understand it, quatum effects are not indeterministic, the Schrodinger equation is completely deterministic.

Quantum is not deterministic, that is what makes it so weird.

[element771]

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

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

It is another version of the Libet experiment which has alternate interpretations (see PNAS paper above).

Also, this isn't the article but commentary on the article. Commentary on articles do not go through peer review so nothing you say is vetted by your colleagues.

The PNAS article is reflected in this comment...

[JimL]

Quantum is not deterministic, that is what makes it so weird.

I think you're confusing unpredictability with indeterminism.

[element771]

I think you're confusing unpredictability with indeterminism.

Nope

[seer]

It is another version of the Libet experiment which has alternate interpretations (see PNAS paper above).

Hey you asked for other studies, and I'm not sure about PNAS paper, I didn't understand much of it or where exactly it left open the option for free will. Perhaps you can quote that portion.

[JimL]

Nope

Yep, the underlying laws of physics are deterministic.

[element771]

Hey you asked for other studies, and I'm not sure about PNAS paper, I didn't understand much of it or where exactly it left open the option for free will. Perhaps you can quote that portion.

Right but it is just another study that basically repeats / optimizes the Libet experiment. The conclusions are the same so any critique of the interpretation of Libet experiment still applies.

RP = readiness potential

From what I can tell it basically says that these spikes aren't the decision per say but a precision of sorts. Either way the problem is how to interpret the signal 200 ms before the decision. Is it actually the decision or is it a readiness potential or what.

IMO, I would go with RP simply because it doesn't make the wild claim that our brain actually post-dictates what our decisions were. Just like in medicine..When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras!

[element771]

Yep, the underlying laws of physics are deterministic.

Evidence?

[carpedm9587]

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

So is your will coded through the genome, governed by genetics?

My will and reasoning are a function of my brain, and my brain is coded for via my genome. We cannot say that the will itself, or the thoughts, are coded for - but the capacity to HAVE thought is coded for. The same is true of instinct, and life itself. The genome does not have a specific code for "life." But the sum of the parts we call "living." Likewise, the genome does not have a code (that we know of) for "thought," but the tool that produces thought (the brain) is coded for - and sets the bounds for what can and cannot be done. For example, I mentioned that sociopaths do not have a moral compass. Very often, it's because the part of the brain that handles moral reasoning is not properly coded for and is (at least partly) nonfunctional.

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.

We discussed this separately. The mechanism for free will is not known. The genome does not, however, code for specific thoughts (as far as we know). Using the computer as an analogy, the genome codes for the hardware. Thought and reason are software functions running on that hardware. So where does the software come from? If we continue the analogy, I suspect that the brain of a child has a rudimentary operating system that is coded for by the genome, but then has the capacity to learn. So the human brain is essentially a self-programming machine, and the specific nature of that programming is a function of experience. We're back to the nature/nurture discussion. Nature is a function of the genome, which establishes the hardware capability. Nurture guides the programming.

But we are, in effect, speculating. A lot of this is still a big unknown.

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

I don't have any additional "and."

[carpedm9587]

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.

Then I disagree. We cannot quantify a "best" until we have a metric. That is the problem with your model. The metric is determined by what we value. If all people valued the same thing - then there would be a "best" moral code. But all people do not value the same things, and do not value them in equal proportions (i.e., some value life over liberty, some value liberty over life). As a consequence, you cannot arrive at a "universal best" moral code.

[carpedm9587]

Yep, the underlying laws of physics are deterministic.

This is not known to be a valid statement. The "underlying laws of physics" in quantum mechanics are not even fully understood, AFAIK, and we still do not have the "grand unifying theory." So it is not possible for you to say this definitively.

[JimL]

Then I disagree. We cannot quantify a "best" until we have a metric. That is the problem with your model. The metric is determined by what we value. If all people valued the same thing - then there would be a "best" moral code. But all people do not value the same things, and do not value them in equal proportions (i.e., some value life over liberty, some value liberty over life). As a consequence, you cannot arrive at a "universal best" moral code.

Yes, I think we may have to disagree. I believe that ultimately, as human beings, we all value the same thing, such as life, liberty and happiness. Whatever the moral system is that ultimately best serves that purpose for human society as a whole would incorporate the "universal best" moral code. Morals aren't just about what we value as individuals, they're about how we incorporate those values in a way that serves us best as a society.

[JimL]

This is not known to be a valid statement. The "underlying laws of physics" in quantum mechanics are not even fully understood, AFAIK, and we still do not have the "grand unifying theory." So it is not possible for you to say this definitively.

Well, from all that we know, the physical laws are deterministic. Elements assertion is that they are not, so it's up to him to show that he see's something that the rest of us don't.

[seer]

My will and reasoning are a function of my brain, and my brain is coded for via my genome. We cannot say that the will itself, or the thoughts, are coded for - but the capacity to HAVE thought is coded for. The same is true of instinct, and life itself. The genome does not have a specific code for "life." But the sum of the parts we call "living." Likewise, the genome does not have a code (that we know of) for "thought," but the tool that produces thought (the brain) is coded for - and sets the bounds for what can and cannot be done. For example, I mentioned that sociopaths do not have a moral compass. Very often, it's because the part of the brain that handles moral reasoning is not properly coded for and is (at least partly) nonfunctional.

That does not make sense Carp, you said the whole body was GOVERNEDby genetics. That would include the brain. So all our physical parts are governed by genetics. So what exactly it is that is not so governed by genetics, what is this non-physical thing that has some modicum of freedom?

We discussed this separately. The mechanism for free will is not known. The genome does not, however, code for specific thoughts (as far as we know). Using the computer as an analogy, the genome codes for the hardware. Thought and reason are software functions running on that hardware. So where does the software come from? If we continue the analogy, I suspect that the brain of a child has a rudimentary operating system that is coded for by the genome, but then has the capacity to learn. So the human brain is essentially a self-programming machine, and the specific nature of that programming is a function of experience. We're back to the nature/nurture discussion. Nature is a function of the genome, which establishes the hardware capability. Nurture guides the programming.

I was more dealing with this: 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.

And BTW - a self-programmed machine is still a machine...