What Is Man?

[seer]

It’s entirely the point, we act as if we have free-will and make decisions on this basis. Determinism allow for "choice" even though it is illusory; it is a part of the determined process. You seem to have a problem with this.

Then just admit that your position is no different than fatalism. That is what this part of the discussion is about, your arbitrary distinction between determinism and fatalism. That claim is false.

The genetic predisposition for altruism and reciprocity etc. are tribal qualities. The social order maintained within a tribe does not necessarily extend towards rival tribes and/or religious affiliations. And, although many of the Western nations have grown beyond it, tribalism has always been part of human history. One only has to look to the murderous behaviour of the Israelites towards their rival tribes (e.g. the slaughter of the Amorites) for examples of this. And yet they maintained a strict moral code within their own tribe as, no doubt, the Jihardists do. They are devoutly religious after all.

Yes and they are devoutly religious because the laws of nature determined that they be so. And I don't know what you mean by "grown beyond." Grown beyond according to what objective standard?

The universe is a process, and life is an outcome of that process. It is not a goal of that process nor does it care about that process. The fact that our choices are determined by prior causes doesn't matter; “choice” itself is a part of this causal stream and, thanks to the higher intelligence of Homo sapiens, those choices include learning and growing.

The process does not care about learning and growing. And the process determines what we believe and think. So what exactly is doing the learning? It is not the process. You will say us - but that makes no sense, since we can only spit out what the process programs in.

You are reading into Jefferson what you want to see.

In fact “…Jefferson held deep Deistic beliefs. He even thought Jesus to be a Deist”. I can provide many links to this effect.

http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm

Regardless, the issue is Enlightenment thinking, not Deism or Jefferson per se. Although Jefferson and other members of the founding generation were influenced by the Enlightenment values of reason and rationality, which stressed that liberty and equality were natural human rights.

Tass, I'm not going to let this slide. I link quotes from the official Monticello web site, and you link a propaganda site. Jefferson never suggested that he was a Deist, he did however consider himself a Unitarian, and did believe that God interacted with men. And neither Jefferson or the Founders believe that human rights could exist apart from God. God was the necessary source of human rights.

Harris was not suggesting the possibility of “miracles” in that quote, as is obvious from the context. And to imagine that well-known atheist Sam Harris would be implying the existence of anything other than the physical world is utter nonsense. He at no time implies the existence of anything other than the physical, natural world. He, unlike most of his scientific colleagues, believes that “consciousness” can never be properly explained, although he presents some possible scenarios, but he is not nevertheless arguing that it is something other than part of the natural world.

I know what Harris meant, but again you missed the point. Consciousness is so unlikely, so unnecessary, that there is no physical explanation.

YOU will never have reason to dismiss the idea of free will, because for you it is based on divine revelation NOT upon substantiated facts.

Well no Tass, I made my point, there is nothing in scientific research to date that can explain consciousness. And if they can't explain one of the most important and fundamental aspects of the human condition why should I close the door on my experience of freedom of the will? We are not anywhere near close enough to understanding the human mind to make that call.

If free-will is illusory then obviously you would not be aware of this fact, given that "illusion" is an erroneous perception of reality. And "Consciousness" is simply the state of self-awareness - a quality we share with several other creatures including Orangutans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Dolphins, Elephants and others. Do they have "free-will", or the illusion of free will, too?

Perhaps Tass it takes a much higher state of consciousness, like what we experience, as opposed to what animals experience, before genuine choice is possible. But who knows - you certainly don't and neither does science.

[firstfloor]

We are not as special as we sometime think.
http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-beh...ys-can-do-math

[seer]

We are not as special as we sometime think.
http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-beh...ys-can-do-math

Oh please, when a monkey can do this then come talk to me...

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-w-ceiling-wga

[NormATive]

Oh please, when a monkey can do this then come talk to me...

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-w-ceiling-wga

This might be an appropriate time to let everyone know that Rise of the Planet of the Apes begins this weekend.

NORM

[Tassman]

Then just admit that your position is no different than fatalism. That is what this part of the discussion is about, your arbitrary distinction between determinism and fatalism. That claim is false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DtVHhC_fws

Yes and they are devoutly religious because the laws of nature determined that they be so.

Again you confuse determinism, which has a component of choice, with fatalism which doesn't.

The Jihardists are religious fanatics because they have reverted to primitive tribalism; religion can do that to people. The Jihadists are doing what the devout adherents of any primitive tribal religion have always done, namely killing those who think differently from them in the name of God. Religion has long ceased being the unifying force it was invented to be; it now tends to be divisive and destructive.

And I don't know what you mean by "grown beyond." Grown beyond according to what objective standard?

"Grown beyond" the primitive tribalism of early Homo sapiens and other primates - as is obvious from the context. You're not even trying are you?

The process does not care about learning and growing.

Correct.

And the process determines what we believe and think. So what exactly is doing the learning? It is not the process. You will say us - but that makes no sense, since we can only spit out what the process programs in.

Tass, I'm not going to let this slide. I link quotes from the official Monticello web site, and you link a propaganda site. Jefferson never suggested that he was a Deist, he did however consider himself a Unitarian, and did believe that God interacted with men. And neither Jefferson or the Founders believe that human rights could exist apart from God. God was the necessary source of human rights.

The issue was the influence of Enlightenment thinking, not Jefferson per se. The Enlightenment emphasized reason and individualism rather than tradition and superstition and challenged ideas grounded in tradition and faith. It sought to advance knowledge through the scientific method rather than based upon revelation.

However, re Jefferson: The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." Obviously, this includes Jefferson.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm

Regardless, Enlightenment values, not Jefferson as such was the point at issue.

I know what Harris meant, but again you missed the point. Consciousness is so unlikely, so unnecessary, that there is no physical explanation.

Harris has never said that for consciousness OR that

Well no Tass, I made my point, there is nothing in scientific research to date that can explain consciousness. And if they can't explain one of the most important and fundamental aspects of the human condition why should I close the door on my experience of freedom of the will? We are not anywhere near close enough to understanding the human mind to make that call.

Perhaps Tass it takes a much higher state of consciousness, like what we experience, as opposed to what animals experience, before genuine choice is possible.

But who knows - you certainly don't and neither does science.

Science is certainly in a better position than theology to find out and is already part-way there.

[Tassman]

Oh please, when a monkey can do this then come talk to me...

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-w-ceiling-wga

Could the Hunter/Gather nomads of 200,000 years ago? Can you???

This might be an appropriate time to let everyone know that Rise of the Planet of the Apes begins this weekend.

To seer:

NORM

The BIG question is: Do the Apes in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" have genuine Free Will, or merely the illusion of it?

[seer]

It is different and shown to be different numerous times. I suggest you reread the earlier threads. Also, for a good overview: Are Human Beings Determined? Philosophers and Neuroscientists on Free Will and Determinism. Note Patricia Churchland discussion Libet’s experiments.

Tass, again there is no difference between your determinism and fatalism by definition. If every thing is really predetermined, then it is fatalistic by definition.

Again you confuse determinism, which has a component of choice, with fatalism which doesn't.

The Jihardists are religious fanatics because they have reverted to primitive tribalism; religion can do that to people. The Jihadists are doing what the devout adherents of any primitive tribal religion have always done, namely killing those who think differently from them in the name of God. Religion has long ceased being the unifying force it was invented to be; it now tends to be divisive and destructive.

What do you mean by choice? Are not all our choices predetermined by the laws of nature? You mean that the these Muslims could have chosen to do otherwise? You are making no sense. If you really believe that the Libet experiment is the last word on this then no, we are preprogrammed to act and respond as we do. And you told me in the past that the criminal was not responsible for his actions - Sam Harris says basically the same thing in your link. So these jihadists are only doing what nature created them to do. They are equally not responsible for their actions. And again, why is this a bad thing? Is it a bad thing when one colony of ants attacks and destroys another colony of ants and take over their territory?

We have "choice" within the causal process.

If you don't consider us a part of the causal process then you must justify HOW Homo sapiens acquired Free Will, as opposed to the illusion of it, given that science can take us back via an unbroken causal chain to before were even mammals. So, unless you can tell us at what point in this deterministic process “free will" was acquired you've no argument other than "God-did-it", which is no argument at all; its a leap of faith.

Again this is nonsensical. Our choices are predetermined, saying that we have a choice is like saying that a river has a choice in the path it chooses to follow. You don't believe in the freedom of will or the freedom of thought so when you claim that we are learning or growing you need to be specific - what exactly is doing the learning and growing? If the laws of nature dictate what we believe or how we process stimuli and if they care nothing about learning then what exactly is this other thing that learns and grows?

[Tassman]

Tass, again there is no difference between your determinism and fatalism by definition. If every thing is really predetermined, then it is fatalistic by definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKv2pWZkgrI

What do you mean by choice? Are not all our choices predetermined by the laws of nature? You mean that the these Muslims could have chosen to do otherwise? You are making no sense. If you really believe that the Libet experiment is the last word on this then no, we are preprogrammed to act and respond as we do.

We have the illusion of choice. We feel as though we are choosing and the choices we make form a part of the actual causal process itself, as has been explained umpteen times. This is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field. You are just not trying.

If you believe there is an alternative scenario then please explain it with substantiated evidence.

And you told me in the past that the criminal was not responsible for his actions - Sam Harris says basically the same thing in your link. So these jihadists are only doing what nature created them to do. They are equally not responsible for their actions. And again, why is this a bad thing?

Is it a bad thing when one colony of ants attacks and destroys another colony of ants and take over their territory?

"a bad thing".

Again this is nonsensical. Our choices are predetermined, saying that we have a choice is like saying that a river has a choice in the path it chooses to follow. You don't believe in the freedom of will or the freedom of thought so when you claim that we are learning or growing you need to be specific - what exactly is doing the learning and growing? If the laws of nature dictate what we believe or how we process stimuli and if they care nothing about learning then what exactly is this other thing that learns and grows?

As always you resort to the logical fallacies of Argument from Incredulity plus an Appeal to Ridicule on the side.

To counter the argument you only have to explain HOW Homo sapiens acquired Free Will, as opposed to the illusion of it, given that science can take us back via an unbroken causal chain to before were even mammals. Determinism in one of its forms is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field for very good reason: There's no counter position other than a religion-based one.

So, unless you can tell us at what point in this deterministic process Free Will" was acquired you've got no argument; merely declaring that you "feel like" you have Free-Will will not do it.

[seer]

Saying this is so does not make it so. I suggest you check the earlier posts plus the links, particularly regarding the Libet experiments, and do your own research on the web – that’s if you can seriously approach the subject with an open mind.

Again: Sam Harris on Determinism vs. Fatalism

Tass I don't care what Sam Harris thinks, he is just making the same lame argument that you did. I gave you a legitimate dictionary definition of fatalism, where all events are predetermined. And you agreed that all events were predetermined - throwing our choices in the mix changes nothing, since they are just as predetermined as any other event.

We have the illusion of choice. We feel as though we are choosing and the choices we make form a part of the actual causal process itself, as has been explained umpteen times. This is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field. You are just not trying.

I will ask again, could these jihadists have done otherwise or were they predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots?

Some people are clearly not responsible for their actions. We recognize this among retarded or mentally ill people who commit crimes. And, as well, Harris makes the point regarding unfortunate individuals who are badly socialized or genetically deficient resulting in psychopathy - or both. They exist and it’s not their fault. Nevertheless, they put the social organism at risk and need to be removed from society for its own protection. But we do so to protect the community rather than to punish the perpetrators.

What do you mean some people are not responsible for their actions? How can anybody be responsible for their actions? How are the jihadists responsible for their actions if they were predetermined by the laws of nature to do what they are doing?

It’s a “bad thing” for the colony of ants under attack, just as it was bad for the Amorites when they were slaughtered by the Hebrews. The Hebrews believed they were doing God’s will and the Jihadists also believe themselves to be doing God’s will? What's the difference? Religion has always been divisive, although today many of us feel that genocide is harmful to the global community as a whole and is, therefore, "a bad thing".

Right, but it is a good thing for the colony of ants that won and thrived. Just as it is a good thing for the jihadists if they win and thrive. Survival in your world is the only thing that matters in the end.

As always you resort to the logical fallacies of Argument from Incredulity plus an Appeal to Ridicule on the side.

That is false Tass, it is an if, then argument. Everything you believe, and all your acts, are just as determined by the laws of nature as the direction a river flows. The you have no more real choice than the river - do you disagree - why?

To counter the argument you only have to explain HOW Homo sapiens acquired Free Will, as opposed to the illusion of it, given that science can take us back via an unbroken causal chain to before were even mammals. Determinism in one of its forms is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field for very good reason: There's no counter position other than a religion-based one.

Tass, again, I'm a Christian and a dualist and I'm not limited to your narrow worldview - how many times must I say this?

[Tassman]

Tass I don't care what Sam Harris thinks, he is just making the same lame argument that you did. I gave you a legitimate dictionary definition of fatalism, where all events are predetermined. And you agreed that all events were predetermined - throwing our choices in the mix changes nothing, since they are just as predetermined as any other event.

I suggest you check the earlier posts plus the links, and do your own research on the web – that’s if you are making a serious pretence of actually looking at the evidence. All the indications are that you will not accept ANY evidence that contradicts your religious presuppositions.

Again: Sam Harris on Determinism vs. Fatalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKv2pWZkgrI

This is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field as indicated by the following link. Why would anyone accept your un-evidenced religious presuppositions when it flies in the face of the established evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DtVHhC_fws

I will ask again, could these jihadists have done otherwise or were they predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots?

Answered many times. Now I will ask you again, if we have Free Will, as you imagine it to be, then please explain HOW Homo sapiens acquired it, as opposed to the illusion of it, given that science can provide ample evidence for its Deterministic position by taking us back via an unbroken causal chain to pond amoeba. Just saying that you're a Dualist won't do it.

The fact that you are sneering at is that Determinism is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field for very good reason: It's supported by a very large body of demonstrably true evidence AND that there's no alternative argument. Exempting yourself from the scientific facts on the grounds that you’re a Dualist is unacceptable.

Presumably this means that you're going with the Adam and Eve scenario? So you reject the massive accumulation of scientific evidence supporting causal Determinism in favour of a myth that is demonstrably untrue - as many Evangelicals now acknowledge - and expect to be taken seriously. Either offer a counter argument to the scientific one or admit that you don’t have one - in which case your argument (such as it is) will be summarily dismissed.

What do you mean some people are not responsible for their actions? How can anybody be responsible for their actions? How are the jihadists responsible for their actions if they were predetermined by the laws of nature to do what they are doing?

See above.

Right, but it is a good thing for the colony of ants that won and thrived. Just as it is a good thing for the jihadists if they win and thrive. Survival in your world is the only thing that matters in the end.

You insist upon ascribing “purpose” and “goal direction” to nature. In nature nothing matters in the end as opposed to your world of delusional ideation.

That is false Tass, it is an if, then argument. Everything you believe, and all your acts, are just as determined by the laws of nature as the direction a river flows. The you have no more real choice than the river - do you disagree - why?

It's not false. Your argument is a Logical Fallacy. You feel you have free will, therefore in your mind you must have actual free will, not just the illusion of it. "I feel it, therefore it's true." The fact there's a mountain of evidence against your belief results in your Argument from Incredulity fallacy. In short: "I don't understand how this could be, therefore it is not".

See links above re “choice” itself being part of the causal chain. And address the argument rather than endlessly replaying the same broken record.

Tass, again, I'm a Christian and a dualist and I'm not limited to your narrow worldview - how many times must I say this?

Of course you're not; when you have an imaginary world-view you are not limited to anything as mundane as credible evidence are you? What fun it must be when everything you want to be true is true. <sarcasm>

Declaring yourself a Dualist, just because it's your preferred position, does not exempt you from justifying WHY you are one.

[seer]

It's not false. Your argument is a Logical Fallacy. You feel you have free will, therefore in your mind you must have actual free will, not just the illusion of it. "I feel it, therefore it's true." The fact there's a mountain of evidence against your belief results in your Argument from Incredulity fallacy. In short: "I don't understand how this could be, therefore it is not".

Again Tass, were the jihadists predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots by the laws of nature or not? It is a simple yes or no. And if they are predetermined how are they morally responsible? Were the northern chimpanzees morally responsible for slaughtering all the the southern chimpanzee males and taking their feeding grounds and females? Are the ants who destroyed the neighboring colony morally responsible? Are we not just as determined as them?

[Tassman]

Again Tass, were the jihadists predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots by the laws of nature or not? It is a simple yes or no. And if they are predetermined how are they morally responsible? Were the northern chimpanzees morally responsible for slaughtering all the the southern chimpanzee males and taking their feeding grounds and females? Are the ants who destroyed the neighboring colony morally responsible? Are we not just as determined as them?

Dealt with many times! And again you confuse causal determinism with fatalism. Once again I suggest you check the earlier posts plus the links, and do your own research on the web.

Sam Harris on Determinism vs. Fatalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKv2pWZkgrI

This is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field as indicated by the following link. And, apart from religious presuppositions, you do not have an alternative argument or a rebuttal. So why would anyone accept your un-evidenced personal religious argument for Free-Will when it flies in the face of the established evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DtVHhC_fws

[seer]

Dealt with many times! And again you confuse causal determinism with fatalism. Once again I suggest you check the earlier posts plus the links, and do your own research on the web.

Sam Harris on Determinism vs. Fatalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKv2pWZkgrI

This is the accepted position of virtually every expert in the field as indicated by the following link. And, apart from religious presuppositions, you do not have an alternative argument or a rebuttal. So why would anyone accept your un-evidenced personal religious argument for Free-Will when it flies in the face of the established evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DtVHhC_fws

IF we have Free Will, as you imagine it to be, you must explain HOW and WHEN Homo sapiens acquired it, as opposed to the illusion of it, given that science can provide ample evidence for Causal Determinism by taking us back via an unbroken causal chain to earliest days of life on earth. You must also explain WHY animals almost identical to us genetically DON'T have it. Unless you do the scientific consensus stands and your religion-based argument remains irrelevant. Exempting yourself from the scientific facts for no reason other than that you’re a Dualist is no argument at all. It's a statement of faith. So, once again, for the umpteenth time, are you arguing that the Adam and Eve scenario is a viable explanation of how humans supposedly acquired Free Will as opposed to Causal Determinism? It’s a simple “yes or no”. I'm waiting.

Tass I'm going to try again, remember this is a "if/then" question:if you are correct then what follows? So:

Were the jihadists predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots by the laws of nature or not? It is a simple yes or no. And if they are predetermined how are they morally culpable? Were the northern chimpanzees morally responsible for slaughtering all the the southern chimpanzee males and taking their feeding grounds and females? Are the ants who destroyed the neighboring colony morally responsible? Are we not just as determined as them? Or is morally responsible, like free will, just an illusion in your world?

[shunyadragon]

Tass I'm going to try again, remember this is a "if/then" question:if you are correct then what follows? So:

Were the jihadists predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots by the laws of nature or not? It is a simple yes or no. And if they are predetermined how are they morally culpable? Were the northern chimpanzees morally responsible for slaughtering all the the southern chimpanzee males and taking their feeding grounds and females? Are the ants who destroyed the neighboring colony morally responsible? Are we not just as determined as them? Or is morally responsible, like free will, just an illusion in your world?

Moral responsibility is a human social constraint for human behavior, and not primate nor animal moral issue. The predetermination of human actions negative nor positive cannot be conclusively determined. Well, unless your something like a Calvinist then we are hardwired down to who is the 'select' to be saved.

[seer]

The predetermination of human actions negative nor positive cannot be conclusively determined.

That is not what Tass says, he says that science has pretty much settled the issue - free will is an illusion. All our actions are predetermined.