What Is Man?

[shunyadragon]

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.

I disagree with Tass. I would go with we have a will, but it is not necessarily free. Science has not determined that we are some sort of automaton. It is true that many of our decision making process follows a fractal chaotic pattern within certain limits, and most people do not truly make many if any at all true freewill decisions out side the box made for us by our genetics, and culture.

[seer]

I disagree with Tass. I would go with we have a will, but it is not necessarily free. Science has not determined that we are some sort of automaton. It is true that many of our decision making process follows a fractal chaotic pattern within certain limits, and most people do not truly make many if any at all true freewill decisions out side the box made for us by our genetics, and culture.

If your will is not necessarily free then it is determined. As Tass said: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.

So according to Tass, science does show that everything is predetermined by the laws of nature.

[Tassman]

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?

All of this has been dealt with ad nauseam in the endless, repetitive discussion (which you seem to specialise in) regarding the tribal/pack behaviour of primates, primitive man and the occasional regression to tribalism sometimes found among the under-educated and/or religious fundamentalists.

Now deal with the topic at hand.

IF we have actual Free Will, as opposed to seeming free will

I disagree with Tass. I would go with we have a will, but it is not necessarily free. Science has not determined that we are some sort of automaton. It is true that many of our decision making process follows a fractal chaotic pattern within certain limits, and most people do not truly make many if any at all true freewill decisions out side the box made for us by our genetics, and culture.

This is precisely my argument, shunya. Seer chooses to misrepresent it as us being automatons, for whatever reason.

[seer]

All of this has been dealt with ad nauseam in the endless, repetitive discussion (which you seem to specialise in) regarding the tribal/pack behaviour of primates, primitive man and the occasional regression to tribalism sometimes found among the under-educated and/or religious fundamentalists.

No Tass, I have been trying to get a direct answer from you for a while but you are hedging.

1. Are the jihadists predetermined to be religious and murderous zealots by the laws of nature or not? It is a simple yes or no.

2. If we are predetermined how are we morally culpable? Are animals morally culpable for their behavior, are we any less determined?

See Tass, you do not want to admit that determinism destroys moral responsibility. That your view makes nonsense of the idea of moral culpability, like free will, it is just an illusion. Just admit this and I will be happy to move on.

[shunyadragon]

This is precisely my argument, shunya. Seer chooses to misrepresent it as us being automatons, for whatever reason.

OK! It is really possible if not likely that seer misrepresents your view. The problem of 'What is Free Will.' and the degree of freedom we have in our decision making process is a very involved complicated issue. Science has demonstrated that our 'Free Will' is limited, but the degree of 'Free Will' has not been determined. I try and follow the research pretty closely, and in discussions such as these, I describe 'Free Will' in terms of 'potential Free Will,' because in reality humans rarely express their decision making process in terms of truly 'Free Will' decisions, and there is the added complexity of determining whether decisions we make are actual 'Free Will' or not.

I do object to seer's comparison with animal behavior and human behavior in decision making process, and the use of morality in this comparison, since 'morals and ethics' are very human constraints for describing our own behavior. Though there may be lessons learned by comparisons between human behavior and that of our primate relatives.

Example: Muslims with similar world views and religious beliefs understand and express Jihad in different ways, Some express this belief in violent attacks against those the consider worthy of their death, others do not express their views in violent ways. How does 'Free Will' come into play in these complex scenarios?

[seer]

OK! It is really possible if not likely that seer misrepresents your view. The problem of 'What is Free Will.' and the degree of freedom we have in our decision making process is a very involved complicated issue. Science has demonstrated that our 'Free Will' is limited, but the degree of 'Free Will' has not been determined. I try and follow the research pretty closely, and in discussions such as these, I describe 'Free Will' in terms of 'potential Free Will,' because in reality humans rarely express their decision making process in terms of truly 'Free Will' decisions, and there is the added complexity of determining whether decisions we make are actual 'Free Will' or not.

OK, so you believe that free will is possible, though limited. Tass does not, that is the bottom line.

I do object to seer's comparison with animal behavior and human behavior in decision making process, and the use of morality in this comparison, since 'morals and ethics' are very human constraints for describing our own behavior. Though there may be lessons learned by comparisons between human behavior and that of our primate relatives.

No, if Tass is correct and all our behavior is predetermined by the laws of nature then our behavior is just as determined as any other animal. Undermining any notion of human responsibility. We don't ascribe moral culpability to the lion when he kills and eats the gazelle because the lion is doing what his nature dictates, he has no real choice. So why ascribe moral culpability to jihadists when he has no real choice and is only doing what his nature dictates?

[shunyadragon]

OK, so you believe that free will is possible, though limited. Tass does not, that is the bottom line.

I am at present unsure of Tass's view in detail. In his last email he indicated he agreed with me to a certain extent, but I also responded, and he may clarify his position more.

[shunyadragon]

If your will is not necessarily free then it is determined. As Tass said: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.

So according to Tass, science does show that everything is predetermined by the laws of nature.

First the well known fractal chaos shuts down predetermination in the bud. The obvious fractal nature of every event in nature that we have observed, and the fact that the variation of the events is constrained by natural law. Even human choices cannot be remotely considered predetermined as an automaton simply because there is a fractal factor in every decision humans make, regardless of whether humans have 'Free Will' or not.

[Tassman]

I am at present unsure of Tass's view in detail. In his last email he indicated he agreed with me to a certain extent, but I also responded, and he may clarify his position more.

This has been discussed ad nauseam in earlier posts. But, in simple terms I think it clear that Causal Determinism, masked as agency among self-aware creatures, fits the facts of the evolutionary process as outlined by Hawking in The Grand Design:

http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

Or Sam Harris’: “Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control.” - Free-Will.

This as opposed to seer’s argument of autonomous Free Will as divinely imbued when God created humans – presumably Adam and Eve although seer is coy about this. Hence, in seer’s mind all nuance is out; we are either mindless automatons OR we have full, actual Free-Will as directly implanted by God.

Personally, I hold to the Hard Determinist line as espoused by Hawking and others, because it makes best sense of the known facts. Nevertheless, I recognize the issue is unresolved and that Compatibilism, i.e. the notion that of some degree of free will being compatible with Determinism - as held by the likes of Dan Dennett - is a possibility. But the one thing which is ruled out altogether by the facts, in my view, is seer’s position of completely autonomous Free-Will.

[seer]

Personally, I hold to the Hard Determinist line as espoused by Hawking and others, because it makes best sense of the known facts. Nevertheless, I recognize the issue is unresolved and that Compatibilism, i.e. the notion that of some degree of free will being compatible with Determinism - as held by the likes of Dan Dennett - is a possibility. But the one thing which is ruled out altogether by the facts, in my view, is seer’s position of completely autonomous Free-Will.

Tass, where did I use the term "completely autonomous?" And since you are a hard determinist then you must agree that the jihadists are not morally culpable for their actions any more than the northern chimpanzees were responsible for their actions. I do wonder why you seem to want to avoid that fact.

[shunyadragon]

This has been discussed ad nauseam in earlier posts. But, in simple terms I think it clear that Causal Determinism, masked as agency among self-aware creatures, fits the facts of the evolutionary process as outlined by Hawking in The Grand Design:

http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumb...e-grand-design

Or Sam Harris’: “Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control.” - Free-Will.

This as opposed to seer’s argument of autonomous Free Will as divinely imbued when God created humans – presumably Adam and Eve although seer is coy about this. Hence, in seer’s mind all nuance is out; we are either mindless automatons OR we have full, actual Free-Will as directly implanted by God.

Personally, I hold to the Hard Determinist line as espoused by Hawking and others, because it makes best sense of the known facts. Nevertheless, I recognize the issue is unresolved and that Compatibilism, i.e. the notion that of some degree of free will being compatible with Determinism - as held by the likes of Dan Dennett - is a possibility. But the one thing which is ruled out altogether by the facts, in my view, is seer’s position of completely autonomous Free-Will.

This clarifies things. My view is more in between Seer's and your view. The following is from the article you cited:

Source: http://incomprehensibleuniverse.tumblr.com/post/3367711158/stephen-hawking-on-free-will-the-grand-design

Although we feel that we can chose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws… It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.

© Copyright Original Source

This view actually presents too much leaning toward an automaton vision of human 'Will,' and needs more to address the complex nature of our decision making process. To me, Dan Dennett's view of Compatibilism 'Free Will' is probably close to my view, but I reserve judgment, because of the complexity of our 'Will.' The fractal nature of our decision making process does complicate things and give the illusion of having more free will then we really have. I believe that the evolution of our brain as an intelligent opportunistic possibly gives some survival value of limited 'Free Will.' This does not detract from the fact that determinism rules and Natural Law and Environment has determined the nature of what is to be human. The difference between what I believe and the atheist/agnostic view is the 'Source' of this Natural Determinism.

As far as Seer's view of apparent of autonomous Free Will, or Libertarian Free Will, the scientific evidence totally rules this out. Those that believe this see our fractal chaotic decision making process as 'Free Will,' and this is an illusion.

[seer]

This view actually presents too much leaning toward an automaton vision of human 'Will,' and needs more to address the complex nature of our decision making process. To me, Dan Dennett's view of Compatibilism 'Free Will' is probably close to my view, but I reserve judgment, because of the complexity of our 'Will.' The fractal nature of our decision making process does complicate things and give the illusion of having more free will then we really have. I believe that the evolution of our brain as an intelligent opportunistic possibly gives some survival value of limited 'Free Will.' This does not detract from the fact that determinism rules and Natural Law and Environment has determined the nature of what is to be human. The difference between what I believe and the atheist/agnostic view is the 'Source' of this Natural Determinism.

As far as Seer's view of apparent of autonomous Free Will, or Libertarian Free Will, the scientific evidence totally rules this out. Those that believe this see our fractal chaotic decision making process as 'Free Will,' and this is an illusion.

Then there is no genuine freedom in your position Shuny. There is no genuine choice in compatibilism, since you can not choose to do otherwise. In compatibilism you are free to act according to your own motives, but you motives are determined. This is just as deterministic as Tass' hard determinism.

[shunyadragon]

Then there is no genuine freedom in your position Shuny. There is no genuine choice in compatibilism, since you can not choose to do otherwise. In compatibilism you are free to act according to your own motives, but you motives are determined. This is just as deterministic as Tass' hard determinism.

You still fail to understand, both compatibilism and my view allow for the possibility of some free will and are not completely deterministic. Absolutely no, your motives are not predetermined.

What you also have totally failed to consider is that the evidence to totally in conflict with the libertarian or autonomous free will.

[seer]

You still fail to understand, both compatibilism and my view. Both allow for the possibility of some free will and are not completely deterministic. Absolutely no, your motives are not predetermined.

What you also have totally failed to consider is that the evidence to totally in conflict with the libertarian or autonomous free will.

Really? Show me a definition of compatibilism, where a man has the ability to do otherwise in any given situation. So in your view what determines your motives? How is a man free to do otherwise?

[shunyadragon]

Really? Show me a definition of compatibilism, where a man has the ability to do otherwise in any given situation. So in your view what determines your motives? How is a man free to do otherwise?

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem. This philosophical problem concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

One motive in the definition is 'Moral Responsibility.' The Stanford citation goes into considerable detail about the relationship between free will and determinism.

What determines my motives in the decision making processes? Well, naturally the survival of the human species, which includes preservation of the family and community for future generations. Moral responsibility is essential to the survival of the human species, family unit and community. I believe in God, and this is part of the our nature. If you do not believe in God, moral responsibility remains necessary for the survival of the species, family and community.

Natural Law remains the basis for determinism, whether Natural Law is Divinely determined, or simply a product the natural history of our existence and humanity.

The problem remains, autonomous or libertarian 'Free Will' is in contradiction with the scientific evidence.