Secular Morality?

[JimL]

First Jim, determinism is fatalism by definition, I posted the definition in this thread. Second, no you never do or can believe things because they are true - you only believe things because you were determined to - true or not. That is not saying that you don't ever believe true things. But if you have no control over your beliefs then truth or falseness never enter it - only what the forces of nature programmed you to believe.


BTW Determinism, Webster: philosophy : the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism

That sounds a like fatalism to me.

You, aka your brain, makes choices, but those choices are dependent upon a chain of previous causes. How do you think your brain works? What do you think its for? Do you think that someone else, a spirit, is in there manipulating your neurons to fire this way and that. You, aka your brain, chooses, in the sense that no other brain, or no other thing, is the cause of its choices, but your brain is an information processing machine and its choices are dependent upon, and determined by, the information, whether true or false, that it possesses.The process is an unconscious one which is why you are not aware of your decisions until after your brain has already decided.

[Truthseeker]

You, aka your brain, makes choices, but those choices are dependent upon a chain of previous causes. How do you think your brain works? What do you think its for? Do you think that someone else, a spirit, is in there manipulating your neurons to fire this way and that. You, aka your brain, chooses, in the sense that no other brain, or no other thing, is the cause of its choices, but your brain is an information processing machine and its choices are dependent upon, and determined by, the information, whether true or false, that it possesses.The process is an unconscious one which is why you are not aware of your decisions until after your brain has already decided.

As far as I can see, your post did not address seer's contention that determinism = fatalism, though the last sentence quoted above does appear somewhat as an attempt to refute that. That is mere assertion anyway.

[JimL]

As far as I can see, your post did not address seer's contention that determinism = fatalism, though the last sentence quoted above does appear somewhat as an attempt to refute that. That is mere assertion anyway.

No, the last statement was not mere assertion, it was based on a study that showed just that. The brains actual decision to act is made unconsciously milliseconds before consciousness of that decision actually arises and your body carries out that decision. As far as fatalism goes, you will have to decide for yourself if the choices made by an information processer, that is not influenced by anything other than itself, is what you would call fatalistic. The brain is freely choosing, just as seer believes his spirit to be freely choosing, but its choices are dependent, just like seers spirit choices would be dependent, upon the information it possesses.

[Pytharchimedes]

[Tassman]

Tass, I'm not speaking of ultimate truths, just every day facts. It doesn't matter since my point would apply across the board.

I just gave you a definition from Webster, and that is fatalism. You already admitted that you had no control over what you believe or how you act. You already admitted that your behavior was predetermined.

Not good on nuance are you seer?

From Merriam-Webster:

Fatalism applies to you as much as it does to the ape or the house fly. In your world.

No! In my world determinismin your world please explain how and why it isn't. YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION; several people have asked several times for your explanation.

[seer]

“Every day facts” are believed when they are supported by verifiable evidence. They may not be “true” in an ultimate sense in that they are potentially falsifiable, but we can only operate within human limitations. The alternative is to believe "everyday facts" on the basis of no evidence whatsoever other than blind faith - the latter, seemingly, being your position.

And I'm not good at nuance? This is completely irrelevant to my point that you have no control over what your believe - true or not.

Not good on nuance are you seer?

From Merriam-Webster:

“Fatalism: a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also: a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine”.

In short, just lie back and wait for it to happen.

“Determinism: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws”.

In short, all decisions, choices and acts of behaviour are the actual components of the causal process itself, i.e. we are an intrinsic part of it.

No! In my world determinism, NOT fatalism, applies to everything in the natural universe from the movements of the planets to the thought processes of all thinking creatures - including people. If you believe that it isn’t the same in your world please explain how and why it isn't. YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION; several people have asked several times for your explanation.

I see you cut out another definition Tass:

Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine stressing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate.

Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas:

1.The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.[1] Included in this is that man has no power to influence the future, or indeed, his own actions.[2] This belief is very similar to predeterminism.

Here is another one:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/

Though the word “fatalism” is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable, philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.

Or according to these two accepted definitions one of the key definitions of fatalism is that we can not do other than what we actually do (i.e. no libertarian free will). And that is exactly what you believe. You are a fatalist Tass. Just admit it and come out of the closet...

[seer]

You, aka your brain, makes choices, but those choices are dependent upon a chain of previous causes. How do you think your brain works? What do you think its for? Do you think that someone else, a spirit, is in there manipulating your neurons to fire this way and that. You, aka your brain, chooses, in the sense that no other brain, or no other thing, is the cause of its choices, but your brain is an information processing machine and its choices are dependent upon, and determined by, the information, whether true or false, that it possesses.The process is an unconscious one which is why you are not aware of your decisions until after your brain has already decided.

And that is fatalism:The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. And you prove my point - you don't believe things because they are true, you believe things because you were determined to - true or not.

[shunyadragon]

And that is fatalism:The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. And you prove my point - you don't believe things because they are true, you believe things because you were determined to - true or not.

Very few people, including atheists and strong agnostics, believe in fatalism today, except possibly Christian Calvinists. My previous post basically describes the prevalent beliefs concerning forms of Dynamic Determinism.

Strict Determinism as well as simplistic definitions of 'Determinism,' has not been a viable view for a long time, except if you believe in Christian Calvinism. Since the advent of Chaos Theory forms of Dynamic Determinism have provided better explanations for the nature of the course of natural and human events and decision making processes. In this view the nature of our existence, including human decision making processes, is determined by natural laws, but this nature has a natural chaotic pattern. For example; No two clouds are the same, but all clouds will look like clouds, and most human decisions will not necessarily be the same, but they will follow a chaotic pattern within certain natural, behavioral and cultural constraints. This does not preclude any chance of 'free will,' but the evidence indicates, IF we have Free Will it is limited. Therefore we have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

I believe we have 'potential free will,' but it is for the most often not expressed by most people in the course of human life. We may find free will out on the edge, outside the normal accepted paradigms of human existence in philosophy, science, and academic pursuits for 'change' and new information.

In this view, all successful human cultures will have similar moral and ethical systems dependent on the behavior needed for the survival of the human species, but no two cultures will be exactly alike.

[Truthseeker]

Very few people, including atheists and strong agnostics, believe in fatalism today, except possibly Christian Calvinists. My previous post basically describes the prevalent beliefs concerning forms of Dynamic Determinism.

Strict Determinism as well as simplistic definitions of 'Determinism,' has not been a viable view for a long time, except if you believe in Christian Calvinism. Since the advent of Chaos Theory forms of Dynamic Determinism have provided better explanations for the nature of the course of natural and human events and decision making processes. In this view the nature of our existence, including human decision making processes, is determined by natural laws, but this nature has a natural chaotic pattern. For example; No two clouds are the same, but all clouds will look like clouds, and most human decisions will not necessarily be the same, but they will follow a chaotic pattern within certain natural, behavioral and cultural constraints. This does not preclude any chance of 'free will,' but the evidence indicates, IF we have Free Will it is limited. Therefore we have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

I believe we have 'potential free will,' but it is for the most often not expressed by most people in the course of human life. We may find free will out on the edge, outside the normal accepted paradigms of human existence in philosophy, science, and academic pursuits for 'change' and new information.

In this view, all successful human cultures will have similar moral and ethical systems dependent on the behavior needed for the survival of the human species, but no two cultures will be exactly alike.

Didn't you already post something like that in Post #435? Before, Jedidiah apparently made a few repeated posts in the thread Funny Pictures.

I hope this is not because of a malicious hack.

[JimL]

And that is fatalism:The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. And you prove my point - you don't believe things because they are true, you believe things because you were determined to - true or not.

Seer, if you are your brain, if you are the information processer, if nothing other than that processer, based on the information it possesses, is the cause of the current decision that it makes, then in what sense is that fatalism. Second, and please don't dodge this question. If you think that rather than your brain, your spirit is at the controls, tell me in what sense the process of decision making would differ? Does your spirit download the info in the brain into a brain of its own? And then what, its brain processes the same information? Or is the spirit brain in need of another brain in which to download the info and on and on ad infinitum. Where does the buck stop? And if it stops, in what sense does the process of information processing differ than in the original brain?

[Tassman]

And I'm not good at nuance? This is completely irrelevant to my point that you have no control over what your believe - true or not.

The mere phrasing of your question implies an 'argument from incredulity', i.e. a fallacy. You cannot understand how we, in a determined universe, can make decisions that we feel to be free-will decisions even though that sense of free-will is illusory. But, just because a state of affairs is impossible for you to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false. This is where you go wrong.

I see you cut out another definition Tass:



Or according to these two accepted definitions one of the key definitions of fatalism is that we can not do other than what we actually do (i.e. no libertarian free will). And that is exactly what you believe. You are a fatalist Tass. Just admit it and come out of the closet..

AFAIC, for reasons explained several times, determinism, NOT fatalism, applies to everything in the natural universe from the movements of the planets to the thought processes of all thinking creatures - including people. Tell me how it can be otherwise.

If people, uniquely in the world of creatures, have free agency please explain how this can occur given that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Why is this not so?

For you to argue that God made a miracle and inserted free-will into Homo sapiens at some point in history is NOT an acceptable answer; it is an argument totally unsupported by substantive evidence.

Was it just us? What about our Homo-erectus or Neanderthal relatives, did they have free will? After all they were large-brained tool-making beings just like us. Or are you going with the Adam and Eve myth, in which case you have removed yourself from rational discussion and entered the realm of unsubstantiated faith-based beliefs. Hence, you are saying no more than: "this is what I choose to believe, there's no credible evidence, take it or leave it".

Educate yourself. I suggest you read up on "What does it mean to be human":

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...s/homo-erectus

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...anderthalensis

"Neanderthals made and used a diverse set of sophisticated tools, controlled fire, lived in shelters, made and wore clothing, were skilled hunters of large animals and also ate plant foods, and occasionally made symbolic or ornamental objects. There is evidence that Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead and occasionally even marked their graves with offerings, such as flowers..."

Tell me seer, did these near relatives of ours have free-will? Why not?

[Tassman]

Very few people, including atheists and strong agnostics, believe in fatalism today, except possibly Christian Calvinists. My previous post basically describes the prevalent beliefs concerning forms of Dynamic Determinism.

Strict Determinism as well as simplistic definitions of 'Determinism,' has not been a viable view for a long time, except if you believe in Christian Calvinism. Since the advent of Chaos Theory forms of Dynamic Determinism have provided better explanations for the nature of the course of natural and human events and decision making processes. In this view the nature of our existence, including human decision making processes, is determined by natural laws, but this nature has a natural chaotic pattern. For example; No two clouds are the same, but all clouds will look like clouds, and most human decisions will not necessarily be the same, but they will follow a chaotic pattern within certain natural, behavioral and cultural constraints. This does not preclude any chance of 'free will,' but the evidence indicates, IF we have Free Will it is limited. Therefore we have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

I believe we have 'potential free will,' but it is for the most often not expressed by most people in the course of human life. We may find free will out on the edge, outside the normal accepted paradigms of human existence in philosophy, science, and academic pursuits for 'change' and new information.

In this view, all successful human cultures will have similar moral and ethical systems dependent on the behavior needed for the survival of the human species, but no two cultures will be exactly alike.

Excellent post shunya. I didn't respond previously because, in discussion with seer, one must focus on the little steps first - namely why libertarian free will is not a viable proposition.

[seer]

Seer, if you are your brain, if you are the information processer, if nothing other than that processer, based on the information it possesses, is the cause of the current decision that it makes, then in what sense is that fatalism.

Again look at the two definitions of fatalism: The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.So if you deny libertarian free will (the ability to do opposite of what we actually do). This is the position of both you are Tass.

Second, and please don't dodge this question. If you think that rather than your brain, your spirit is at the controls, tell me in what sense the process of decision making would differ? Does your spirit download the info in the brain into a brain of its own? And then what, its brain processes the same information? Or is the spirit brain in need of another brain in which to download the info and on and on ad infinitum. Where does the buck stop? And if it stops, in what sense does the process of information processing differ than in the original brain?

Again Jim, in my view of dualism the "immaterial mind" is an emergent property of the physical brain. This is where thoughts exist. And thoughts can in turn effect our physical decisions. I think, there is a car coming, I think, I don't want to get killed - I stop myself from stepping off the curb. I'm not speaking of mere instinct here, like an animal may have - but purposeful deliberation.

[seer]

The mere phrasing of your question implies an 'argument from incredulity', i.e. a fallacy. You cannot understand how we, in a determined universe, can make decisions that we feel to be free-will decisions even though that sense of free-will is illusory. But, just because a state of affairs is impossible for you to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false. This is where you go wrong.

No it is not an argument incredulity Tass. It is what logically follows from your worldview. If you are correct we do not believe things or facts BECAUSE they are true, we believe them because we are determined to, true or not. That simply follows from your position

AFAIC, for reasons explained several times, determinism, NOT fatalism, applies to everything in the natural universe from the movements of the planets to the thought processes of all thinking creatures - including people. Tell me how it can be otherwise.

Sorry Tass, I gave you two legitimate philosophical sources that do in fact show that your position is fatalistic. If a human being can not do other than what he does then that by definition is fatalism. Deal with it Homer.

If people, uniquely in the world of creatures, have free agency please explain how this can occur given that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Why is this not so?

For you to argue that God made a miracle and inserted free-will into Homo sapiens at some point in history is NOT an acceptable answer; it is an argument totally unsupported by substantive evidence.

Tass, of course it is an acceptable answer. I'm a Christian and again, I'm not limited to your narrow view of mankind. And it is not so much that God inserted "free will" but a moral soul, a conscious soul.

[seer]

Very few people, including atheists and strong agnostics, believe in fatalism today, except possibly Christian Calvinists. My previous post basically describes the prevalent beliefs concerning forms of Dynamic Determinism.

Strict Determinism as well as simplistic definitions of 'Determinism,' has not been a viable view for a long time, except if you believe in Christian Calvinism. Since the advent of Chaos Theory forms of Dynamic Determinism have provided better explanations for the nature of the course of natural and human events and decision making processes. In this view the nature of our existence, including human decision making processes, is determined by natural laws, but this nature has a natural chaotic pattern. For example; No two clouds are the same, but all clouds will look like clouds, and most human decisions will not necessarily be the same, but they will follow a chaotic pattern within certain natural, behavioral and cultural constraints. This does not preclude any chance of 'free will,' but the evidence indicates, IF we have Free Will it is limited. Therefore we have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

I believe we have 'potential free will,' but it is for the most often not expressed by most people in the course of human life. We may find free will out on the edge, outside the normal accepted paradigms of human existence in philosophy, science, and academic pursuits for 'change' and new information.

In this view, all successful human cultures will have similar moral and ethical systems dependent on the behavior needed for the survival of the human species, but no two cultures will be exactly alike.

But this is false Shuny. According to your beliefs not only do men have free will, they have souls, and are not subject to natural law. That is either true or not.