Free Will vs Determinism

[davidm]

But I think that points to the deeper problem: namely, that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It's the most desolate and sad of all dogmas,
not a dogma really: no morals plenty of morals, self-made no purpose, plenty of purpose, self-made no teleology, plenty of teleology, self-made no hope, plenty of hope, self-made no soul, right no God right and no person wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

But I think that points to the deeper problem: namely, that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It's the most desolate and sad of all dogmas,
not a dogma really:

Sure it is. You have to believe it, though Materialism itself cannot warrant itself...it has to be taken on faith.

no morals plenty of morals, self-made

For that reason, entirely unjustified and unjustifiable.

no purpose, plenty of purpose, self-made

Same problem: if you just imagine it, you can't justify it, or have reason to believe in it. Dogma again.

no teleology, plenty of teleology, self-made

You can't "make" your own teleology, unless you can be your own Creator.

no hope, plenty of hope, self-made

Imaginary again. No reason can be adduced for it.

no person wrong

If you came from nowhere, go to nowhere, and have no power over yourself because you're predetermined, then there's no person either. The idea doesn't contribute a thing to the whole.

[Belinda]

Also, Immanuel, how is it that your god is omnipotent yet unnecessary?

Point to where I said either, and I'll happily tell you. You need to explain what you mean by "omnipotent," since it's your word, and I did not use it. And then, for "unnecessary," I certainly did not say that.

I did not quote you word for word. If I have misunderstood your belief you should tell me what your belief is. That would be better than quibling about words.

If an event was a determined event that event necessarily happened. If God is omnipotent He determines every event. I know you are not stupid, and you know very well what I mean.

[PauloL]

I have a question for determinism and free will experts:

Is it deterministic whether a person wins a lottery? Or determinism doesn't apply to anything outside human behavior?

I think determinism even applies to rolling dice, but I'm not sure.

[Immanuel Can]

I did not quote you word for word. If I have misunderstood your belief you should tell me what your belief is.

That's funny. How would I know what you "misunderstood" until after you "misunderstood" it?

I'm afraid it's just one area in which you will just have to go ahead of me.

If God is omnipotent He determines every event.

Hmmm...That's neither the conventional definition of "ominpotent," nor is it my definition of what that word imports. It seems we understand that word differently.

I know you are not stupid, and you know very well what I mean.

Thank you...I think. But even at the best of times, being "not stupid" does not entail mind-reading. I had to ask, and I'm glad I did, because I fear that otherwise you'd have assumed an answer I would not have intended.

[davidm]

If an event was a determined event that event necessarily happened.

No.

[Belinda]

If an event was a determined event that event necessarily happened.

No.

Could you possibly explain please ?

[surreptitious57]

But I think that points to the deeper problem : namely that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It is the most desolate and sad of all dogmas really : no morals no purpose no teleology no hope no soul no God and no person

I think you are conflating materialism with nihilism for surely that is the most existentially bankrupt dogma from your perspective. As a nihilist I naturally do not share your opinion of it and here is why : the absence of any objective meaning to life or to the universe does not automatically mean that nihilism is negative. Rather it is neutral. Because in absence of said objectivity one can have a subjective meaning instead. One which gives meaning to my own life rather than to all of humanity. So for me personally nihilism is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Therefore to describe it as existentially bankrupt would be entirely false

[Immanuel Can]

But I think that points to the deeper problem : namely that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It is the most desolate and sad of all dogmas really : no morals no purpose no teleology no hope no soul no God and no person

I think you are conflating materialism with nihilism

No. But they're related. Nihilism is what a logical or rationally-consistent Materialist has to practice. If he really believed Materialism was true, and acted on that, he'd be a Nihilist for sure.

... the absence of any objective meaning to life or to the universe does not automatically mean that nihilism is negative. Rather it is neutral.

It is "nihil": nothing. It is not positive, and it is not negative, and it is not neutral either. It has no such scales of value.

Because in absence of said objectivity one can have a subjective meaning instead.

This just means, "You can still delude yourself." For under Nihilism, it won't be a real or actual meaning (no such are thought to exist), and won't find any counterpart in reality; but you'll believe in it anyway.

So for me personally nihilism is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

That's in a sense understandable, but in another highly ironic. To avoid full-on Nihilism, you choose an "end" or "right outcome for you" in advance, then tell yourself it's "meaningful" to pursue it.

The whole thing is, as I said, existentially bankrupt...unless one is prepared to lie to oneself and be rationally inconsistent. However, that is how Nihilists have to live. Nobody can live out real Nihilism.

[surreptitious57]

I have a question for determinism and free will experts

Is it deterministic whether a person wins a lottery

It is deterministic that a person will win the lottery but not which specific person. You could increase the odds of winning by
buying more tickets than anyone else but that does not guarantee you will win. With lottery tickets it is entirely random and
therefore completely unpredictable. The frequency with which certain numbers come up is no indicator of anything because
no number knows its own frequency. Even if it did it would still make no difference since numbers cannot choose themselves

[Noax]

No. I mean that the physicalist must accept that the human person is not the buck-stopping point of the causal chain. Materialism has to hold that "a human chose to do X" is not a good explanation, because "chose" must be nothing but a failed way to describe the previous causal chain.[/quote]Again, kindly stop applying your own definitions to views you don't hold.

All "choices" are merely products of prior material forces, to which the human person and his or her "decision" actually adds nothing.

Your choices function identically, except being defined outside the realm of 'forces', it is the wrong word to use.

Consider an automaton robot in a factory rejecting bad parts as they pass by. The robot's function is to make choices and act on them. The choices are not fated by predetermined causes, because it would not need sensors if they were. The choice is make by testing each part in some way. If it fails to do that, the process is considered malfuncitoning. The output of the choice is its will, and free will means it is capable of acting on that choice. The fact that the whole scenario is part of material forces is exactly as it should be. Now if I were to press the override button and use my remote control to make the robot act on my choices instead of its own, then its will is no longer free, and the responsibility to do a good job changes from the robot decision process to my own.
I chose a robot scenario so you'd be more comfortable not worrying about its immortal soul.

So will seems to be the result of any choice making process, be it physical or not. For you, I guess this immaterial component does the will, and that will is free if it is able to override the deterministic physical forces that you say don't exist anyway.
A materialist (you change words all the time) says that will is the physical choice making process, and it is free if it can act on those choices, and not say be overridden by the immaterial agent that the materialist says doesn't exist anyway.
Consistent, no? But you keep asserting that the material process of choice as false because it is utilizing physical forces. Of course it is. That's the premise.

Right. The Materialist would have to be willing to accept that his or her very natural and understandable distaste for such explanations would not count as any reason against them being true.
...
But what I'm also demonstrating, I would hope, is that the physicalist or Materialist view is not a happy one, and results in some very, very unsavoury consequences. And that is a good incentive to be at least a little bit open to a better explanation, I would say.

Again, your position seems based on what you seem to find to be a happier story. That's the worst possible incentive in a search for truth. X is what I want to be true, so I will cherry pick whatever evidence supports that. So your goal is happy delusion, not viable consistency. Go for it then, but not sure what the evangelism gets you. Wrong place to do it. I suspect you're here more to drown low confidence in the story with bravado.

It turns out there's a pretty fuzzy warm ending to the other story as well, but only if you buy the whole story. To me, yours is a story of abject horror, where the vast majority of those on the wide road are tortured forever, and only those chosen few on a narrow path get to apparently gloat over the others. So don't pull the happy-story argument on me, because if it was so great up there, I would gladly trade my ticket there with another instead of live with the eternal injustice of it all, despite the promised sensory deprivation.

Of course, I'm no Materialist myself, but I see their problem.

Let them see their own problems. One of them might be that objectively, nothing matters (pun intended!). But that it must objectively matter seems to be a premise that leads you onto all sorts of strange paths in attempt to hang onto it. I suspect the rest of your unsavoury consequences are of your own making. Everything else was.

What seems rather to be the case is that every time Materialism is asked to talk intelligently about things like choice, personhood, identity, values or (gasp) soul, it turns hollow and tinny. And I think that's really indicative of something: that no matter if it explains some things, there are some other things that it is really pretty terrible at explaining. And when it comes to those, it goes sour.

Intelligently as in using your definitions, or in their own? I'll admit that my definition of personhood is a long way from yours. But it has choice and responsibility and morals. Some things might have only one or two of those, and some have something else for which we have no word because humans don't have it.

Ironically, those things at which Materialism has the weakest and worst explanations turn out to be the things that most human beings seem to consider most important to a significant life. I don't think that failure is a coincidence.

Like I said, the search for objective meaning has led to some strange paths, but you seem tentatively satisfied with the answers it gave you, so go for it. What are you doing here?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But I think that points to the deeper problem: namely, that Materialism is existentially bankrupt. It's the most desolate and sad of all dogmas,
not a dogma really:

But man's freedom to be good is not all or nothing. Each person can be relatively free to be a good person. One of the means to be free to be a good person is to understand one's own emotional reactions.

[surreptitious57]

I am not an absolute nihilist who can not see any meaning to anything at all. Instead I am a positive nihilist who finds meaning in his
own life in the absence of meaning per se. I also have no fear of death or of being in an eternal state of pain free non consciousness
after I die. Nihilism is therefore entirely compatible with physical reality as it is currently understood and will continue to be so less
new knowledge about the nature of reality is discovered. Therefore until such time it will remain for me the natural default position

[Noax]

Nihilism is what a logical or rationally-consistent Materialist has to practice.

Typical unbacked assertion about what a view not understood must entail. Next thing you know you'll be completely misrepresenting the position.

This just means, "You can still delude yourself." For under Nihilism, it won't be a real or actual meaning (no such are thought to exist), and won't find any counterpart in reality; but you'll believe in it anyway.

Right on cue.

Anyway, I'm no nihilist. Clearly there is existence, but what I am (the thing in itself) in that existence is not so obvious due to a long history of lies being fed me under threat. Not talking about your lies, IC. Mine are much older than yours, and administered by a god even more cruel than yours, and doesn't take 'I'm sorry' for an answer.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I mean that the physicalist must accept that the human person is not the buck-stopping point of the causal chain. Materialism has to hold that "a human chose to do X" is not a good explanation, because "chose" must be nothing but a failed way to describe the previous causal chain.

Again, kindly stop applying your own definitions to views you don't hold.

It wasn't a definition. It is just the logical consequence of the view. If you object to the logic of the view, I don't protest; I think it's wrong too.

Consider an automaton robot in a factory rejecting bad parts as they pass by. The robot's function is to make choices and act on them.

This is an incorrect way to put it. Robots do not "make choices": they follow their programming. That programming can include "when X is sensed, do Y," and "when A is sensed, do operation B." That can fool us. But the robot has no comprehension of what it is doing, no genuine volition and no free will.

So will seems to be the result of any choice making process, be it physical or not.

This is incorrect. You should read Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment, and you'd understand why it's wrong.

Right. The Materialist would have to be willing to accept that his or her very natural and understandable distaste for such explanations would not count as any reason against them being true.
...
But what I'm also demonstrating, I would hope, is that the physicalist or Materialist view is not a happy one, and results in some very, very unsavoury consequences. And that is a good incentive to be at least a little bit open to a better explanation, I would say.

Again, your position seems based on what you seem to find to be a happier story.

You could not be more wrong. Read the bold above again, and you'll see I've refuted that impression already. I assert no such thing.

I'm saying that when an ideology leads to nothing but misery, either accept the misery or change the ideology. Either way, be consistent. But the Materialist has to say, "I cling to my horrid ideology because I want unrestricted moral and volitional "freedom", but will not follow its logical conclusions, which are that I don't matter, there is no morality, and freedom is an illusion." It is that duplicity against which I am speaking.

I'll admit that my definition of personhood is a long way from yours. But it has choice and responsibility and morals.

I can see you affirm it does...but your affirmation looks entirely gratuitous and wishful, because nothing in Materialism warrants belief in either.

I'm just saying be 100% Materialist, or quit Materialism and find something with which you can be 100% logical and consistent. Where you are right now -- affirming free will and Determinism at the same time -- makes absolutely no rational sense.