We have a reference point. It just isn't language. It is experience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:57 pm I can't. You deny the objective reference of words. There's no convergence point at which I can meet you, then, and nobody can "teach" anything.
Does morality really require free will?
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Does morality really require free will?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Does morality really require free will?
That won't work. My "experience" is not yours. What will happen is only that I will imagine my experience is connected to yours in some sort of way, but it will not be.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:59 pmWe have a reference point. It just isn't language. It is experience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:57 pm I can't. You deny the objective reference of words. There's no convergence point at which I can meet you, then, and nobody can "teach" anything.
But notice that while all this discussion about the flexibility of language is going on, you and I are both acting as if it isn't true. You keep acting like a response is something I'm going to understand, and I keep responding to your posts. We both know that what you say about language is just not true: it's not infinitely flexible at all. And no matter how often we were to say it was, we would only be contradicting ourselves, even in the saying of it.
Neither you nor I believes what you claimed, apparently.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Does morality really require free will?
Red herring. Whether you experience the color 'red' the same way as me is unimportant. What is important is that you stop at the traffic light we call red.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:03 pm That won't work. My "experience" is not yours. What will happen is only that I will imagine my experience is connected to yours in some sort of way, but it will not be.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Does morality really require free will?
Without stated success or failure criteria or willingness to reach consensus it is infinitely flexible. Because it doesn't converge...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:03 pmThat won't work. My "experience" is not yours. What will happen is only that I will imagine my experience is connected to yours in some sort of way, but it will not be.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:59 pmWe have a reference point. It just isn't language. It is experience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:57 pm I can't. You deny the objective reference of words. There's no convergence point at which I can meet you, then, and nobody can "teach" anything.
But notice that while all this discussion about the flexibility of language is going on, you and I are both acting as if it isn't true. You keep acting like a response is something I'm going to understand, and I keep responding to your posts. We both know that what you say about language is just not true: it's not infinitely flexible at all. And no matter how often we were to say it was, we would only be contradicting ourselves, even in the saying of it.
Neither you nor I believes what you claimed, apparently.
I have success criteria in mind. I am optimising towards them. Even if you aren't.
You can't recognise that because you can't read my mind.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Does morality really require free will?
I'm going to carry this discussion back to the other strand, because it's a bit out of place here, and we're in danger of usurping the OP.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:07 pm
Re: Does morality really require free will?
None of this resolves anything.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:16 pmThere are so many errors in this statement that it's hard to know where to start. But we'd better have a go.IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:39 pm Products of science, such as evolutionary psychology, and products of philosophy, such as physicalism, make it impossible now for any rational person to believe that we have free will and to see it as anything more than an illusion that has been useful for our survival.
Firstly, Physicalism et all are not at all taken for granted as true. Not all "rational people" -- indeed, I would argue no really thoughtful people -- believe in mere Physicalism. It's a mere reduction, by most accounts today. Moreover, it's now beset with very serious empirical problems. One of them is the persistence of things Physicalism doesn't describe well, but which are essential components of (what we take for) existence. But on that subject, I'll have to refer you to people like Thomas Nagel, whose "Mind and Cosmos" provides a concise (but not complete) overview of some of the key issues.
Secondly, the postulate that morality is "illusions useful to our survival" has been shown inadequate in so many ways it's amazing anyone still says it at all. There are plenty of major problems with it -- and recently, these have led Materialistic philosophers to postulate bizarre entities like "selfish genes" to explain away why people do so much that is actually NOT "useful to [their] survival." But that is also a big discussion.
I think what this statement reflects is perhaps a cursory familiarity with Materialism as an idea, and perhaps the misperception that it is somehow tied to "science" and "rationality," as you put it. And I admit that it might have a real "common-sense" appeal at first -- if Physicalism were true, it would seem to cede the whole field to "science" -- at least, to those who have not thought about how much of science actually depends of the metaphysical (see M. Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge" for a full treatment of this). But I think this superficial "appeal" dies very, very quickly when we press some of the key questions further. So it would be unwise of us to jump to the conclusion that Physicalism can be salvaged.
Personally, I think it cannot. We need a better theory.
It would be, if free will were eliminated. As Kant put it, "ought implies can." If you cannot NOT do something, you cannot be held responsible for doing it, and the reverse is true too, of course. But as above, the elimination of free will cannot be simply taken for granted, as above.Therefore, morality is toast.
Not really. As even you say, it also depends on the elimination of free will, so it's not a single dependency.But doesn't all of that depend on how morality is defined?
This now reintroduces free will through the back door. For "ought" implies that things are not deterministically settled already. It posits that there is "another way things could have been," so to speak. But in a purely Physicalist or Materialist cosmos, that's clearly impossible. There is no "ought," just an "is." And it becomes inexplicable why we even have a concept of "ought," since no such thing can possibly exist.It seems to me that the most widely understood and accepted definition of morality is "The way things ought to be". It is compared and contrasted with "The way things are".
It is not the way anybody wants things to be. It is not the way anybody thinks things ought to be. It is the way things ought to be, period.
Quite the contrary. "Natural selection" implies permanent inequality. Otherwise, there's nothing for which Mother Nature can "select." Why would Mother Nature suddenly revert to egalitarianism, thus plugging her evolutionary machine and destroying the evolutionary development of the human species?If, say, the way things ought to be includes every member of society being treated the same, that could, in theory, become the way things are through, say, many millennia of the impersonal mechanism of evolution by natural selection, right?
As above, certainly not.If the way things ought to be includes all members of ecosystems living within the systems' means, that could become the way things are through natural causes and effects, couldn't it?
This is the real question. So thank you for raising it, even by so circuitous and dubious a route.If there is nothing more than the way things are, why do we continue to think and talk about morality?
No matter how we define morality, including requiring free will, the possibility that things ought to be another way remains.
Suppose that neuroscience proves that free will is an illusion. Somebody could then say that that ought not be the case and then try to engineer humans to have free will. Ought transcends free will.
It would be impossible for humans to be engineered to have free will? Somebody could say that it may be possible in the future and that it OUGHT to be pursued. Ought transcends free will.
A case could be made that ANYTHING ought or ought not to be the way things are. Anthropocentrically conflating the way things ought to be with humans having free will makes no sense.
Suppose one goes against the determinist trend and insists that humans do have free will. Somebody else could say that humans ought not have free will. Ought transcends free will.
I am defining morality the broadest way it has been understood: the way things ought to be. Notice that it does not say anything like "what beings with free will ought to choose". Nothing about choice. Nothing about free will. Just the way things ought to be, period.
Which brings us back to the other questions on square one: why can't the way things ought to be be realized without free will?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"Suppose that neuroscience proves that free will is an illusion. Somebody could then say that that ought not be the case and then try to engineer humans to have free will. Ought transcends free will."
If someone tries to engineer man to have free will (in the case where none of us do), then that intrepid researcher is just another piece of bio-automation doin' what he's deterministically gonna do (as are any thoughts he may have of 'ought').
No, no matter how you look at 'ought', it's entirely dependent on a free will. Without a free will 'ought' is meaningless.
Stan, for example sez children ought have warm beds and loving parents.
If Stan is a free will, then his 'ought' (arrived at through intentioned observation, assessing, concluding) is meaningful (to Stan, anyway).
But if Stan is just bio-automation then he lacks autonomy, lacks intention. He's just a meatbag following a sloppy bio-program.
If someone tries to engineer man to have free will (in the case where none of us do), then that intrepid researcher is just another piece of bio-automation doin' what he's deterministically gonna do (as are any thoughts he may have of 'ought').
No, no matter how you look at 'ought', it's entirely dependent on a free will. Without a free will 'ought' is meaningless.
Stan, for example sez children ought have warm beds and loving parents.
If Stan is a free will, then his 'ought' (arrived at through intentioned observation, assessing, concluding) is meaningful (to Stan, anyway).
But if Stan is just bio-automation then he lacks autonomy, lacks intention. He's just a meatbag following a sloppy bio-program.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Does morality really require free will?
Well, that depends on the problem that you have identified. Is it really a problem or are you mistaken? What if your pre-suppositions are wrong?
Does an 'ought' require agency or can an 'ought' be systemic?IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am No matter how we define morality, including requiring free will, the possibility that things ought to be another way remains.
There ought not to be a sunset tomorrow. But it is highly probable that there WILL be.
It can't do that. WILL to raise your hand and you WILL do it. WILL to respond to this comment and you WILL do it. WILL to stand up or sit down - and you WILL do it.IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am Suppose that neuroscience proves that free will is an illusion. Somebody could then say that that ought not be the case and then try to engineer humans to have free will. Ought transcends free will.
Observe the ambiguous use of the word WILL. Lets disambiguate this by renaming "free will" to desire.
What evidence could possibly convince you that you don't have any desires? What you don't have is absolute power (control). You can't desire to have telekinesis.
Non-sequitor given the faulty premise.IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am It would be impossible for humans to be engineered to have free will? Somebody could say that it may be possible in the future and that it OUGHT to be pursued. Ought transcends free will.
There is what WILL be and there is what we desire to be.
Yes it does. I ought to have a cup of coffee (goes to coffee machine).IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am A case could be made that ANYTHING ought or ought not to be the way things are. Anthropocentrically conflating the way things ought to be with humans having free will makes no sense.
I ought to be in the Bahamas this weekend (books a flight).
I ought to own my private island...... You must construct aditional Pylons.
Absolute determinism requires perfect knowledge - omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. That's THREE absolutes. ShameIstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am Suppose one goes against the determinist trend and insists that humans do have free will. Somebody else could say that humans ought not have free will. Ought transcends free will.
I desire to breathe! And I will. I desire to not breathe! And I will stop! I know how and I can. For as long as I am able to. Until I pass out or run out of desire and my autonomous system takes over my breathing.
But you are ignoring the way things WILL be. Separate from DESIRE.IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am I am defining morality the broadest way it has been understood: the way things ought to be. Notice that it does not say anything like "what beings with free will ought to choose". Nothing about choice. Nothing about free will. Just the way things ought to be, period.
What WILL be WILL be realized without desire. What OUGHT to be MAY be realized BY desire.IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 am Which brings us back to the other questions on square one: why can't the way things ought to be be realized without free will?
Human vs universe.
David vs Goliath
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:07 pm
Re:
Okay, we have your latest account of the way things are.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:03 pm "Suppose that neuroscience proves that free will is an illusion. Somebody could then say that that ought not be the case and then try to engineer humans to have free will. Ought transcends free will."
If someone tries to engineer man to have free will (in the case where none of us do), then that intrepid researcher is just another piece of bio-automation doin' what he's deterministically gonna do (as are any thoughts he may have of 'ought').
No, no matter how you look at 'ought', it's entirely dependent on a free will. Without a free will 'ought' is meaningless.
Stan, for example sez children ought have warm beds and loving parents.
If Stan is a free will, then his 'ought' (arrived at through intentioned observation, assessing, concluding) is meaningful (to Stan, anyway).
But if Stan is just bio-automation then he lacks autonomy, lacks intention. He's just a meatbag following a sloppy bio-program.
The way things ought to be remains.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Re:
There ought to be a sunrise tomorrow morning at 06:56AM (GMT+1) in London tomorrow.IstillBELIEVEinPOMO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:11 pm Okay, we have your latest account of the way things are.
The way things ought to be remains.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"The way things ought to be remains."
Only if there's a free will to envision that 'ought'.
No free will, no goddamned 'ought.
No free will, no goddamned 'ought.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: "The way things ought to be remains."
The sun is still rising tomorrow morning at 06:56AM (GMT+1) in London.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:33 pm Only if there's a free will to envision that 'ought'.
No free will, no goddamned 'ought.
If I stick around - I am actually going to experience it. My 'ought' is coincidental
My point: an ought also needs to be divergent from the status-quo. It requires change e.g work. Envisioning it is not enough.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Does morality really require free will?
Your 'ought' isn't the same kind of 'ought' that POMO wonders after.
POMO's 'ought' is about a someone trying to bring about some thing cuz that thing 'ought' to be.
Your 'ought' is really a 'should' (the sun should rise cuz it always rises); POMO's is about -- again -- that which should be but isn't.
At least: that's how I interpret all this crap.
POMO's 'ought' is about a someone trying to bring about some thing cuz that thing 'ought' to be.
Your 'ought' is really a 'should' (the sun should rise cuz it always rises); POMO's is about -- again -- that which should be but isn't.
At least: that's how I interpret all this crap.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Does morality really require free will?
It is all but taxonomy. Distinction without a difference.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:57 pm Your 'ought' isn't the same kind of 'ought' that POMO wonders after.
POMO's 'ought' is about a someone trying to bring about some thing cuz that thing 'ought' to be.
Your 'ought' is really a 'should' (the sun should rise cuz it always rises); POMO's is about -- again -- that which should be but isn't.
At least: that's how I interpret all this crap.
I ought to have tea tomorrow morning. Since I always have coffee it fits the 'should be but isn't' criterion.
I ought to live on a private island next week instead of this suburban house. Also fits the 'should be but isn't' criterion.
This distinction touches on opportunity/ability. Control/influence/power etc. Tea is easy. Private island - not so much
Which is always a good time to harp on about the serenity prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
We ought to end world hunger, cure all diseases and end all human suffering! I agree. Many of us agree!
How?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"Distinction without a difference"
No, it's more about folks usin' language in a sloppy way (me included).
But...meh...whatever floats your boat, ts.
But...meh...whatever floats your boat, ts.