Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Flannel Jesus]

It's against seeing us as passive until stimulated. It may feel that way to our conscious self sometimes, we can sort of pretend that internal causes and flows are not us. But the organism is active, not just reactive.

Like so many things, it seems like the best description depends upon which level of abstraction you're trying to describe. A lot of confusion get created by mixing up levels of abstraction.

Talking about quarks and humans at the same time, for example.

[Sculptor]

It can be argued that that interpretation is a reactive interaction between the environment and your mind, I guess

Again, I wouldn't choose that wording but I sort of see where he might be coming from

Posing the question : if a human does not see the tree fall in the forest, do the forest creatures give a fuck?

[Sculptor]

A 'Cause' is a subjective hypothesis of origin of sequences of events, effects, and consequences.

Since it is subjective, and a hypothesis, there are no "Objective Causes" in Nature. Because there is no Objective sense of time. There is no "Universal Origin".

The very act of these hypotheses, "Determining Causes", means that Determination is a subjective process. Determinations (postulating Causes) are estimations of forces in nature.


Because they are estimations, they are not certain. Because they are not certain, they are open to Risk/Error/Flaw/Irrationality and the like.

To Determine a Cause, is always a risk...that you are wrong, inaccurate, fallible, unknowing.

This is the basis of Choice, upon which "Determining Causes" extends from. It is a Choice.

Everything is unavoidably so.
You must act in spite of Not Knowing the future, your subjective errors, your blind-spot, improbabilities, and everything in life.

This is your "Absolute Free-Will" or "Libertine Free-Will" in Action. It is not Re-actionary. It is Pro-active, forward facing, into the future, into the unknown.

Good to know that science is subjective.

[Iwannaplato]

It's against seeing us as passive until stimulated. It may feel that way to our conscious self sometimes, we can sort of pretend that internal causes and flows are not us. But the organism is active, not just reactive.

Like so many things, it seems like the best description depends upon which level of abstraction you're trying to describe. A lot of confusion get created by mixing up levels of abstraction.

Talking about quarks and humans at the same time, for example.

Though, I'd say, even at the level of quarks, we are not just reactive. Our quarks are in motion, organized in cycles of action (the quarks in the heartbeats and breathing lungs and EEG cycles), the quarks in our limbic system yearning for this or that to start/happen and so on. If we want to say that the entire universe at the quark level is reactive, well, ok, there's no action, just reaction. But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

At which level are we just reacting?

[Flannel Jesus]

But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

The starting conditions. If the universe is lawful (and even if those laws include randomness), then you set up the initial conditions and press play. Not "you" as in literally you, of course.

[popeye1945]

Circumstances don't have a reality of their own without a conscious subject, a circumstance is an evaluation.

Circumstances have no reality with a conscious subject. Circumstances are evaluations.
Conscious subjects evaluate.

I make no sense of the above.

How can humans only be reactive?
Other parts of reaity do not exist unless humans (and other organisms, presumably) evaluate.
Evaluate is an active verb. There is nothing there without this evaluation taking place. There is nothing there to react to.
In fact circumstances arose when the first consciousness arose. They were caused by the existence of that consciousness and its evaluation.
Seems very active/proactive.
[/quote]

The physical world is cause to all reactive organisms, evaluation is a relational understanding, that one might react to, but in any circumstance, if a subject decides not to respond, this is still a reaction to the environment. Chemistry starts with energies and elementary particles well before the periodic table. and the primordial pool. In other words, as science tells us today, all energy and reality is composed of energy forms. There is no evaluation taking place if there is no consciousness to be aware of the relations between energy forms/objects. The cosmos and the earth are energy manifestations that govern our biological reactive natures, we change in relation to these.

[Belinda]

It's against seeing us as passive until stimulated. It may feel that way to our conscious self sometimes, we can sort of pretend that internal causes and flows are not us. But the organism is active, not just reactive.

Like so many things, it seems like the best description depends upon which level of abstraction you're trying to describe. A lot of confusion get created by mixing up levels of abstraction.

Talking about quarks and humans at the same time, for example.

Though, I'd say, even at the level of quarks, we are not just reactive. Our quarks are in motion, organized in cycles of action (the quarks in the heartbeats and breathing lungs and EEG cycles), the quarks in our limbic system yearning for this or that to start/happen and so on. If we want to say that the entire universe at the quark level is reactive, well, ok, there's no action, just reaction. But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

At which level are we just reacting?

'Reacting' is a psychological term . Reacting is contrasted with reflecting. Reacting is acting on an emotional stimulus before you think about it. True, some circumstances call for immediate urgent reaction and hopefully professionals are adequately trained so they react appropriately. Most of the time however prudence demands a modicum of reflection, and people who react impulsively all the time have something wrong with them.

[popeye1945]

There is a difference between recognizing that come "circumstances" are apprehended subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certainly have "reality with a conscious subject".

The physical world is cause on many levels to reactive organisms, only a few of which we are conscious of. Circumstances are of the nature of understanding; in that they are experienced as relational complexes in which you are to react too. Always remember that there is no meaning but the meaning possessed by a conscious subject, the world itself, is utterly meaningless, all aspects of the outside world only gain meaning in that they relate to biological consciousness. We react to the whole which is unknown to us, for the earth is an open system and the cosmos itself may be an open system, this is not known to us. So, to define a circumstance one must realize it to be a relational complex, relative to our biological consciousness.

[popeye1945]

Like so many things, it seems like the best description depends upon which level of abstraction you're trying to describe. A lot of confusion get created by mixing up levels of abstraction.

Talking about quarks and humans at the same time, for example.

Though, I'd say, even at the level of quarks, we are not just reactive. Our quarks are in motion, organized in cycles of action (the quarks in the heartbeats and breathing lungs and EEG cycles), the quarks in our limbic system yearning for this or that to start/happen and so on. If we want to say that the entire universe at the quark level is reactive, well, ok, there's no action, just reaction. But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

At which level are we just reacting?

'Reacting' is a psychological term . Reacting is contrasted with reflecting. Reacting is acting on an emotional stimulus before you think about it. True, some circumstances call for immediate urgent reaction and hopefully professionals are adequately trained so they react appropriately. Most of the time however prudence demands a modicum of reflection, and people who react impulsively all the time have something wrong with them.

Reaction in the way I use the term is a biological term, the psychological is biological. I have no problem with reactions having certain qualities of consideration, however, the one striking truth is that one cannot, not react to one's environment. Reaction is the very nature of your being, as a functioning part of the whole/earth, the earth, and the cosmos play biology like an instrument.

[Sculptor]

There is a difference between recognizing that come "circumstances" are apprehended subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certainly have "reality with a conscious subject".

The physical world is cause on many levels to reactive organisms, only a few of which we are conscious of. Circumstances are of the nature of understanding; in that they are experienced as relational complexes in which you are to react too. Always remember that there is no meaning but the meaning possessed by a conscious subject, the world itself, is utterly meaningless, all aspects of the outside world only gain meaning in that they relate to biological consciousness. We react to the whole which is unknown to us, for the earth is an open system and the cosmos itself may be an open system, this is not known to us. So, to define a circumstance one must realize it to be a relational complex, relative to our biological consciousness.

Just no.
There is reality beyond consciousness whether you like it or not.
THe logical conclusion of your thinking is to suggest that reality creates itself as we observe and become conscious of it. This is beyond absurd,
This is why elsewhere I asked the question: If a tree falls in a wood and a human does not see it do you think the forest creates give a damn.
And did the that supernova only happen when we saw it, or did it happen millions of years before humans ever existed?

[popeye1945]

There is a difference between recognizing that come "circumstances" are apprehended subjectively whilst having "objective" aspect, and thinking that no circumstance ever exist without perception. Circumstnces do not self create on the moment of perception. We can find stuff that is already there. And they certainly have "reality with a conscious subject".

The physical world is cause on many levels to reactive organisms, only a few of which we are conscious of. Circumstances are of the nature of understanding; in that they are experienced as relational complexes in which you are to react too. Always remember that there is no meaning but the meaning possessed by a conscious subject, the world itself, is utterly meaningless, all aspects of the outside world only gain meaning in that they relate to biological consciousness. We react to the whole which is unknown to us, for the earth is an open system and the cosmos itself may be an open system, this is not known to us. So, to define a circumstance one must realize it to be a relational complex, relative to our biological consciousness.

Just no.
There is reality beyond consciousness whether you like it or not.
THe logical conclusion of your thinking is to suggest that reality creates itself as we observe and become conscious of it. This is beyond absurd,
This is why elsewhere I asked the question: If a tree falls in a wood and a human does not see it do you think the forest creates give a damn.
And did the that supernova only happen when we saw it, or did it happen millions of years before humans ever existed?

What can I tell you, its quantum absurd/weird. You've done terrible things to that delightful story of the tree falling in the forest! Tell me, does that tree that falls in the forest make a sound in the absence of all biological consciousness, not an ear to be found? If you believe there is a physical reality beyond what subjective consciousness provides, then enlighten me as to how you know this. I never stated that the universe is not abundant with energy, in fact science now tells us that is all there is. That supernova you are worried about is energy and you are now seeing the light from its occurrence. Just as there is no sound or color in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject, so too, there are no objects in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject. Just as Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the world of objects by the alterations they make to our biological senses, the physical world is the said reactions of the energies that alter those biological senses and apparent reality is a biological readout, a melody known only to the biological subject. Experience creates its own reality of things relative to its biological well-being constituted of the energies that surround us. All things are energies, frequencies and vibrations, it's absurd, weird, dreamlike, and wonderous.

[Iwannaplato]

But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

The starting conditions. If the universe is lawful (and even if those laws include randomness), then you set up the initial conditions and press play. Not "you" as in literally you, of course.

And the starting conditions are part of the universe.

[Iwannaplato]

Reaction in the way I use the term is a biological term, the psychological is biological. I have no problem with reactions having certain qualities of consideration, however, the one striking truth is that one cannot, not react to one's environment. Reaction is the very nature of your being, as a functioning part of the whole/earth, the earth, and the cosmos play biology like an instrument.

But then also one does not, cannot, just react, because one is in motion, not just the psychological, but the physical cycles and organismal yearnings, the momentum one has had on the micro and macro levels from the moment the sperm and egg were one and even in those piece before that. Even before organic matter formed the whole thing has had internal momentums.

What is the universe reacting to?

and the cosmos play biology like an instrument

See how you slide into external causes? and the passive organism?
But it's not passive. It is moving forward with a momentum just as much as the rest of the universe is.

Your metaphor gives agency to the cosmos.
But these violins are roiling, foward moving entities.

And of course so is everything else, just on more subtle levels.

[Iwannaplato]

Like so many things, it seems like the best description depends upon which level of abstraction you're trying to describe. A lot of confusion get created by mixing up levels of abstraction.

Talking about quarks and humans at the same time, for example.

Though, I'd say, even at the level of quarks, we are not just reactive. Our quarks are in motion, organized in cycles of action (the quarks in the heartbeats and breathing lungs and EEG cycles), the quarks in our limbic system yearning for this or that to start/happen and so on. If we want to say that the entire universe at the quark level is reactive, well, ok, there's no action, just reaction. But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

At which level are we just reacting?

'Reacting' is a psychological term . Reacting is contrasted with reflecting. Reacting is acting on an emotional stimulus before you think about it. True, some circumstances call for immediate urgent reaction and hopefully professionals are adequately trained so they react appropriately. Most of the time however prudence demands a modicum of reflection, and people who react impulsively all the time have something wrong with them.

But there is something that is neither reacting nor reflecting. The cycles of breathing adn heartbeats and shifting flows of electromagnetic fields in the brain. Desires welling up, curiosities. We aren't waiting around for stimuli though we certainly do react to them and sometimes reflect on them.

[popeye1945]

Reaction in the way I use the term is a biological term, the psychological is biological. I have no problem with reactions having certain qualities of consideration, however, the one striking truth is that one cannot, not react to one's environment. Reaction is the very nature of your being, as a functioning part of the whole/earth, the earth, and the cosmos play biology like an instrument.

But then also one does not, cannot, just react, because one is in motion, not just the psychological, but the physical cycles and organismal yearnings, the momentum one has had on the micro and macro levels from the moment the sperm and egg were one and even in those piece before that. Even before organic matter formed the whole thing has had internal momentum.

As I stated, the earth and the cosmos play biology like its instrument, which includes its biological circadian rhythms/internal momentum.

What is the universe reacting to? [/quote]

That no one knows, for it is unknown whether the universe is an open or closed system.

Earth and the cosmos play biology like an instrument[/quote]

See how you slide into external causes? and the passive organism?
But it's not passive. It is moving forward with momentum just as much as the rest of the universe is.
Your metaphor gives agency to the cosmos.
But these violins are roiling, forward moving entities.
And of course, so is everything else, just on more subtle levels.
[/quote]

Indeed, all is in motion energies frequencies vibrations, all very complex, but we were discussing the nature of human behaviors in the world, and debating if there is any such thing as human action. To me the answer is strikingly obvious, the physical world is cause and life/organisms are reactionary creatures.