PDA

View Full Version : The Beauty Of Determinism!



Pages : [1] 2

seer
10-03-2015, 06:46 AM
It seems more and more that the atheists on this board are denying free will and free thought, believing that we are completely determined by the laws of nature to think and act as we do. That we have no control over what we think or do. You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the atheist does something immoral, unkind or untoward - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You couldn't help it, you were determined. And it seems that people who do believe that they are determined act less morally:



Abstract

Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181791

Roy
10-03-2015, 09:35 AM
It seems more and more that the atheists on this board are denying free will and free thought, ...It seems you made that up because it suited your 'argument'.

seer
10-03-2015, 10:15 AM
It seems you made that up because it suited your 'argument'.

Made what up? So you believe in free will? The atheists I have been debating here don't, like Tass, Jim L and Thinker. And from what they are saying it is becoming the default position of neuroscience.

Jichard
10-03-2015, 02:21 PM
It seems more and more that the atheists on this board are denying free will and free thought, believing that we are completely determined by the laws of nature to think and act as we do. That we have no control over what we think or do.

Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:



"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"Suppose laypersons are presented with scenarios that describe a deterministic universe, and suppose that some respond that agents in that universe do not have free will (FW) and are not morally responsible (MR) [emphasis added] for their actions—they express “incompatibilist intuitions”—while others respond that agents in these deterministic universes can have FW and MR—they express ‘compatibilist intuitions.’ […]

Our hypothesis is that many people who appear to have incompatibilist intuitions are interpreting determinism to entail what we will call “bypassing,” and they take bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassing [emphasis added]. So, if the reason people express incompatibilist intuitions is that they mistakenly take determinism to entail bypassing, then those intuitions do not in fact support the conclusion that determinism, properly understood, is incompatible with free will.

What is “bypassing”? The basic idea is that one’s actions are caused by forces that bypass one’s conscious self, or at least what one identifies as one’s “self”. More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. As such, bypassing might take the form of epiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalism—the belief that certain things will happen no matter what one decides or tries to do, or that one’s actions have to happen even if the past had been different. Bypassing suggests that conscious agents have no control over their actions because they play no role in the causal chain that leads to their actions. For our study discussed below, we “operationalized” bypassing in a more precise way.

The crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassing […] The history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen [emphasis added]. Of course, incompatibilists generally agree with all this, but claim their arguments are not based on such mistakes (3-4).”


Once you make it clear to laypeople that determinism does not entail bypassing, then much of their rationale for accepting incompatibilism (i.e. accepting the idea that determinism is incompatible with free will) goes away. That is supported in the above paper, and in the following two papers:



"Folk Fears about Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism vs. Reductionism"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Folk_Fears_about_Freedom_and_Responsibility.pdf

"Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Nahmias_Coates_Kvaran.pdf



You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the atheist does something immoral, unkind or untoward - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You couldn't help it, you were determined. And it seems that people who do believe that they are determined act less morally:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181791

You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)].

Jichard
10-03-2015, 02:28 PM
Made what up? So you believe in free will? The atheists I have been debating here don't, like Tass, Jim L and Thinker. And from what they are saying it is becoming the default position of neuroscience.

Your opponents have made it very clear that they reject your libertarian account of free will. For instance:



Unlike coconuts, you and chimpanzees are both conscious entities capable of making effective choices. If you want to claim that, unlike the chimp, you have libertarian free-will you need to say how this came about in a determined universe and why the chimp doesn't.


We are conscious animals capable of making effective decisions; this is the way we've evolved in order to best survive. This applies to all animals not just humans. You've not made a case that what’s true for chimpanzees is not equally true for his human cousin. Either both have libertarian free-will, for which there’s no good evidence, or neither does. Obviously, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, it’s the latter which applies.


You are on the hook seer of explaining how your consciousness can make a choice, when thoughts pop into your mind without any control. Being aware of other kinds of food makes no difference whatsoever in terms of the fact that you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought. And you have to provide scientific evidence that mind causes brain. So far you have zero.




You still need evidence in favor of your views otherwise you must admit that they are based entirely on faith and intuition. I can only claim the knowledge that I can show using reason and evidence. I can claim that 35 years of neuroscientific data shows brain always causes mind and that this is the dominant view in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind (of which 61% are physicalists). I can claim that the laws of quantum mechanics that govern all atoms - including the atoms in your brain - do not allow for a soul to have any effect on them. That hypothesis is empirically ruled out. I can claim that libertarian free will is not even logically coherent, and this is demonstrated by your inability to come to terms with the fact that you can't have a thought about a thought before you have the thought.

I think you can answer this question at least:

1. And more simply, do your thoughts have a cause, or not? If they have a cause, what is that cause?

As far as your question, I am not afraid to answer. We are indeed biological automatons completely controlled by the laws of physics. There is no libertarian free will and there can't be. The whole concept is logically incoherent. This may seem depressing or weird, but when you really think about libertarian free will, although it seems appealing at first, it actually makes no sense, nor is it supported by any scientific evidence. Determinism actually makes more sense. I presume you believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause right? If our will "begins to exist" it must have a cause. And whatever caused that must have a cause, and that must have a cause, and so on and so on back to the big bang. Once you acknowledge that, you essentially have determinism. Otherwise, you must believe that things begin to exist in the universe without a cause. And if they have no cause why are they ordered? Why aren't they random? You see, just 2 years ago I like you naively believed in free will. Once you study it, and all the evidence, you will realize it is impossible that it is true.


That is complete nonsense. You're trying to say that a view that is technically incoherent (which you have not refuted at all) is the only way to make our will to be coherent and rational. I mean, I cannot believe you don't see this. There is nothing about humans being physically determined that logically leads to rationality going out the window. Nothing. We are evolved biological organisms. Our brains are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution, during which time, we evolved to rationally respond to our environment, because our very survival depended on it. This is called adapting to the environment. You have not offered an alternative solution that makes sense. You have not refuted the incoherency of libertarian free will or provided any evidence. Just like with morality, you're basically resting your view on faith. That's all you got. And I suppose future debates we'll have will lead to the same thing. You have not refuted the scientific evidence I showed you. You have not explained how animals can think and rationally respond to their environment. You have done nothing but make claims on faith and appeal to consequence and ignorance. There is a reason why the majority if philosophers and neuroscientists agree with me and not you. My views make sense and are backed up by actual evidence. Your view is incoherent and backed up by faith.
And there is no need for you to pretend that people who reject your libertarian account of free will are rejecting free will in general. For example, they can reject your reject your libertarian account of free will, while being compatibilists (who think that that free will is compatible with determinism) and thinking that humans have free will. That, of course, is my position. And compatibilism is the position of the majority of philosophers (as is atheism) (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl). That doesn't mean that compatibilism is true; but it does mean you need to stop pretending that compatibilism does not exist as a position, as if the only two options are no free will or libertarian free will exists.

The Thinker
10-05-2015, 09:29 AM
Made what up? So you believe in free will? The atheists I have been debating here don't, like Tass, Jim L and Thinker. And from what they are saying it is becoming the default position of neuroscience.

It already is the default position in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind, it isn't becoming it. Only theists like you who believe based on faith believe in libertarian free will - a position that is totally incoherent.

seer
10-05-2015, 09:37 AM
It already is the default position in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind, it isn't becoming it. Only theists like you who believe based on faith believe in libertarian free will - a position that is totally incoherent.

And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral.


Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.

The Thinker
10-05-2015, 09:48 AM
It seems more and more that the atheists on this board are denying free will and free thought, believing that we are completely determined by the laws of nature to think and act as we do. That we have no control over what we think or do. You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the atheist does something immoral, unkind or untoward - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You couldn't help it, you were determined. And it seems that people who do believe that they are determined act less morally:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181791

First and foremost, the truth should determine what we believe, not social consequences. If Islam made people cheat and steal less, would you honestly recommend that we should all try and convert people to Islam? I doubt it.

Second, this study was repeated and results couldn't be replicated. That shows that it is not so cut and dry that rejecting free will makes people cheat more.

See the new experiment here: http://rolfzwaan.blogspot.nl/2013/03/the-value-of-believing-in-free-will.html

seer
10-05-2015, 10:17 AM
First and foremost, the truth should determine what we believe, not social consequences. If Islam made people cheat and steal less, would you honestly recommend that we should all try and convert people to Islam? I doubt it.

Except that beliefs have consequences. Well actually in your determined world they would not. Sorry.


Second, this study was repeated and results couldn't be replicated. That shows that it is not so cut and dry that rejecting free will makes people cheat more.

See the new experiment here: http://rolfzwaan.blogspot.nl/2013/03/the-value-of-believing-in-free-will.html

I have no idea who this guy is, the Vohs and Schooler study was published in a peer revived journal: the Association for Psychological Science. What journal did Zwaan publish his paper?

The Thinker
10-05-2015, 11:42 AM
Except that beliefs have consequences. Well actually in your determined world they would not. Sorry.

Nothing about determinism prevents beliefs from having consequences. Beliefs would all be the result of neural-chemical elements in the brain, and that would of course have physical effects.


I have no idea who this guy is, the Vohs and Schooler study was published in a peer revived journal: the Association for Psychological Science. What journal did Zwaan publish his paper?

It's not peer reviewed, at least not yet. But it is reason to think that the original study may be false.

seer
10-05-2015, 12:02 PM
Nothing about determinism prevents beliefs from having consequences. Beliefs would all be the result of neural-chemical elements in the brain, and that would of course have physical effects.

You know this is interesting. The actual belief would not have consequences, but the brain chemicals that actually cause the consequences. Our conscious beliefs would not make any difference (since they have no real influence).



It's not peer reviewed, at least not yet. But it is reason to think that the original study may be false.

That is fair, except like I said in the OP:

You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the atheist does something immoral, unkind or untoward - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You couldn't help it, you were determined.

Jichard
10-05-2015, 02:17 PM
And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral.

That's a lie. You haven't read the paper, and the paper shows no such thing (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=251973#post251973).

Jichard
10-05-2015, 02:19 PM
It seems you made that up because it suited your 'argument'.

He's misrepresenting what the paper says, even though it's painfully clear that he hasn't actually read the paper nor understood it.


And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral.

JimL
10-05-2015, 07:42 PM
That's a lie. You haven't read the paper, and the paper shows no such thing (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=251973#post251973).
It may be a lie, or it may just be misconstrued. I can see how some who come to accept determinism might become less moral, probably wouldn't be the current atheists though. As a matter of fact, I think thats the reason why god was created in the first place.

Tassman
10-06-2015, 03:28 AM
It may be a lie, or it may just be misconstrued. I can see how some who come to accept determinism might become less moral, probably wouldn't be the current atheists though. As a matter of fact, I think thats the reason why god was created in the first place.

It's not a necessary consequence of determinism that people might become less moral. In any event there's no coherent alternative to determinism, i.e. there's no coherent way that libertarian free-will can exist, even compatibilists acknowledge this to be largely true. Nevertheless, we live in societies governed by rules of morality as devised by our communities. It's recognised that such rules are necessary for the successful functioning of society and we enforce them for society's protection. In times past we've even attributed such moral codes to the gods we invent so as to reinforce them via divine imprimatur.

Hence, to paraphrase Jichard's quote, ...determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen.

In short, our choices and decisions are an integral part of the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.


He's misrepresenting what the paper says, even though it's painfully clear that he hasn't actually read the paper nor understood it.

Regrettably this is fairly standard procedure for seer. Facts mean little to him; he’s only interesting in supporting his religious agenda by whatever it takes.

seer
10-06-2015, 04:36 AM
Regrettably this is fairly standard procedure for seer. Facts mean little to him; he’s only interesting in supporting his religious agenda by whatever it takes.

Really Tass? Tell me where I misquoted the paper. Be specific.


Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.

Tell me Tass, where did I misquote or misunderstand?

seer
10-06-2015, 05:39 AM
It may be a lie, or it may just be misconstrued. I can see how some who come to accept determinism might become less moral, probably wouldn't be the current atheists though. As a matter of fact, I think thats the reason why god was created in the first place.

Jim, Jerky Butt is fibbing again:


From the study:

http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf


GENERAL DISCUSSION

In two experiments, we found that weakening free-will beliefs
reliably increased cheating. We measured cheating in Experiment
1 using a passive cheating opportunity. To avoid cheating,
participants had to actively prevent the answer to an arithmetic
problem from appearing on the computer screen. This scenario
is perhaps akin to accidentally receiving too much change from a
store clerk but not returning the extra money. In Experiment 2,
we measured active cheating. We found that when participants
were allowed to pay themselves for each correct answer on a
difficult cognitive test, those who read statements promoting
a deterministic worldview paid themselves more (in effect,
claimed to have answered more items correctly) than did those
who read other kinds of statements; moreover, participants who
read deterministic statements and who paid themselves gave
themselves more money than was earned by participants who
were paid for their true performance...

...The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is
no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active
cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic
worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the
experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis.
Reading deterministic statements decreased people’s selfreported
belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating...

The present findings raise the genuine concern that widespread
encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have
the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior.
Consistent with this view are recent trends suggesting both a
decrease in beliefs in personal control and an increase in
cheating.

The Thinker
10-06-2015, 06:55 AM
You know this is interesting. The actual belief would not have consequences, but the brain chemicals that actually cause the consequences. Our conscious beliefs would not make any difference (since they have no real influence).

The actual belief would have physical correlates and they would influence behavior accordingly to the nature of those beliefs, so it would.



That is fair, except like I said in the OP:

You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the atheist does something immoral, unkind or untoward - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You couldn't help it, you were determined.

It also has advantages to think that god will forgive you for all your sins, so hey, no big deal if you murdered a few people.

seer
10-06-2015, 07:22 AM
The actual belief would have physical correlates and they would influence behavior accordingly to the nature of those beliefs, so it would.

I'm not sure what that means Thinker, I was sure you said that thoughts and beliefs played no causal role. Are you changing your mind?



It also has advantages to think that god will forgive you for all your sins, so hey, no big deal if you murdered a few people.

Funny, most people I know became more moral (like myself) after they came to faith. But the Christian could not justify his behavior, even if forgiven. If you are really determined to think and act as you do then that is perfect justification for any behavior - how could it not be - you had no control. Having said that, I did know Calvinists who were deterministic who seemed to fluff off bad behavior.

The Thinker
10-06-2015, 08:45 AM
I'm not sure what that means Thinker, I was sure you said that thoughts and beliefs played no causal role. Are you changing your mind?

Thoughts and beliefs are caused by physical things in the brain. The content of those beliefs pertain to certain physical things in the brain. That can influence your behavior. So not changing my mind on anything.

Have you changed your mind on the incoherency of libertarian free will, or do you have an argument that it is coherent?



Funny, most people I know became more moral (like myself) after they came to faith. But the Christian could not justify his behavior, even if forgiven. If you are really determined to think and act as you do then that is perfect justification for any behavior - how could it not be - you had no control. Having said that, I did know Calvinists who were deterministic who seemed to fluff off bad behavior.

Unfortunately, the more religious a society is, the higher the crime tends to be and lower the standards of living are. This is shown not only true in the US but all over the world. The poorest states/countries are the most religious, and the richest states/countries are often the least religions. Same goes for countries around the world. So becoming religious certainly has no strong statistical evidence showing it really makes people more moral. Otherwise, we'd see correlations with high religiosity with high living standards and low crime.

And by the way, the free will/no free will debate has nothing to do with atheism or materialism. I can fully grant you that a soul exists for the sake of argument and libertarian free will is still logically impossible. So theism or belief in the soul does nothing to rescue libertarian free will. Nothing.

seer
10-06-2015, 09:34 AM
Thoughts and beliefs are caused by physical things in the brain. The content of those beliefs pertain to certain physical things in the brain. That can influence your behavior. So not changing my mind on anything.

Yes, but it is the physical things in the brain that can influence, not the actual conscious beliefs - correct?


Have you changed your mind on the incoherency of libertarian free will, or do you have an argument that it is coherent?

Let me hit this in a round about way. Quantum entanglement, where two formerly entangled particles mirror each others movement instantly at a distance, has pretty much been proven (see link below). And there is no physical connection between these particles. Tell me Thinker how is this possible? And it seems that Einstein's hidden variables has been pretty much debunked with this latest finding. How is this coherent? I do have a point here.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet/



Unfortunately, the more religious a society is, the higher the crime tends to be and lower the standards of living are. This is shown not only true in the US but all over the world. The poorest states/countries are the most religious, and the richest states/countries are often the least religions. Same goes for countries around the world. So becoming religious certainly has no strong statistical evidence showing it really makes people more moral. Otherwise, we'd see correlations with high religiosity with high living standards and low crime.

That is just silly. To many variables, remember Muslims are determinists, as are some Christians - still. But I can lead you to dozens and dozen of people I personally know where the Christian faith clearly produced better moral behavior. Including myself. As a matter of fact, I never met, in 25 years, a person who became morally worse after they came to a genuine faith in Christ.


So theism or belief in the soul does nothing to rescue libertarian free will. Nothing.

Really? So if thoughts and beliefs had a real effect, if I was more that just physical, and had a will that could control the physical - that would not help? Why not?

The Thinker
10-06-2015, 02:14 PM
Yes, but it is the physical things in the brain that can influence, not the actual conscious beliefs - correct?

Yes, because everything in consciousness is caused by a physical thing going on in the brain.



Let me hit this in a round about way. Quantum entanglement, where two formerly entangled particles mirror each others movement instantly at a distance, has pretty much been proven (see link below). And there is no physical connection between these particles. Tell me Thinker how is this possible? And it seems that Einstein's hidden variables has been pretty much debunked with this latest finding. How is this coherent? I do have a point here.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet/

Actually the particles are still entangled when one is measured and the other instantly changes. How is that possible? Non-locality. There is a universal wave function. It is all described in quantum theory and there is nothing incoherent about it. The appearance of incoherency is based on false assumptions about reality that we held, like locality. Nothing about this makes the soul any more plausible, LFW is still incoherent because it violates the law of non-contradiction, and souls are rule by by quantum mechanics. You have no point here.



That is just silly. To many variables, remember Muslims are determinists, as are some Christians - still. But I can lead you to dozens and dozen of people I personally know where the Christian faith clearly produced better moral behavior. Including myself. As a matter of fact, I never met, in 25 years, a person who became morally worse after they came to a genuine faith in Christ.

Ha! You base your view here entirely on personal anecdotes. That's a classical bad move. The statistics show low religiosity correlated with low crime and high standards of living. So no, being a Christian or being a theist does not make society better. It may make certain individuals behave better. But no one denies that.



Really? So if thoughts and beliefs had a real effect, if I was more that just physical, and had a will that could control the physical - that would not help? Why not?

Because libertarian free will itself is incoherent. You already know this.

Tassman
10-06-2015, 10:54 PM
Really Tass? Tell me where I misquoted the paper. Be specific.



Tell me Tass, where did I misquote or misunderstand?

The dishonesty of your quote-mining is that you cherry-pick quotes from science you think, usually erroneously, support your religious agenda and dismiss whatever does not support your religious agenda. This is doubly dishonest in that you consistently demonstrate your contempt for science, except where you think it supports your presuppositions. As well, you rarely answer questions and do not attempt to support your position other than with a god-did-it response. You demand verified evidence from your opponents but exempt yourself on the fatuous basis that you're "not bound by the laws of science". Can you see the dishonesty of your approach? :glare:

Tassman
10-06-2015, 10:58 PM
Yes, but it is the physical things in the brain that can influence, not the actual conscious beliefs - correct?

Consciousness is not separate from the material brain. This belief is dualism and it's utterly unsupported by scientific evidence.


But I can lead you to dozens and dozen of people I personally know where the Christian faith clearly produced better moral behavior. Including myself. As a matter of fact, I never met, in 25 years, a person who became morally worse after they came to a genuine faith in Christ.

Your argument fails. Individual Christians may become more moral, i.e. when they're not being judgemental, hypocritical or trying to impose their views via legislation on everyone else. But the evidence shows that the non-religious secular countries tend to have the lowest crime rates and tend to rank higher on the UN's Human Development Index. Conversely the US, with it's high levels of Christian religiosity, is statistically the most violent, unjust and most inequitable country in the developed world. So much for Christianity!


Really? So if thoughts and beliefs had a real effect, if I was more than just physical, and had a will that could control the physical - that would not help? Why not?

But you're NOT "more than just physical", that's the point.

seer
10-07-2015, 07:34 AM
The dishonesty of your quote-mining is that you cherry-pick quotes from science you think, usually erroneously, support your religious agenda and dismiss whatever does not support your religious agenda. This is doubly dishonest in that you consistently demonstrate your contempt for science, except where you think it supports your presuppositions. As well, you rarely answer questions and do not attempt to support your position other than with a god-did-it response. You demand verified evidence from your opponents but exempt yourself on the fatuous basis that you're "not bound by the laws of science". Can you see the dishonesty of your approach? :glare:

See Tass, in this last accusation by you I again asked exactly where I quote mined concerning this study about determinism and behavior - and you offer no specifics but go off on a rant - talk about dishonest Bro...

seer
10-07-2015, 07:57 AM
Yes, because everything in consciousness is caused by a physical thing going on in the brain.

Yes, what? That conscious thought can influence the process? How? You have been denying that right along.



Actually the particles are still entangled when one is measured and the other instantly changes. How is that possible? Non-locality. There is a universal wave function. It is all described in quantum theory and there is nothing incoherent about it. The appearance of incoherency is based on false assumptions about reality that we held, like locality. Nothing about this makes the soul any more plausible, LFW is still incoherent because it violates the law of non-contradiction, and souls are rule by by quantum mechanics. You have no point here.

Nonsense, they are not any longer entangled and the act on each other at a distant. And NO ONE knows how or why. Read the link, this new experiment makes it clear. And free will would be no more a contradiction than particles instantly effecting each other without a physical connection.



Ha! You base your view here entirely on personal anecdotes. That's a classical bad move. The statistics show low religiosity correlated with low crime and high standards of living. So no, being a Christian or being a theist does not make society better. It may make certain individuals behave better. But no one denies that.


Again, this is stupid, what are the other variables? Sure a lily white country like Norway, though less religious, may have less crime than a multi cultural multi racial country that is more religious, but that tells you nothing about religion. And if it makes an individual better does that not then help make society better? The fact is, this is about individuals and can't be quantified by stats.



Because libertarian free will itself is incoherent. You already know this.

You keep asserting this. Try showing this in a syllogism, because I don't see it.

Tassman
10-07-2015, 10:13 PM
See Tass, in this last accusation by you I again asked exactly where I quote mined concerning this study about determinism and behavior - and you offer no specifics but go off on a rant - talk about dishonest Bro...

Your whole approach to the use of scientific links is quote-mining. Science exists to acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence. It's NOT intended to reinforce existing religious presuppositions, which is how you misuse science. This is double cynical in that you say you’re not bound by scientific knowledge anyway, because you don't believe we live in a physical universe. So science for you is only useful is it can be made to reinforce what you already believe, if it contradicts what you believe it is dismissed. This is what I mean by "dishonest".

seer
10-08-2015, 09:05 AM
Your whole approach to the use of scientific links is quote-mining. Science exists to acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence. It's NOT intended to reinforce existing religious presuppositions, which is how you misuse science. This is double cynical in that you say you’re not bound by scientific knowledge anyway, because you don't believe we live in a physical universe. So science for you is only useful is it can be made to reinforce what you already believe, if it contradicts what you believe it is dismissed. This is what I mean by "dishonest".

OK, meaning that you don't have any evidence that I quote mined or misrepresented anything about the study I linked here. And BTW Tass, this particular discussion is not religious based - I know plenty of theists who are determinists. And you are correct, though science can be useful, I am not "bound" by it.

Tassman
10-08-2015, 09:33 PM
OK, meaning that you don't have any evidence that I quote mined or misrepresented anything about the study I linked here. And BTW Tass, this particular discussion is not religious based - I know plenty of theists who are determinists. And you are correct, though science can be useful, I am not "bound" by it.

By which you mean you do not consider yourself “bound” to accept scientifically verified facts if they conflict with your religious presuppositions and that it’s “useful’ only when it supports your religious presuppositions. You said yourself that you don’t believe we live in a physical universe even though you can’t provide any substantive evidence of an alternative universe other than the failed god hypothesis.

seer
10-09-2015, 05:00 AM
By which you mean you do not consider yourself “bound” to accept scientifically verified facts if they conflict with your religious presuppositions and that it’s “useful’ only when it supports your religious presuppositions. You said yourself that you don’t believe we live in a physical universe even though you can’t provide any substantive evidence of an alternative universe other than the failed god hypothesis.

Yes Tass I have religious bias as you have a non-religious bias. We all have presuppositions Tass or we could not make sense of the world. And aren't you the one who keeps telling me that science is always in flux? Perhaps I should still believe in the Steady State universe that I was taught in school. And again, God is not an hypothesis, He is a person.

Tassman
10-09-2015, 06:34 PM
Yes Tass I have religious bias as you have a non-religious bias. We all have presuppositions Tass or we could not make sense of the world.

We don't make sense of the world by basing our beliefs on myths and legends, we make sense of the world by basing our beliefs upon tested evidence which supports our beliefs; religion is not supported by any substantive evidence.


And aren't you the one who keeps telling me that science is always in flux? Perhaps I should still believe in the Steady State universe that I was taught in school.

I said science is a work in progress; it has progressed beyond Steady State theory because the tested evidence didn't support it.


And again, God is not an hypothesis, He is a person.

Nope! God is a superseded hypothesis.

Jichard
10-10-2015, 12:35 PM
It may be a lie, or it may just be misconstrued. I can see how some who come to accept determinism might become less moral, probably wouldn't be the current atheists though. As a matter of fact, I think thats the reason why god was created in the first place.

No, it's actually a blatant lie. The paper does not claim what seer claims the paper says, seer's been told this, and yet seer still falsely claims the paper says this. So seer's lying. He hasn't read the paper, and is simply making up nonsense regarding what the paper says.

To recap (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=251973#post251973): the paper doesn't actually measure people's acceptance of determinism: it instead measures people's exposure to information that denies of free will. So seer is simply lying when he claims that paper shows that people who accept determinism are less moral.

Jichard
10-10-2015, 12:40 PM
Really Tass? Tell me where I misquoted the paper. Be specific.



Tell me Tass, where did I misquote or misunderstand?

And seer's still pretending that this hasn't been explained to him...



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)].

Jichard
10-10-2015, 01:38 PM
He's misrepresenting what the paper says, even though it's painfully clear that he hasn't actually read the paper nor understood it.

Regrettably this is fairly standard procedure for seer. Facts mean little to him; he’s only interesting in supporting his religious agenda by whatever it takes.

Yup. At this point, I don't trust what he says, especially when he cites sources. I've seen him go so as to blatantly misrepresent what sources have said (ex: Sean Carroll, David Chalmers, and Sam Harris), to try and support his own position. He's basically doing the same for this paper. And it's painfully clear that he either hasn't read the paper, or he's read the paper and willfully lying about what it shows.

Jichard
10-10-2015, 02:27 PM
The dishonesty of your quote-mining is that you cherry-pick quotes from science you think, usually erroneously, support your religious agenda and dismiss whatever does not support your religious agenda. This is doubly dishonest in that you consistently demonstrate your contempt for science, except where you think it supports your presuppositions. As well, you rarely answer questions and do not attempt to support your position other than with a god-did-it response. You demand verified evidence from your opponents but exempt yourself on the fatuous basis that you're "not bound by the laws of science". Can you see the dishonesty of your approach? :glare:

That's how he operates. For example, that's why he'll misrepresent scientific papers (like the the one from the OP), while conveniently ignoring scientific papers that rebut his claims or support his opponent's claims. These include papers like the following:



"Free Will in Scientific Psychology"
http://academic.udayton.edu/JackBauer/Readings%20595/Baumeister%2008%20Free%20Will.pdf


"Some actions are freer than others, and the difference is palpably important in terms of inner process, subjective perception, and social consequences. Psychology can study the difference between freer and less free actions without making dubious metaphysical commitments. Human evolution seems to have created a relatively new, more complex form of action control that corresponds to popular notions of free will. It is marked by self-control and rational choice, both of which are highly adaptive, especially for functioning within culture. The processes that create these forms of free will may be biologically costly and therefore are only used occasionally, so that people are likely to remain only incompletely self-disciplined, virtuous, and rational."


Baumeister's work is further discussed here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/48373-moral-psychology-volume-4-free-will-and-moral-responsibility/


seer basically ignores sources like this, since he wants to pretend that the only two options are denying free will exists or accepting the libertarian free will that seer accepts. Of course, this is dishonest in just the wayyou describe. Hopefully one day seer will stop this dishonesty, and actually bother to fairly address opposing positions.

seer
10-10-2015, 04:15 PM
I said science is a work in progress; it has progressed beyond Steady State theory because the tested evidence didn't support it.

Right, so what accepted theory will overturned tomorrow? Do you know? And why should I be "bound" by a discipline that is so much flux?



Nope! God is a superseded hypothesis.

Well tell Him that when you meet him, I'm sure He will be all ears...

Jichard
10-10-2015, 06:26 PM
Once you make it clear to laypeople that determinism does not entail bypassing, then much of their rationale for accepting incompatibilism (i.e. accepting the idea that determinism is incompatible with free will) goes away. That is supported in the above paper, and in the following two papers:



"Folk Fears about Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism vs. Reductionism"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Folk_Fears_about_Freedom_and_Responsibility.pdf

"Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Nahmias_Coates_Kvaran.pdf




You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)].

And in further confirmation of my point, there's plenty of research suggesting the people can accept both determinism and free will. This undermines seer's attempt to misrepresent the research as being about people's belief in determinism, when the research is really about people's being exposed to the denial of free will. The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

Furthermore, I wonder how seer will respond to the fact that belief in free will is correlated with authoritarianism or that extrinsice religiosity is correlated with fatalistic determism.



"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately (130).

[...]

Based on an extensive series of student and community surveys, we found that non-philosophers tended to distinguish four belief concepts: free will, scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability. These distinctions were labeled after factor analyses showed four clusters of items.

In the first cluster, typical items included “People have complete free will” and “People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to.” Therefore, we labeled it free will belief (FWB). Along with assumptions about autonomy, the factor includes declarations that people are responsible for their actions. A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”). Finally, the fourth belief cluster referred to randomness, luck, and unpredictability. Because the latter theme was most prominent, we applied the label unpredictability. One example is “Life is hard to predict because it is almost totally random.” (130-131)

[...]

Asserting that the logic of determinism precludes free will, incompatibilists argue that one cannot believe in both positions. By contrast, compatibilists see nothing about determinism that precludes free will, and vice versa.

We do not take a position on that philosophical issue. Instead, we seek to clarify what average people believe: Are they compatibilists or incompatibilists? What are the implications of these beliefs? Research to date indicates that, given the right definitions and situational context, most everyday folks can find a way to reconcile the two beliefs (e.g., Knobe & Nichols, 2008; Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer, & Turner, 2006) (131).

[...]

Intrinsic but not extrinsic religious orientation was associated with belief in free will (135).

[...]

On the other hand, extrinsic religiosity was linked to fatalistic determinism (135).

[...]

All three studies confirmed a pattern of orthogonality among beliefs regarding free will and determinism. Evaluation of this issue was made possible by the availability of the FAD-Plus (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). Unlike previous measures, the FADPlus subscales do not inherently confound beliefs in free will and determinism.

With the addition of these three studies to the literature, we can now safely conclude that lay judges have little problem believing in both free will and determinism; nor does a disbelief in one require belief in the other. This independence holds for both forms of determinism. We added further support for this independence by showing that some variables (e.g., religiosity) correlated in the same direction with both free will and (at least one type of) determinism. This pattern is only possible if lay individuals see no necessary link between free will and determinism (138).

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."


Or maybe seer will continue to disingenuously ignore this scientific research as expected?




He's misrepresenting what the paper says, even though it's painfully clear that he hasn't actually read the paper nor understood it.

Regrettably this is fairly standard procedure for seer. Facts mean little to him; he’s only interesting in supporting his religious agenda by whatever it takes.


The dishonesty of your quote-mining is that you cherry-pick quotes from science you think, usually erroneously, support your religious agenda and dismiss whatever does not support your religious agenda. This is doubly dishonest in that you consistently demonstrate your contempt for science, except where you think it supports your presuppositions. As well, you rarely answer questions and do not attempt to support your position other than with a god-did-it response. You demand verified evidence from your opponents but exempt yourself on the fatuous basis that you're "not bound by the laws of science". Can you see the dishonesty of your approach? :glare:

Tassman
10-10-2015, 09:38 PM
Right, so what accepted theory will overturned tomorrow? Do you know? And why should I be "bound" by a discipline that is so much flux?

Science isn't in flux; it it were it wouldn't have achieved so much. The “Steady State” was a hypothesis, not an established scientific theory. In contrast to hypotheses, established theories are well documented and verified beyond reasonable doubt. Technology is built upon them and successful predictions made based upon them. They may be adjusted but virtually never “overturned”.

Thus you can be reasonably “bound to a discipline” that has resulted in the accumulation of so much verifiable knowledge and transformed our lives for the better. E.g. Science has contributed to civilization by such benefits as computers, cell phones, TV and all electronic devices. Plus it's extended our life-spans and improved general health with medicines, antibiotics, medical procedures, medical knowledge, and orthopaedic as well as surgical techniques. Not to mention the advancement of agriculture, farming techniques and animal husbandry.

As well science has advanced our knowledge with the with the development of scientific theories such as Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Evolution... And into the future exponential growing technologies are under development, namely: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Nanotechnology, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Medicine and Human-Machine Interfaces, Networks & Computing Systems, and Energy & Environmental Systems...etc, etc, etc.

SO, compared to science, what has religion achieved for civilisation…apart from the oppression of those that don’t conform to its dictates and endless religious wars?


Well tell Him that when you meet him, I'm sure He will be all ears...

Veiled threat noted; so typical of Christians! And on what basis are you “sure”, what evidence do you have to support the assumption that a god even exists? Oh, and God has ears? You really have made your god in your own image, haven't you, right down to the ears. :rofl:

Tassman
10-10-2015, 09:49 PM
That's how he operates. For example, that's why he'll misrepresent scientific papers (like the the one from the OP), while conveniently ignoring scientific papers that rebut his claims or support his opponent's claims. These include papers like the following:



"Free Will in Scientific Psychology"
http://academic.udayton.edu/JackBauer/Readings%20595/Baumeister%2008%20Free%20Will.pdf


"Some actions are freer than others, and the difference is palpably important in terms of inner process, subjective perception, and social consequences. Psychology can study the difference between freer and less free actions without making dubious metaphysical commitments. Human evolution seems to have created a relatively new, more complex form of action control that corresponds to popular notions of free will. It is marked by self-control and rational choice, both of which are highly adaptive, especially for functioning within culture. The processes that create these forms of free will may be biologically costly and therefore are only used occasionally, so that people are likely to remain only incompletely self-disciplined, virtuous, and rational."


Baumeister's work is further discussed here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/48373-moral-psychology-volume-4-free-will-and-moral-responsibility/


seer basically ignores sources like this, since he wants to pretend that the only two options are denying free will exists or accepting the libertarian free will that seer accepts. Of course, this is dishonest in just the wayyou describe. Hopefully one day seer will stop this dishonesty, and actually bother to fairly address opposing positions.

It's blatantly obvious what seer's up to and he doesn't realize that, by misrepresenting the arguments he quote-mines, he's actually harming his own cause and bringing it into contempt.

I particularly found this quote from your link in #37 of interest:

"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately" (130). My emphasis.

"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"

http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf

seer
10-11-2015, 05:11 AM
It's blatantly obvious what seer's up to and he doesn't realize that, by misrepresenting the arguments he quote-mines, he's actually harming his own cause and bringing it into contempt.

How on earth does Jerky Butt's link undermine the paper I linked? And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. No back to your false charge - where did misrepresent the paper in the OP?

The abstract is perfectly clear:


Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.

seer
10-11-2015, 12:41 PM
Jichard, I am requesting that you stop posting in my threads.

seer
10-11-2015, 12:49 PM
SO, compared to science, what has religion achieved for civilisation…apart from the oppression of those that don’t conform to its dictates and endless religious wars?

Are you really this bias Tass. How many of the great universities were founded by Christians, how many charities, how many hospitals? And though science has helped a lot, it also gave us the means to pretty much destroy ourselves. And we will use those weapons again - we just can't help ourselves.

seer
10-11-2015, 05:26 PM
I
I particularly found this quote from your link in #37 of interest:

"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately" (130). My emphasis.

"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"

http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf

Why not quote the whole context:



Worldview Attitudes

What are the broader psychological implications of holding a
free will versus a determinist worldview? There is already
reason to believe that such differences play a role in perspec-
tives on morality and punishment. Several experimental
studies have suggested that free will belief is adaptive in
reducing antisocial behavior. For example, Vohs and Schooler
(2008) showed that undermining free will belief encourages
cheating. Baumeister et al. (2009) used a similar manipula-
tion to promote aggression. The authors concluded that
undermining free will belief serves to undermine social
standards.

Two prominent theoretical models postulate direct links
between conservative social attitudes and free will belief
(Baumeister, 2008; Weiner, 1993). For Baumeister, the medi-
ating variable is self-control: Individuals with greater self-
control tend to be more conscientious and rule-following. Not
coincidentally, such tendencies are more characteristic of con-
servatives (Jost, 2006; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). At the same
time, conservatives tend to be more blaming and punitive
toward lawbreakers (Altemeyer, 1973). Holding people
responsible for their behavior requires the assumption of free
will (Mele, 2008; Sappington, 1990). In short, the personal
responsibility ethic emphasized by conservatives necessitates a
firm belief in free will.

Tassman
10-11-2015, 06:43 PM
Are you really this bias Tass. How many of the great universities were founded by Christians, how many charities, how many hospitals?

And how many of these institutions rely on the fruits science in order to enable effective service and treatment?


And though science has helped a lot,

Science “helped a lot”. Good of you. :lmbo:



it also gave us the means to pretty much destroy ourselves. And we will use those weapons again - we just can't help ourselves.

...and frequently in the service of the one true god as we've seen throughout history up until today.


Jichard, I am requesting that you stop posting in my threads.

Interesting that you feel to need to ban an effective opponent of your views! :glare:

Jichard
10-11-2015, 08:09 PM
Jichard, I am requesting that you stop posting in my threads.

So that you can keep lying to people about scientific research you haven't read? So that you can keep posting garbage on my threads?

Sure... :ahem:

Jichard
10-11-2015, 08:11 PM
How on earth does Jerky Butt's link undermine the paper I linked?

Is Jesus proud of you for the silly nicknames you make up for people? A true display of Christ-like love.


And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself.

No, you quote-mined the paper, and have continued to dishonestly do so even after your quote-mines were pointed out.


The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. No back to your false charge - where did misrepresent the paper in the OP?

The abstract is perfectly clear:

Nowhere does that paper say that when people believe in determinism they are less moral. That's just a stupid lie that you made up to smear determinists. Same old dishonest quote-mines of scientific research you haven't read. Sad, but expected. :ahem:



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)].

Jichard
10-11-2015, 08:18 PM
It's blatantly obvious what seer's up to and he doesn't realize that, by misrepresenting the arguments he quote-mines, he's actually harming his own cause and bringing it into contempt.

He doesn't seem to care. He keeps pretending that the paper says that people who believe in determinism are less moral, even though the paper shows no such thing and this has been explained to him. He just misrepresents and quote-mines, without caring about fairly representing the research.



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)].


I particularly found this quote from your link in #37 of interest:

"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately" (130). My emphasis.

"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"

http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf

Prepare for him to ignore that.

Jichard
10-11-2015, 08:24 PM
Jim, Jerky Butt is fibbing again:

Is Jesus proud of you for your silly insults?


From the study:

http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf


GENERAL DISCUSSION

In two experiments, we found that weakening free-will beliefs
reliably increased cheating. We measured cheating in Experiment
1 using a passive cheating opportunity. To avoid cheating,
participants had to actively prevent the answer to an arithmetic
problem from appearing on the computer screen. This scenario
is perhaps akin to accidentally receiving too much change from a
store clerk but not returning the extra money. In Experiment 2,
we measured active cheating. We found that when participants
were allowed to pay themselves for each correct answer on a
difficult cognitive test, those who read statements promoting
a deterministic worldview paid themselves more (in effect,
claimed to have answered more items correctly) than did those
who read other kinds of statements; moreover, participants who
read deterministic statements and who paid themselves gave
themselves more money than was earned by participants who
were paid for their true performance...

...The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is
no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active
cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic
worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the
experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis.
Reading deterministic statements decreased people’s selfreported
belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating...

The present findings raise the genuine concern that widespread
encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have
the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior.
Consistent with this view are recent trends suggesting both a
decrease in beliefs in personal control and an increase in
cheating.

Your usual dishonest quote-mining. Nowhere in there does the paper support your claims that:


"And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=252351#post252351)"

"And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253827#post253827)"

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism. Heck, in the very text you quoted, the authors make it clear that they were discussing exposure to the denial of free will. And yet you've been dishonestly pretending that they were talking about belief in determinism. So stop dishonetly conflating determinism with the denial of free will.

How many times does this need to be explained to you? Seriously, stop the dishonest quote-mining.



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibilit position held to by the majority of philosophers (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)].

Tassman
10-11-2015, 10:37 PM
How on earth does Jerky Butt's link undermine the paper I linked? And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. No back to your false charge - where did misrepresent the paper in the OP?

The abstract is perfectly clear:

What "people believe" may affect their behaviour but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the truth. E.g. children can be made to restrain bad behaviour if they believe they'll be punished by the Bogeyman, but this is not evidence that such an entity exists.

Thus, even if you'd interpreted your quote-mine correctly, and Jichard has demonstrated that you haven't, it would make no difference to the fact of causal determinism nor validate the existence of libertarian free-will.

seer
10-12-2015, 04:46 AM
As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism. Heck, in the very text you quoted, the authors make it clear that they were discussing exposure to the denial of free will. And yet you've been dishonestly pretending that they were talking about belief in determinism. So stop dishonetly conflating determinism with the denial of free will.

How many times does this need to be explained to you? Seriously, stop the dishonest quote-mining.


OK Jicard, from the general discussion:


The present findings raise the genuine concern that widespread
encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have
the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior.
Consistent with this view are recent trends suggesting both a
decrease in beliefs in personal control and an increase in
cheating.


If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood
of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating
the public against this danger becomes imperative. Ultimately,
in order to oppose the unfavorable consequences of deterministic
sentiments, the field must first develop a deeper understanding
of why dismissing free will leads to amoral behavior.
Does the belief that forces outside the self determine behavior
drain the motivation to resist the temptation to cheat, inducing a
‘‘why bother?’’ mentality


http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

OK Jichard, instead of going on one of your rants and overwhelming everyone with unnecessary verbiage, which is your debating style, just tell me what these mean:

the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

seer
10-12-2015, 04:49 AM
What "people believe" may affect their behaviour but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the truth. E.g. children can be made to restrain bad behaviour if they believe they'll be punished by the Bogeyman, but this is not evidence that such an entity exists.

Thus, even if you'd interpreted your quote-mine correctly, and Jichard has demonstrated that you haven't, it would make no difference to the fact of causal determinism nor validate the existence of libertarian free-will.

I misrepresented nothing Tass, the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong.

Tassman
10-12-2015, 10:36 PM
I misrepresented nothing Tass, the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong.

Bald Assertion Fallacy!

seer
10-13-2015, 04:22 AM
Bald Assertion Fallacy!

Well look at my last post to Jichard and tell me exactly where I am off. Where did I misrepresent the paper in the OP, as Jichard claimed?

Tassman
10-13-2015, 10:06 PM
Well look at my last post to Jichard and tell me exactly where I am off. Where did I misrepresent the paper in the OP, as Jichard claimed?

Jichard, as usual, explained his objection perfectly clearly and for your to respond with a glib "the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong", is disingenuous.

seer
10-14-2015, 04:36 AM
Jichard, as usual, explained his objection perfectly clearly and for your to respond with a glib "the text is clear and Jichard is again wrong", is disingenuous.

Wrong Tass, Jichard said that the authors of the paper I linked were not speaking of believing in determinism, yet they were, and I quoted them saying exactly that. Are you really this bias bro? Read it for yourself:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=254153&viewfull=1#post254153

The Pixie
10-14-2015, 07:53 AM
seer, the reason Jichard considers you dishonest is that determinism does not imply no free will. The paper is considering the morality of people who think there is no free will. The truth is that you can have determinism AND free will. Jichard pointed this out to you in post #4.

"Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:"

That you chose to ignore that is the reason Jichard considers you to be dishonestly misrepresenting the article. I can see his point.

seer
10-14-2015, 08:10 AM
seer, the reason Jichard considers you dishonest is that determinism does not imply no free will. The paper is considering the morality of people who think there is no free will. The truth is that you can have determinism AND free will. Jichard pointed this out to you in post #4.

"Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:"

That you chose to ignore that is the reason Jichard considers you to be dishonestly misrepresenting the article. I can see his point.

Nonsense, Jichard said this:

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.

And this is false, the paper specifically points to belief in determinism:


the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

And where in the paper did they discuss compatibilism? Why am I accused of ignoring that when it was not even discussed Pixie!?!?!?

The Pixie
10-15-2015, 04:15 AM
Nonsense, Jichard said this:
And this is why people think you are dishonest.

I quoted what Jichard said in post #4. Anyone who takes the trouble can verify that what I quoted was from that post.

And where in the paper did they discuss compatibilism? Why am I accused of ignoring that when it was not even discussed Pixie!?!?!?
You are ignoring it because it has been pointed out to you in this thread. A thread to which you have responded numerous times, without once acknowledging it.

I get it. You have an agenda you wish to promote, that determinism is bad. Unfortunately, the whole compatibalism thing destroys your argument, so you do the only thing you can: You pretend it does not exist. If it is not mentioned in the paper, you can turn a blind eye to it, right?

So much easier than confronting the truth.

So I wonder: Can you admit that someone can believe in both determinism and free will?

seer
10-15-2015, 04:43 AM
And this is why people think you are dishonest.

I quoted what Jichard said in post #4. Anyone who takes the trouble can verify that what I quoted was from that post.

You are ignoring it because it has been pointed out to you in this thread. A thread to which you have responded numerous times, without once acknowledging it.

I get it. You have an agenda you wish to promote, that determinism is bad. Unfortunately, the whole compatibalism thing destroys your argument, so you do the only thing you can: You pretend it does not exist. If it is not mentioned in the paper, you can turn a blind eye to it, right?

So much easier than confronting the truth.

So I wonder: Can you admit that someone can believe in both determinism and free will?

Talk about dishonest Pixie. Jichard was wrong about what the authors in my linked paper claimed. They were speaking of determinism, not just the lack of belief in free will as Jichard said. And where in the original paper do they deal with compatibalism? BE SPECIFIC PLEASE. And this is not my argument it is the argument of the researchers. As far as if determinism and free will are compatible that depends on how you define free will. Determinism is not compatible with libertarian free will.


Here is my original link - where do they speak of compatibalism: http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

Tassman
10-15-2015, 09:10 PM
And this is why people think you are dishonest.

I quoted what Jichard said in post #4. Anyone who takes the trouble can verify that what I quoted was from that post.

You are ignoring it because it has been pointed out to you in this thread. A thread to which you have responded numerous times, without once acknowledging it.

I get it. You have an agenda you wish to promote, that determinism is bad. Unfortunately, the whole compatibalism thing destroys your argument, so you do the only thing you can: You pretend it does not exist. If it is not mentioned in the paper, you can turn a blind eye to it, right?

So much easier than confronting the truth.

So I wonder: Can you admit that someone can believe in both determinism and free will?

It's called 'denial', i.e. (in psychology): "An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings." - The Free Dictionary.

seer
10-16-2015, 04:41 AM
It's called 'denial', i.e. (in psychology): "An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings." - The Free Dictionary.

Yes Tass, that applies to you. I have clearly shown that Jichard's claim that I misrepresented the paper in my OP was unfounded. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post254153

Tassman
10-16-2015, 09:27 PM
Yes Tass, that applies to you. I have clearly shown that Jichard's claim that I misrepresented the paper in my OP was unfounded. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post254153

I disagree...as do Jichard and The Pixie; you're on your own, seer.

seer
10-17-2015, 07:13 AM
I disagree...as do Jichard and The Pixie; you're on your own, seer.


Yes and they are both dishonest. Again Jichard said:


As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.



So he claimed that the authors were not speaking of belief in determinism, but the authors clearly were, here again are two quotes from the paper but there are more.


the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

So it is exactly a belief in determinism that the paper was referring too. Jichard was lying...

Roy
10-17-2015, 10:18 AM
the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperativeSo it is exactly a belief in determinism that the paper was referring too. Jichard was lying...Exposure to deterministic messages is not the same as belief in determinism, any more than reading the Koran is the same as adopting Islam. Seer is lying. As usual.

Tassman
10-17-2015, 08:59 PM
Yes and they are both dishonest. Again Jichard said:




So he claimed that the authors were not speaking of belief in determinism, but the authors clearly were, here again are two quotes from the paper but there are more.



So it is exactly a belief in determinism that the paper was referring too. Jichard was lying...


Exposure to deterministic messages is not the same as belief in determinism, any more than reading the Koran is the same as adopting Islam. Seer is lying. As usual.

^^^What he said^^^

seer
10-18-2015, 08:27 AM
Exposure to deterministic messages is not the same as belief in determinism, any more than reading the Koran is the same as adopting Islam. Seer is lying. As usual.

Then what is a "deterministic worldview" (the authors words not mine) bonehead if not belief in determinism? You are the dishonest one Roy. The study was focused on what people believed...


What would happen if people came to believe that their behavior is the inexorable product of a causal chain set into motion without their own volition? Would people carry on, selves and behavior unperturbed, or, as Sartre suggested, might the adoption of a deterministic worldview serve as an excuse for untoward behaviors

seer
10-18-2015, 08:29 AM
^^^What he said^^^

Tass, in a number of posts you have yet to show where I misquoted or misunderstood the paper.You just parrot the lies of others - sad really...

Jichard
10-18-2015, 02:34 PM
Nonsense, Jichard said this:

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.

And this is false, the paper specifically points to belief in determinism:



And where in the paper did they discuss compatibilism? Why am I accused of ignoring that when it was not even discussed Pixie!?!?!?

The "determinism" condition in the paper is about incompatibilism + determinism ; that is: it's about thinking that determinism is incompatible with free will + thinking determinism is true. I literally quoted the portions of the paper that show this. Of course, you willfully ignored this in your quote-mine of my post:



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

Let me repeat that for you again, so that you can stop dodging it:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

So the study is not measuring the effects of determinism alone, since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists. After all, compatibilists think free will is compatible with determinism, and I've already gone over evidence showing that numerous people are compatibilists (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253681#post253681). Instead, what the research is measuring is the effect of exposure to incompatibilism + determinism. This explains why the determinism condition led to less belief in free will: if you tell people that incompatibilism is true and that determinism is true, then of course the inference that follows from that is that there's no free will. But that inference does not follow from determinism alone.

Jichard
10-18-2015, 02:47 PM
OK Jicard, from the general discussion:



OK Jichard, instead of going on one of your rants

It's not a "rant" just because you're unable to deal with the content of what I said.


and overwhelming everyone with unnecessary verbiage,which is your debating style,

It's not "unnecessary verbiage". It's me quoting the paper to you to deal with your misrepresentations of the paper. You call that "unnecessary verbiage" because your unable to address what I said and what I said exposes your misrepresentation of the research.


just tell me what these mean:

the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

You're being dishonest. I already addressed in my first post on this thread, yet here you are, willfully pretending that I didn't. My goodness!

Once again, the "determinism" condition in the paper is about incompatibilism + determinism ; that is: it's about thinking that determinism is incompatible with free will + thinking determinism is true. I literally quoted the portions of the paper that show this. Of course, you wcontinue to willfully ignore this in your dishonesty:



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

Let me repeat that for you again, so that you can stop dodging it:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.” [emphasis added]"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

So the study is not measuring the effects of determinism alone, since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists. After all, compatibilists think free will is compatible with determinism, and I've already gone over evidence showing that numerous people are compatibilists (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253681#post253681). Instead, what the research is measuring is the effect of exposure to incompatibilism + determinism. This explains why the determinism condition led to less belief in free will: if you tell people that incompatibilism is true and that determinism is true, then of course the inference that follows from that is that there's no free will. But that inference does not follow from determinism alone.

Jichard
10-18-2015, 02:55 PM
Talk about dishonest Pixie. Jichard was wrong about what the authors in my linked paper claimed. They were speaking of determinism, not just the lack of belief in free will as Jichard said. And where in the original paper do they deal with compatibalism? BE SPECIFIC PLEASE.

You're being dishonest again by pretending this wasn't explained to you, when I actually explained it to you in my first post on this thread:



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


And this is not my argument it is the argument of the researchers.

No, that's your argument


As far as if determinism and free will are compatible that depends on how you define free will. Determinism is not compatible with libertarian free will.

Irrelevant, since one does not need to believe it libertarian free will in order to believe that there's free will.


Here is my original link - where do they speak of compatibalism: http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf

Let me repeat my quote of the study for you again, so that you can stop dodging it:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.” [emphasis added]"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

So the study is not measuring the effects of determinism alone, since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists. After all, compatibilists think free will is compatible with determinism, and I've already gone over evidence showing that numerous people are compatibilists (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253681#post253681). Instead, what the research is measuring is the effect of exposure to incompatibilism + determinism. This explains why the determinism condition led to less belief in free will: if you tell people that incompatibilism is true and that determinism is true, then of course the inference that follows from that is that there's no free will. But that inference does not follow from determinism alone.

Jichard
10-18-2015, 03:00 PM
Yes and they are both dishonest. Again Jichard said:




So he claimed that the authors were not speaking of belief in determinism, but the authors clearly were, here again are two quotes from the paper but there are more.


the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

So it is exactly a belief in determinism that the paper was referring too. Jichard was lying...

Please stop the dishonest quote-mining, seer. As I explained to you in my first post on this thread, the "determinism" condition in the paper is about incompatibilism + determinism; that is: it's about thinking that determinism is incompatible with free will, while thinking determinism is true. I literally quoted the portions of the paper that show this. Of course, you willfully ignored this in your quote-mine of my post:



You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

Let me repeat that for you again, so that you can stop dodging it:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

So the study is not measuring the effects of determinism alone, since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists. After all, compatibilists think free will is compatible with determinism, and I've already gone over evidence showing that numerous people are compatibilists (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253681#post253681). Instead, what the research is measuring is the effect of exposure to incompatibilism + determinism. This explains why the determinism condition led to less belief in free will: if you tell people that incompatibilism is true and that determinism is true, then of course the inference that follows from that is that there's no free will. But that inference does not follow from determinism alone.

Jichard
10-18-2015, 03:07 PM
Wrong Tass, Jichard said that the authors of the paper I linked were not speaking of believing in determinism, yet they were, and I quoted them saying exactly that. Are you really this bias bro? Read it for yourself:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=254153&viewfull=1#post254153

Addressed over and over and... : http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=256307#post256307

Seriously, can you not see the incompatibilism presupposed in the paper's "determinism" condition? Really?! Here's the quote again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.” [emphasis added]"

That's not just "believing in determinism". That's determinism + incompatibilism. Of course, you willfully ignore this quote from the paper, since it's inconvenient for your quote-mine of the paper.

Bill the Cat
10-18-2015, 05:17 PM
Jichard, I am requesting that you stop posting in my threads.


Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way

Tassman
10-18-2015, 10:58 PM
Jichard, I am requesting that you stop posting in my threads.

It seems that you're unable to accept honest, justified criticism of your notorious quote-mining and misleading interpretation of links, as expressed by Jichard (and others elsewhere), without childishly stamping your foot and demanding that he be removed. Well, I too will be happy to oblige and hereby withdraw from this thread.

seer
10-19-2015, 05:03 AM
Please stop the dishonest quote-mining, seer. As I explained to you in my first post on this thread, the "determinism" condition in the paper is about incompatibilism + determinism; that is: it's about thinking that determinism is incompatible with free will, while thinking determinism is true. I literally quoted the portions of the paper that show this. Of course, you willfully ignored this in your quote-mine of my post:

Right and you are lying once again Jichard, you said I misquoted the paper - I DID NOT. Yes, it is about believing in determinism idiot. That is the point, the authors did not deal with compatibilism, they did not bring that up - you did. And many atheists, like our own Tass, do believe in determinism and are incompatibilists.


Irrelevant, since one does not need to believe it libertarian free will in order to believe that there's free will.

Then define free will...

seer
10-19-2015, 05:47 AM
Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way

I have called Jichard a liar and dishonest - turning the tables on him since he throws these terms around too freely. If he refrains from name calling I don't mind if he stays.

seer
10-19-2015, 05:51 AM
That's not just "believing in determinism". That's determinism + incompatibilism. Of course, you willfully ignore this quote from the paper, since it's inconvenient for your quote-mine of the paper.

it's about thinking that determinism is incompatible with free will, while thinking determinism is true. I literally quoted the portions of the paper that show this. Of course, you willfully ignored this in your quote-mine of my post:

No you said: As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.

So the study is about believing in determinism, which you claimed it wasn't, but now agree that it was.

Roy
10-19-2015, 09:41 AM
Right and you are lying once again Jichard, you said I misquoted the paper...No, he did not say that. In fact no-one has said that. Seer is objecting to a criticism that he himself invented.

Roy

seer
10-19-2015, 10:17 AM
No, he did not say that. In fact no-one has said that. Seer is objecting to a criticism that he himself invented.

Roy

What are you talking about, Jichard said:


As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism. Heck, in the very text you quoted, the authors make it clear that they were discussing exposure to the denial of free will. And yet you've been dishonestly pretending that they were talking about belief in determinism. So stop dishonetly conflating determinism with the denial of free will.

But the authors were speaking of believing in determinism. And I quote again:


the genuine concern that widespread encouragement of a deterministic worldview may have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging cheating behavior

If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative

Roy
10-19-2015, 03:17 PM
Right and you are lying once again Jichard, you said I misquoted the paper...
No, he did not say that. In fact no-one has said that. Seer is objecting to a criticism that he himself invented.What are you talking about, Jichard said:
As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism. Heck, in the very text you quoted, the authors make it clear that they were discussing exposure to the denial of free will. And yet you've been dishonestly pretending that they were talking about belief in determinism. So stop dishonetly conflating determinism with the denial of free will.Jichard did not say that you misquoted the paper - and nor did anyone else. You made that up.

seer
10-20-2015, 04:30 AM
Jichard did not say that you misquoted the paper - and nor did anyone else. You made that up.

Yes he did:


He doesn't seem to care. He keeps pretending that the paper says that people who believe in determinism are less moral, even though the paper shows no such thing and this has been explained to him. He just misrepresents and quote-mines, without caring about fairly representing the research.

As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.

The paper made exactly those claims, that believing in determinism (deterministic worldview) does leads to less moral behavior (cheating in this case, and more aggressive behavior). So Roy, you are once again WRONG.

Roy
10-20-2015, 09:39 AM
Jichard may have said you misrepresented the paper. He did not say that you misquoted the paper. You made that up.

seer
10-20-2015, 10:27 AM
Jichard may have said you misrepresented the paper. He did not say that you misquoted the paper. You made that up.

Really Roy? That is all you have - semantics?

Roy
10-20-2015, 02:16 PM
Really Roy? That is all you have - semantics?No. What I have is another demonstration that your statements don't match reality and that you will perform any amount of rhetorical gymnastics to avoid retracting even the most blatant error.

You are a waste of time.

seer
10-20-2015, 05:45 PM
No. What I have is another demonstration that your statements don't match reality and that you will perform any amount of rhetorical gymnastics to avoid retracting even the most blatant error.

You are a waste of time.

There was no error. I was right and you again are wrong. And BTW Bonehead, I claimed that the paper was speaking of belief in determinism, Jichard said it didn't - that is an accusation of misquoting as well as misrepresentation. But facts never bothered you before, why start now.

Roy
10-22-2015, 12:19 PM
I claimed that the paper was speaking of belief in determinism, Jichard said it didn't - that is an accusation of misquoting as well as misrepresentation. Pathetic.

seer
10-22-2015, 12:42 PM
Pathetic.

Of course...

Jichard
10-25-2015, 01:12 PM
Right and you are lying once again Jichard, you said I misquoted the paper - I DID NOT.

You misprepresented the paper and lied about it's contents, by intentionally leaving out what the paper means by it's "determinism" condition and by willfully going beyond the claims made in the paper (while pretending those claims were supported by the paper).


Yes, it is about believing in determinism idiot.

Same old dishonesty from you. I alreay explained the mistake you're making, but you're too intellectually dishonest to actually address what I said. Sad. :ahem:

Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant.

I even gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. You instead just cut them out of your post. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."


That is the point, the authors did not deal with compatibilism, they did not bring that up - you did.

More dishonesty from you. Of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

The statement:

“A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science"
is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


And many atheists, like our own Tass, do believe in determinism and are incompatibilists.

You're most likely misrepresenting Tass, given your penchant for misrepresenting people. It's highly unlikely that Tass is an incompatibilist, since Tass has gone out of his way to quote compatibilist claims, in response to your misrepresentations of determinism, including quoting sources I provided. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253681#post253681) For example:




And "I" don't have a choice in what I'm determined to believe or think - right or wrong.

Wrong! You persist in erroneously equating causal determinism with fatalism. "Determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary! So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen." Neuroscientist David Eagleman: The Brain & Decision-Making.

Hence, 'choice' is an integral part of the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.
So seer, stop lying about Tass' views


Then define free will...

Sorry, I'm not falling for your dishonest tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So, instead of your usual intellectual dishonesty, how about you finally deal with the above quotes I provided from the paper?

Jichard
10-25-2015, 01:17 PM
I have called Jichard a liar and dishonest - turning the tables on him since he throws these terms around too freely. If he refrains from name calling I don't mind if he stays.


Right and you are lying once again Jichard, you said I misquoted the paper - I DID NOT. Yes, it is about believing in determinism idiot.

Hypocrisy is precious.

Jichard
10-25-2015, 03:20 PM
What are you talking about, Jichard said:



But the authors were speaking of believing in determinism. And I quote again:

Please stop the dishonest quote-mining. Not only are you quote-mining the paper, but you're also quote-mining my posts to avoid dealing with the portions that show you're wrong. For example, you dishonestly leave out the sections of my post where I quote the paper to show that the paper's "determinism condition", actually includes incompatibilism. Utterly dishonest.

Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


I don't know how many times you're going to keep dishonestly avoiding these quotes, through your use of willful quote-mining.

seer
10-25-2015, 07:11 PM
Please stop the dishonest quote-mining. Not only are you quote-mining the paper, but you're also quote-mining my posts to avoid dealing with the portions that show you're wrong. For example, you dishonestly leave out the sections of my post where I quote the paper to show that the paper's "determinism condition", actually includes incompatibilism. Utterly dishonest.

Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


I don't know how many times you're going to keep dishonestly avoiding these quotes, through your use of willful quote-mining.

Repeating the same BS doesn't change a thing: a deterministic worldview does lead to less moral behavior - period, end of story. They did not study compatibilism, that was not the point. If you think that that would make a difference then do your own study. And there are plenty of determinists that are not compatibilists. And I did ask you to define free will, since determinism is not compatible with freedom. Determined and free is an oxymoron. Perhaps the authors understood this contradiction and that is why they did not include your nonsensical view of compatibilism. So again, please define free will. And BTW - ask Tass himself if he believes in free will on any level. And if you you accuse me of dishonesty again Jichard I will ask the mods to remove you from this thread - I was gracious and asked that you would be allowed to stay after my original request.

seer
10-25-2015, 07:24 PM
Sorry, I'm not falling for your dishonest tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So, instead of your usual intellectual dishonesty, how about you finally deal with the above quotes I provided from the paper?

No you moved the goal posts already by bringing in compatibilism.The authors were using a very accepted definition of determinism. Which would logically exclude freedom of the will. So again, unless you are a complete coward define free will.

Here is a definition: Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Do you agree or disagree, and where is human freedom in any of this?

Tassman
10-25-2015, 11:46 PM
No you moved the goal posts already by bringing in compatibilism.The authors were using a very accepted definition of determinism. Which would logically exclude freedom of the will. So again, unless you are a complete coward define free will.

Here is a definition: Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

There’s no moving of goal-posts, just your usual false dichotomy. Compatibilism IS determinism, namely soft determinism, and it allows for free agency in the absence of external constraints. What it is NOT is a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.


Do you agree or disagree, and where is human freedom in any of this?

Where do YOU think human freedom in any of this? You demand answers from others but never provide any yourself.

seer
10-26-2015, 04:36 AM
There’s no moving of goal-posts, just your usual false dichotomy. Compatibilism IS determinism, namely soft determinism, and it allows for free agency in the absence of external constraints. What it is NOT is a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.

Tass how many times have you told me that free will was an illusion? And that is why I asked Jichard to define free will - if it is defined as free agency in the absence of external constraints then a dog or monkey has free will. But their behavior is no less determined by antecedent conditions.



Where do YOU think human freedom in any of this? You demand answers from others but never provide any yourself.

No, it is Jichard that claims that determinism is compatible with free will.

Jichard
10-26-2015, 04:23 PM
Repeating the same BS doesn't change a thing:

It's not "BS" just because you're don't have the capacity to address it.

As expected, you continue to willfully ignore the what the paper says, since it does not fit with your lies about the paper:



Please stop the dishonest quote-mining. Not only are you quote-mining the paper, but you're also quote-mining my posts to avoid dealing with the portions that show you're wrong. For example, you dishonestly leave out the sections of my post where I quote the paper to show that the paper's "determinism condition", actually includes incompatibilism. Utterly dishonest.

Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


I don't know how many times you're going to keep dishonestly avoiding these quotes, through your use of willful quote-mining.


a deterministic worldview does lead to less moral behavior - period, end of story.

You continue to willfully misrepresent what the paper says.. The paper does not say anything of that sort. It can't because the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant.


They did not study compatibilism, that was not the point.

Same fabricated claims from you. You've repeatedly been shown that you're wrong on this, using quotes from the paper.

Once again, their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


If you think that that would make a difference then do your own study.

How about you stop misrepresenting what the study says.


And there are plenty of determinists that are not compatibilists.

Which does nothing to defend your fabrications about what the paper says.


And I did ask you to define free will, since determinism is not compatible with freedom. Determined and free is an oxymoron.

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So, instead of your usual nonsense, how about you finally deal with the above quotes I provided from the paper?


Perhaps the authors understood this contradiction and that is why they did not include your nonsensical view of compatibilism.

Stop making up nonsense about what the authors think. You've already been caught misrepresenting their research.


So again, please define free will.

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So, instead of your usual nonsense, how about you finally deal with the above quotes I provided from the paper?


And BTW - ask Tass himself if he believes in free will on any level.

Tass has already corrected your willfull distortions of his position


And if you you accuse me of dishonesty again Jichard I will ask the mods to remove you from this thread - I was gracious and asked that you would be allowed to stay after my original request.

Like I care. At this point, basically every other person who's posted on this thread has noted how you've misrepresented the research and that I was right in pointing out your willfull distortions. You're not fooling anybody, seer, no matter how hard you try.

Jichard
10-26-2015, 04:32 PM
No you moved the goal posts already by bringing in compatibilism.The authors were using a very accepted definition of determinism.

Pure nonsense from you.

They are not using the standard definition of "determinism", since they're determinism conditions presupposes incompatibilism, even though that's not the case for the standard definition of determinism.

You pretend otherwise by willfully ignoring the actual definition of "determinism" used in philosophy, even though you've been corrected on this before. So stop pretending:



Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:



"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"Suppose laypersons are presented with scenarios that describe a deterministic universe, and suppose that some respond that agents in that universe do not have free will (FW) and are not morally responsible (MR) [emphasis added] for their actions—they express “incompatibilist intuitions”—while others respond that agents in these deterministic universes can have FW and MR—they express ‘compatibilist intuitions.’ […]

Our hypothesis is that many people who appear to have incompatibilist intuitions are interpreting determinism to entail what we will call “bypassing,” and they take bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassing [emphasis added]. So, if the reason people express incompatibilist intuitions is that they mistakenly take determinism to entail bypassing, then those intuitions do not in fact support the conclusion that determinism, properly understood, is incompatible with free will.

What is “bypassing”? The basic idea is that one’s actions are caused by forces that bypass one’s conscious self, or at least what one identifies as one’s “self”. More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. As such, bypassing might take the form of epiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalism—the belief that certain things will happen no matter what one decides or tries to do, or that one’s actions have to happen even if the past had been different. Bypassing suggests that conscious agents have no control over their actions because they play no role in the causal chain that leads to their actions. For our study discussed below, we “operationalized” bypassing in a more precise way.

The crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassing […] The history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen [emphasis added]. Of course, incompatibilists generally agree with all this, but claim their arguments are not based on such mistakes (3-4).”


Once you make it clear to laypeople that determinism does not entail bypassing, then much of their rationale for accepting incompatibilism (i.e. accepting the idea that determinism is incompatible with free will) goes away. That is supported in the above paper, and in the following two papers:



"Folk Fears about Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism vs. Reductionism"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Folk_Fears_about_Freedom_and_Responsibility.pdf

"Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Nahmias_Coates_Kvaran.pdf


And in further confirmation of my point, there's plenty of research suggesting the people can accept both determinism and free will. This undermines seer's attempt to misrepresent the research as being about people's belief in determinism, when the research is really about people's being exposed to the denial of free will. The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

Furthermore, I wonder how seer will respond to the fact that belief in free will is correlated with authoritarianism or that extrinsice religiosity is correlated with fatalistic determism.



"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately (130).

[...]

Based on an extensive series of student and community surveys, we found that non-philosophers tended to distinguish four belief concepts: free will, scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability. These distinctions were labeled after factor analyses showed four clusters of items.

In the first cluster, typical items included “People have complete free will” and “People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to.” Therefore, we labeled it free will belief (FWB). Along with assumptions about autonomy, the factor includes declarations that people are responsible for their actions. A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”). Finally, the fourth belief cluster referred to randomness, luck, and unpredictability. Because the latter theme was most prominent, we applied the label unpredictability. One example is “Life is hard to predict because it is almost totally random.” (130-131)

[...]

Asserting that the logic of determinism precludes free will, incompatibilists argue that one cannot believe in both positions. By contrast, compatibilists see nothing about determinism that precludes free will, and vice versa.

We do not take a position on that philosophical issue. Instead, we seek to clarify what average people believe: Are they compatibilists or incompatibilists? What are the implications of these beliefs? Research to date indicates that, given the right definitions and situational context, most everyday folks can find a way to reconcile the two beliefs (e.g., Knobe & Nichols, 2008; Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer, & Turner, 2006) (131).

[...]

Intrinsic but not extrinsic religious orientation was associated with belief in free will (135).

[...]

On the other hand, extrinsic religiosity was linked to fatalistic determinism (135).

[...]

All three studies confirmed a pattern of orthogonality among beliefs regarding free will and determinism. Evaluation of this issue was made possible by the availability of the FAD-Plus (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). Unlike previous measures, the FADPlus subscales do not inherently confound beliefs in free will and determinism.

With the addition of these three studies to the literature, we can now safely conclude that lay judges have little problem believing in both free will and determinism; nor does a disbelief in one require belief in the other. This independence holds for both forms of determinism. We added further support for this independence by showing that some variables (e.g., religiosity) correlated in the same direction with both free will and (at least one type of) determinism. This pattern is only possible if lay individuals see no necessary link between free will and determinism (138).

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."


Which would logically exclude freedom of the will. So again, unless you are a complete coward define free will.

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So, instead of your usual nonsense, how about you finally deal with the above quotes I provided from the paper?

And how about you actually learn to read people's posts before commenting on them? :ahem:



More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like.




Here is a definition: Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Do you agree or disagree, and where is human freedom in any of this?

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So, instead of your usual nonsense, how about you finally deal with the above quotes I provided from the paper?

Anyway, Tassman and I already corrected you on this multiple times, yet you still don't seem to be paying attention. Here is the correction for you again:



Our hypothesis is that many people who appear to have incompatibilist intuitions are interpreting determinism to entail what we will call “bypassing,” and they take bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassing [emphasis added]. So, if the reason people express incompatibilist intuitions is that they mistakenly take determinism to entail bypassing, then those intuitions do not in fact support the conclusion that determinism, properly understood, is incompatible with free will.

What is “bypassing”? The basic idea is that one’s actions are caused by forces that bypass one’s conscious self, or at least what one identifies as one’s “self”. More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. As such, bypassing might take the form of epiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalism—the belief that certain things will happen no matter what one decides or tries to do, or that one’s actions have to happen even if the past had been different. Bypassing suggests that conscious agents have no control over their actions because they play no role in the causal chain that leads to their actions. For our study discussed below, we “operationalized” bypassing in a more precise way.

The crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassing […] The history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen [emphasis added]. Of course, incompatibilists generally agree with all this, but claim their arguments are not based on such mistakes (3-4).”[/INDENT][/INDENT]
So please stop pretending that determinism entails bypassing in the form of inevitability.

Jichard
10-26-2015, 04:37 PM
There’s no moving of goal-posts, just your usual false dichotomy. Compatibilism IS determinism, namely soft determinism, and it allows for free agency in the absence of external constraints. What it is NOT is a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.

We've both repeatedly explained this to him. He just has no interest in fairly addressing anything that's said. He's just going to keep willfully distorting compatibilism and willfully pretending that the only account of free will is the account offered by libertarians.




And "I" don't have a choice in what I'm determined to believe or think - right or wrong.

Wrong! You persist in erroneously equating causal determinism with fatalism. "Determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary! So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen." Neuroscientist David Eagleman: The Brain & Decision-Making.

Hence, 'choice' is an integral part of the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.



See above.

Now please explain YOUR theory of libertarian Free will in a world where everything else is determined. Still waiting!


Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:



"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"Suppose laypersons are presented with scenarios that describe a deterministic universe, and suppose that some respond that agents in that universe do not have free will (FW) and are not morally responsible (MR) [emphasis added] for their actions—they express “incompatibilist intuitions”—while others respond that agents in these deterministic universes can have FW and MR—they express ‘compatibilist intuitions.’ […]

Our hypothesis is that many people who appear to have incompatibilist intuitions are interpreting determinism to entail what we will call “bypassing,” and they take bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassing [emphasis added]. So, if the reason people express incompatibilist intuitions is that they mistakenly take determinism to entail bypassing, then those intuitions do not in fact support the conclusion that determinism, properly understood, is incompatible with free will.

What is “bypassing”? The basic idea is that one’s actions are caused by forces that bypass one’s conscious self, or at least what one identifies as one’s “self”. More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. As such, bypassing might take the form of epiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalism—the belief that certain things will happen no matter what one decides or tries to do, or that one’s actions have to happen even if the past had been different. Bypassing suggests that conscious agents have no control over their actions because they play no role in the causal chain that leads to their actions. For our study discussed below, we “operationalized” bypassing in a more precise way.

The crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassing […] The history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen [emphasis added]. Of course, incompatibilists generally agree with all this, but claim their arguments are not based on such mistakes (3-4).”

Jichard
10-26-2015, 05:36 PM
No you said: As you've been told before, the paper is discussing exposure to the denial of free will. That is not the same thing as believing that determinism is true. Yet you've been dishonestly pretending otherwise, by claiming that the paper is making conclusions about belief in determinism.

So the study is about believing in determinism, which you claimed it wasn't, but now agree that it was.

Stop willfully misrepresenting what people say. I didn't claim that study was about believing in determinism, even though you pretend otherwise. I said that you were misrepresenting the study, since you claimed the study was making claims about belief in determinism, when the study was actually making claims about the denial of free wil (in the form of determinism + incompatibilism).

Seriously, seer, are you able to fairly represent what people say?

Jichard
10-26-2015, 05:41 PM
Made what up? So you believe in free will? The atheists I have been debating here don't, like Tass, Jim L and Thinker. And from what they are saying it is becoming the default position of neuroscience.

Have you decided whether or not to stop pretending that Thinker is an incompatibilist who denies that there's free will?





So? It's no different from how we treat those who are mentally ill. But like I said there are two views on this, the compatibilist view, and the incompatibilist view.

So which one is yours?

I'm agnostic on the two different views. They each make good points. The one thing I am not agnostic on is that libertarian free will is totally incoherent, doesn't have a shred of good evidence backing it up, and is therefore totally false. It is a 100% faith and intuition based belief.
As you've been told before:



Your opponents have made it very clear that they reject your libertarian account of free will. For instance:





And there is no need for you to pretend that people who reject your libertarian account of free will are rejecting free will in general. For example, they can reject your reject your libertarian account of free will, while being compatibilists (who think that that free will is compatible with determinism) and thinking that humans have free will. That, of course, is my position. And compatibilism is the position of the majority of philosophers (as is atheism) (http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl). That doesn't mean that compatibilism is true; but it does mean you need to stop pretending that compatibilism does not exist as a position, as if the only two options are no free will or libertarian free will exists.

Tassman
10-26-2015, 10:02 PM
Tass how many times have you told me that free will was an illusion? And that is why I asked Jichard to define free will - if it is defined as free agency in the absence of external constraints then a dog or monkey has free will. But their behavior is no less determined by antecedent conditions.

What I’ve been asking you ad nauseam is how in a determined universe you can argue for the existence of 'libertarian free-will'. I've yet to get an answer. If you cannot answer this question then you have no argument. End of story, there’s no room for further discussion.


No, it is Jichard that claims that determinism is compatible with free will.

Correct, this is known as 'soft determinism'.

seer
10-27-2015, 04:59 AM
"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


Ok, then do you agree the bolded?



Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is dishonestly trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

Nonsense, you are the one adding compatibilism to the mix. Perhaps the authors understand that compatibilism is irrational. This is why you will not define free will. Because there is no genuine freedom in your your model.

seer
10-27-2015, 05:06 AM
Stop willfully misrepresenting what people say. I didn't claim that study was about believing in determinism, even though you pretend otherwise. I said that you were misrepresenting the study, since you claimed the study was making claims about belief in determinism, when the study was actually making claims about the denial of free wil (in the form of determinism + incompatibilism).

Seriously, seer, are you able to fairly represent what people say?

That is another lie Jichard, the authors were clear that is was about a deterministic worldview, belief that all our acts and beliefs are determined. It wasn't just a denial of free will. And this is why you keep refusing to define free will, since it can be defined to mean anything.

seer
10-27-2015, 05:11 AM
Have you decided whether or not to stop pretending that Thinker is an incompatibilist who denies that there's free will?

Talk about dishonest - it all comes back to ONE THING Jichard - define free will. Here is Tass's definition: Compatibilism IS determinism, namely soft determinism, and it allows for free agency in the absence of external constraints.

Do you agree? And if this is correct then a dog or monkey has free will.

seer
10-27-2015, 05:14 AM
What I’ve been asking you ad nauseam is how in a determined universe you can argue for the existence of 'libertarian free-will'. I've yet to get an answer. If you cannot answer this question then you have no argument. End of story, there’s no room for further discussion.

But by your definition of soft determinism a monkey has free will. Do you agree that apes have free will, like us, Tass?

Tassman
10-27-2015, 09:39 PM
But by your definition of soft determinism a monkey has free will.

No it's not. Compatibilism is NOT a position that combines libertarian free will and determinism, seer. Compatibilism has been explained to you many times.


Do you agree that apes have free will, like us, Tass?

Do you think that apes have free will, like us, seer, if not why not? But, of course, as always you will ignore the question.

Apes make choices based upon prior experience and beliefs about reality just as we do. ALL beliefs, whether held by apes or humans, are dependent upon the brain. And the brain gets its data from the senses, which it then processes as the memories and thoughts that form the basis of decisions. It’s this accumulated sense data, which we ourselves acquire, which is the causal factor that shapes brain processing, thoughts about the world and consequent choices and decisions.

seer
10-28-2015, 04:27 AM
No it's not. Compatibilism is NOT a position that combines libertarian free will and determinism, seer. Compatibilism has been explained to you many times.

No kidding Homer! The point is that the free will of compatibilism could equally apply to a monkey.



Do you think that apes have free will, like us, seer, if not why not? But, of course, as always you will ignore the question.

Apes make choices based upon prior experience and beliefs about reality just as we do. ALL beliefs, whether held by apes or humans, are dependent upon the brain. And the brain gets its data from the senses, which it then processes as the memories and thoughts that form the basis of decisions. It’s this accumulated sense data, which we ourselves acquire, which is the causal factor that shapes brain processing, thoughts about the world and consequent choices and decisions.

Then you agree that the "free will" of compatibilism would apply to an ape. And that is the sticking point with Jichard - whether "free will" is compatible with determinism is dependent on how you define free will.

Tassman
10-28-2015, 09:36 PM
No kidding Homer! The point is that the free will of compatibilism could equally apply to a monkey.

Therefore that’s a slam-dunk argument against it is it…why? Because, unlike monkeys, people are "special"…made in god’s image? :lol:


Then you agree that the "free will" of compatibilism would apply to an ape.

Certainly, in the sense that apes also make choices based upon prior experience and notions about reality…just as we do. The Compatibilist argument simply allows for a very limited degree of free-will in the context of a determinist universe..."elbow room" as Dan Dennett describes it.


And that is the sticking point with Jichard - whether "free will" is compatible with determinism is dependent on how you define free will.

Jirchard is doing a splendid job of defending his position, which is similar to mine in most respects, although I do have reservations about even limited free-will in a determinist universe. However, unlike you, neither Jichard nor I is advocating the incoherent logic of libertarian free will.

seer
10-29-2015, 04:53 AM
Certainly, in the sense that apes also make choices based upon prior experience and notions about reality…just as we do. The Compatibilist argument simply allows for a very limited degree of free-will in the context of a determinist universe..."elbow room" as Dan Dennett describes it.

Good so an ape has free will like us. And what is elbow room Tass? What does that look like or entail?


Jirchard is doing a splendid job of defending his position, which is similar to mine in most respects, although I do have reservations about even limited free-will in a determinist universe. However, unlike you, neither Jichard nor I is advocating the incoherent logic of libertarian free will.

First Tass there has been many brilliant men over time, and even today, who have hold to LFW and do not find it incoherent. And the definition of free will you are using would equally apply to an ape. Really Tass - how free is an ape?

Tassman
10-29-2015, 11:56 PM
Good so an ape has free will like us.

What I said was that apes make choices based upon prior experience and notions about reality…just as we do. Both human primates and chimpanzees have the illusion of free will and can make effective choices on this basis. Hence, you get to “choose” your favourite shirt whilst getting dressed while the ape gets to “choose” his banana of the tree for a snack.


And what is elbow room Tass? What does that look like or entail?

Dan Dennett uses the term to denote the extremely limited free-will available in a determined universe. But, as I said, I have reservations about even the extremely limited free-will proposed by Compatibilists.


First Tass there has been many brilliant men over time, and even today, who have hold to LFW and do not find it incoherent. And the definition of free will you are using would equally apply to an ape. Really Tass - how free is an ape?

Indeed and many brilliant men over time held to a geocentric universe too, but they were wrong.

Once it has been accepted that every event or state of affairs, including every decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs, which is the position of most scientists and philosophers’, libertarian free will can only be viewed as a logically incoherent concept.

The only exceptions are the compatibilists but even they recognize a causal chain of events going back indefinitely in time, consistent with the laws of nature.

seer
10-30-2015, 04:20 AM
Dan Dennett uses the term to denote the extremely limited free-will available in a determined universe. But, as I said, I have reservations about even the extremely limited free-will proposed by Compatibilists.

OK...

Jichard
10-30-2015, 08:43 PM
Ok, then do you agree the bolded?

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is disingenuously trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it. The issue is not whether I agree with the bolded portion of the quote; the issue is instead why you left out the bolded portion from your quote-mines of the post, even though the bolded portion makes it clear that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's discussion of determinism does not reflect what "determinism" means in philosophy and in discussions by philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers). Seriously, seer, stop trying to evade the issue.

So how about you deal with the quote from the paper and admit that the paper's determinism condition includes compatibilism, and thus the determinism conditions from the paper does not represent what "determinism" means in philosophy?


Nonsense, you are the one adding compatibilism to the mix.

Same old deception from you. I've repeatedly shown you that the paper's determinism condition includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's determinism condition does not match what philosopher's (including compatibilist philosophers) are talking about when discussiong determinism. I've repeatedly backed this up with quotes from the paper. There's no need for you to keep pretending otherwise.



Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


Perhaps the authors understand that compatibilism is irrational.

Please stop making stuff up and then pretending that that represents the claims of the authors.


This is why you will not define free will.

You're fabricating nonsense again. I already discussed what free will was and I did so in my very first post on this thread (a post you've repeated, deceptively quote-mined). You're just not intellectually honest enough to address it. Once again:




"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


" [...]

More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like.”
Just another example of why I don't trust a word you say.


Because there is no genuine freedom in your your model.

Stop making stuff up and pretending it represents my position.

Jichard
10-30-2015, 08:47 PM
Talk about dishonest - it all comes back to ONE THING Jichard - define free will.

No, it does not come down to that thing at all. What it comes down to is you willfully quote-mining the paper to leave out the fact that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's determinism conditions is not identical to what philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers) mean when they talk about determinism. I have explained this several times, and backed it up with quotes from the paper, quotes you lack the honesty to address:



Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


So sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is disingenuously trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So how about you deal with the quote from the paper and admit that the paper's determinism condition includes compatibilism, and thus the determinism conditions from the paper does not represent what "determinism" means in philosophy?


Here is Tass's definition: Compatibilism IS determinism, namely soft determinism, and it allows for free agency in the absence of external constraints.

Do you agree? And if this is correct then a dog or monkey has free will.

Feel free to deal with my above quotations from the paper, and the points I've made regarding those quotations. I'm not interested in your evasions of my point.

seer
10-31-2015, 03:40 AM
No, it does not come down to that thing at all. What it comes down to is you willfully quote-mining the paper to leave out the fact that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's determinism conditions is not identical to what philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers) mean when they talk about determinism. I have explained this several times, and backed it up with quotes from the paper, quotes you lack the honesty to address:



Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


So sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is disingenuously trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So how about you deal with the quote from the paper and admit that the paper's determinism condition includes compatibilism, and thus the determinism conditions from the paper does not represent what "determinism" means in philosophy?



Feel free to deal with my above quotations from the paper, and the points I've made regarding those quotations. I'm not interested in your evasions of my point.


Nope Jichard, whether determinism is compatible with free will depends on the definition of free will. And if you define free will as the compatibilist then as Tass made clear a monkey has free will.

Jichard
10-31-2015, 01:28 PM
Nope Jichard, whether determinism is compatible with free will depends on the definition of free will. And if you define free will as the compatibilist then as Tass made clear a monkey has free will.

And you're still deceptively dodging the issue, as expected. Tell me when you're honest enough to actually address what was written:



No, it does not come down to that thing at all. What it comes down to is you willfully quote-mining the paper to leave out the fact that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's determinism conditions is not identical to what philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers) mean when they talk about determinism. I have explained this several times, and backed it up with quotes from the paper, quotes you lack the honesty to address:



Once again, the paper is not dealing with believing in determinism since the study's "determinism" explicitly includes incompatibilist claims and exposure to determinism would not have reduced belief in free will in compatibilists, contrary to the effect seen in the study's participant. I've gave quotes from the paper backing up this claim, but you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with these quotes. Let me repeat them for you again, so that people can see you dishonestly dodge them again:


"In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"

This is made even clearer in passages like this:


"The fact that brief exposure to a message asserting that there is no such thing as free will can increase both passive and active cheating raises the concern that advocating a deterministic worldview could undermine moral behavior. The data from the experiments reported here are consistent with this hypothesis. Reading deterministic statements decreased people's self-reported belief in free will, and this change accounted for heightened cheating."

And, of course the authors bring up compatibilism and incompatibilism, since their "determinism" condition is actually an incompatibilist condition. This is made painfully clear when they write:

““A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,”"
That is not a statement of determinism. It's a statement of incompatibilism.


So sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is disingenuously trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it.

So how about you deal with the quote from the paper and admit that the paper's determinism condition includes compatibilism, and thus the determinism conditions from the paper does not represent what "determinism" means in philosophy?

Jichard
10-31-2015, 01:58 PM
That is another lie Jichard, the authors were clear that is was about a deterministic worldview, belief that all our acts and beliefs are determined. It wasn't just a denial of free will.

More deception and pretending from you. I've repeatedly shown you the quotes from the paper, the quotes that show you're wrong. But you're too willfully dishonest to address them. Sad. You just habitually quote-mine and misrepresent the paper, so that you can pretend those quotes don't exist.




You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human

or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from [I]The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


And this is why you keep refusing to define free will, since it can be defined to mean anything.

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is disingenuously trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it. The issue is not whether I agree with the bolded portion of the quote; the issue is instead why you left out the bolded portion from your quote-mines of the post, even though the bolded portion makes it clear that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's discussion of determinism does not reflect what "determinism" means in philosophy and in discussions by philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers). Seriously, seer, stop trying to evade the issue.

So how about you deal with the quote from the paper and admit that the paper's determinism condition includes compatibilism, and thus the determinism conditions from the paper does not represent what "determinism" means in philosophy?



Also, stop willfully misrepresenting what I have "refus[ed]" to do. I already discussed what free will was and I did so in my very first post on this thread (a post you've repeated, deceptively quote-mined). You're just not intellectually honest enough to address it. Once again:




"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"[...]

More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like.”
Just another example of why I don't trust a word you say.

Jichard
10-31-2015, 03:02 PM
And it seems that people who do believe that they are determined act less morally

You also say:



"And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=252351#post252351)"

"And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253827#post253827)"


Yet you quote-mined, and misrepresented, the research in just the way the authors warned against:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long#fn-group-1


"Although the study reported here raises concerns about the possible impact of deterministic views on moral behavior, it is important not to overinterpret our findings. Our experiments measured only modest forms of ethical behavior, and whether or not free-will beliefs have the same effect on more significant moral and ethical infractions is unknown. In addition, a deterministic viewpoint may have a host of possible consequences, and only some of these may be unfavorable. For example, adopting the view that behavior is a consequence of environmental and genetic factors could encourage compassion for the mentally ill and discourage retribution in legal contexts (Greene & Cohen, 2004). A deterministic outlook may also enhance people's sensitivity to the subtle influences known to affect their goals and actions (Bargh, in press)."


Just another example of why I don't trust you when you discuss sources, seer.

And this goes along nicely with previous work on how belief in free will relates to punititiveness and authoritarianism and on how one must be careful in distinguishing the effects of belief in different, non-equivalent forms of determinsm:



And in further confirmation of my point, there's plenty of research suggesting the people can accept both determinism and free will. This undermines seer's attempt to misrepresent the research as being about people's belief in determinism, when the research is really about people's being exposed to the denial of free will. The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

Furthermore, I wonder how seer will respond to the fact that belief in free will is correlated with authoritarianism or that extrinsice religiosity is correlated with fatalistic determism.



"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately (130).

[...]

Based on an extensive series of student and community surveys, we found that non-philosophers tended to distinguish four belief concepts: free will, scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability. These distinctions were labeled after factor analyses showed four clusters of items.

In the first cluster, typical items included “People have complete free will” and “People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to.” Therefore, we labeled it free will belief (FWB). Along with assumptions about autonomy, the factor includes declarations that people are responsible for their actions. A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”). Finally, the fourth belief cluster referred to randomness, luck, and unpredictability. Because the latter theme was most prominent, we applied the label unpredictability. One example is “Life is hard to predict because it is almost totally random.” (130-131)

[...]

Asserting that the logic of determinism precludes free will, incompatibilists argue that one cannot believe in both positions. By contrast, compatibilists see nothing about determinism that precludes free will, and vice versa.

We do not take a position on that philosophical issue. Instead, we seek to clarify what average people believe: Are they compatibilists or incompatibilists? What are the implications of these beliefs? Research to date indicates that, given the right definitions and situational context, most everyday folks can find a way to reconcile the two beliefs (e.g., Knobe & Nichols, 2008; Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer, & Turner, 2006) (131).

[...]

Intrinsic but not extrinsic religious orientation was associated with belief in free will (135).

[...]

On the other hand, extrinsic religiosity was linked to fatalistic determinism (135).

[...]

All three studies confirmed a pattern of orthogonality among beliefs regarding free will and determinism. Evaluation of this issue was made possible by the availability of the FAD-Plus (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). Unlike previous measures, the FADPlus subscales do not inherently confound beliefs in free will and determinism.

With the addition of these three studies to the literature, we can now safely conclude that lay judges have little problem believing in both free will and determinism; nor does a disbelief in one require belief in the other. This independence holds for both forms of determinism. We added further support for this independence by showing that some variables (e.g., religiosity) correlated in the same direction with both free will and (at least one type of) determinism. This pattern is only possible if lay individuals see no necessary link between free will and determinism (138).

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."

Jichard
10-31-2015, 03:03 PM
And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral.

Blatant misrepresentation and a quote-mine on your part. The paper's authors warn against just what you're doing:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long#fn-group-1


"Although the study reported here raises concerns about the possible impact of deterministic views on moral behavior, it is important not to overinterpret our findings. Our experiments measured only modest forms of ethical behavior, and whether or not free-will beliefs have the same effect on more significant moral and ethical infractions is unknown. In addition, a deterministic viewpoint may have a host of possible consequences, and only some of these may be unfavorable. For example, adopting the view that behavior is a consequence of environmental and genetic factors could encourage compassion for the mentally ill and discourage retribution in legal contexts (Greene & Cohen, 2004). A deterministic outlook may also enhance people's sensitivity to the subtle influences known to affect their goals and actions (Bargh, in press)."


And this goes along nicely with previous work on how belief in free will relates to punititiveness and authoritarianism and on how one must be careful in distinguishing the effects of belief in different, non-equivalent forms of determinsm:



And in further confirmation of my point, there's plenty of research suggesting the people can accept both determinism and free will. This undermines seer's attempt to misrepresent the research as being about people's belief in determinism, when the research is really about people's being exposed to the denial of free will. The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

Furthermore, I wonder how seer will respond to the fact that belief in free will is correlated with authoritarianism or that extrinsice religiosity is correlated with fatalistic determism.



"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately (130).

[...]

Based on an extensive series of student and community surveys, we found that non-philosophers tended to distinguish four belief concepts: free will, scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability. These distinctions were labeled after factor analyses showed four clusters of items.

In the first cluster, typical items included “People have complete free will” and “People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to.” Therefore, we labeled it free will belief (FWB). Along with assumptions about autonomy, the factor includes declarations that people are responsible for their actions. A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”). Finally, the fourth belief cluster referred to randomness, luck, and unpredictability. Because the latter theme was most prominent, we applied the label unpredictability. One example is “Life is hard to predict because it is almost totally random.” (130-131)

[...]

Asserting that the logic of determinism precludes free will, incompatibilists argue that one cannot believe in both positions. By contrast, compatibilists see nothing about determinism that precludes free will, and vice versa.

We do not take a position on that philosophical issue. Instead, we seek to clarify what average people believe: Are they compatibilists or incompatibilists? What are the implications of these beliefs? Research to date indicates that, given the right definitions and situational context, most everyday folks can find a way to reconcile the two beliefs (e.g., Knobe & Nichols, 2008; Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer, & Turner, 2006) (131).

[...]

Intrinsic but not extrinsic religious orientation was associated with belief in free will (135).

[...]

On the other hand, extrinsic religiosity was linked to fatalistic determinism (135).

[...]

All three studies confirmed a pattern of orthogonality among beliefs regarding free will and determinism. Evaluation of this issue was made possible by the availability of the FAD-Plus (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). Unlike previous measures, the FADPlus subscales do not inherently confound beliefs in free will and determinism.

With the addition of these three studies to the literature, we can now safely conclude that lay judges have little problem believing in both free will and determinism; nor does a disbelief in one require belief in the other. This independence holds for both forms of determinism. We added further support for this independence by showing that some variables (e.g., religiosity) correlated in the same direction with both free will and (at least one type of) determinism. This pattern is only possible if lay individuals see no necessary link between free will and determinism (138).

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."

Jichard
10-31-2015, 03:05 PM
And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. No back to your false charge - where did misrepresent the paper in the OP?

You truly are a deceptive quote-miner. The paper's authors specifically warn against your claim that "when people believe in determine they are less moral - period." Yet you conveniently leave this out in your quote-mine of the research. No surprise there, since this is what you regularly do, in your attempts to misrepresent scientific research.



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long#fn-group-1


"Although the study reported here raises concerns about the possible impact of deterministic views on moral behavior, it is important not to overinterpret our findings. Our experiments measured only modest forms of ethical behavior, and whether or not free-will beliefs have the same effect on more significant moral and ethical infractions is unknown. In addition, a deterministic viewpoint may have a host of possible consequences, and only some of these may be unfavorable. For example, adopting the view that behavior is a consequence of environmental and genetic factors could encourage compassion for the mentally ill and discourage retribution in legal contexts (Greene & Cohen, 2004). A deterministic outlook may also enhance people's sensitivity to the subtle influences known to affect their goals and actions (Bargh, in press)."


This goes along nicely with previous work on how belief in free will relates to punititiveness and authoritarianism and on how one must be careful in distinguishing the effects of belief in different, non-equivalent forms of determinsm:



And in further confirmation of my point, there's plenty of research suggesting the people can accept both determinism and free will. This undermines seer's attempt to misrepresent the research as being about people's belief in determinism, when the research is really about people's being exposed to the denial of free will. The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

Furthermore, I wonder how seer will respond to the fact that belief in free will is correlated with authoritarianism or that extrinsice religiosity is correlated with fatalistic determism.



"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately (130).

[...]

Based on an extensive series of student and community surveys, we found that non-philosophers tended to distinguish four belief concepts: free will, scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability. These distinctions were labeled after factor analyses showed four clusters of items.

In the first cluster, typical items included “People have complete free will” and “People can overcome obstacles if they truly want to.” Therefore, we labeled it free will belief (FWB). Along with assumptions about autonomy, the factor includes declarations that people are responsible for their actions. A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”). Finally, the fourth belief cluster referred to randomness, luck, and unpredictability. Because the latter theme was most prominent, we applied the label unpredictability. One example is “Life is hard to predict because it is almost totally random.” (130-131)

[...]

Asserting that the logic of determinism precludes free will, incompatibilists argue that one cannot believe in both positions. By contrast, compatibilists see nothing about determinism that precludes free will, and vice versa.

We do not take a position on that philosophical issue. Instead, we seek to clarify what average people believe: Are they compatibilists or incompatibilists? What are the implications of these beliefs? Research to date indicates that, given the right definitions and situational context, most everyday folks can find a way to reconcile the two beliefs (e.g., Knobe & Nichols, 2008; Nahmias, Morris, Nadelhoffer, & Turner, 2006) (131).

[...]

Intrinsic but not extrinsic religious orientation was associated with belief in free will (135).

[...]

On the other hand, extrinsic religiosity was linked to fatalistic determinism (135).

[...]

All three studies confirmed a pattern of orthogonality among beliefs regarding free will and determinism. Evaluation of this issue was made possible by the availability of the FAD-Plus (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). Unlike previous measures, the FADPlus subscales do not inherently confound beliefs in free will and determinism.

With the addition of these three studies to the literature, we can now safely conclude that lay judges have little problem believing in both free will and determinism; nor does a disbelief in one require belief in the other. This independence holds for both forms of determinism. We added further support for this independence by showing that some variables (e.g., religiosity) correlated in the same direction with both free will and (at least one type of) determinism. This pattern is only possible if lay individuals see no necessary link between free will and determinism (138).

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."

Jichard
10-31-2015, 03:10 PM
It's blatantly obvious what seer's up to and he doesn't realize that, by misrepresenting the arguments he quote-mines, he's actually harming his own cause and bringing it into contempt.

I particularly found this quote from your link in #37 of interest:

"Belief in free will is associated with a conservative worldview, including such facets as authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and others. The common element appears to be a strong sense of personal responsibility. Evidence for distinct correlates of scientific and fatalistic determinism reinforces the need for treating them separately" (130). My emphasis.

"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"

http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf

It goes rather well with a quote from the OP's paper, a quote that seer left out in his quote-mines and misrepresentation of the OP's paper. The quote discusses how belief is determinism can reduce retribution in legal context, amongst other effects. This goes along nicely with the above comments on punitiveness and authoritarianism:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long#fn-group-1


"Although the study reported here raises concerns about the possible impact of deterministic views on moral behavior, it is important not to overinterpret our findings. Our experiments measured only modest forms of ethical behavior, and whether or not free-will beliefs have the same effect on more significant moral and ethical infractions is unknown. In addition, a deterministic viewpoint may have a host of possible consequences, and only some of these may be unfavorable. For example, adopting the view that behavior is a consequence of environmental and genetic factors could encourage compassion for the mentally ill and discourage retribution in legal contexts [emphasis added] (Greene & Cohen, 2004). A deterministic outlook may also enhance people's sensitivity to the subtle influences known to affect their goals and actions (Bargh, in press)."

seer
10-31-2015, 03:33 PM
And you're still deceptively dodging the issue, as expected. Tell me when you're honest enough to actually address what was written:


[INDENT]No, it does not come down to that thing at all. What it comes down to is you willfully quote-mining the paper to leave out the fact that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's determinism conditions is not identical to what philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers) mean when they talk about determinism. I have explained this several times, and backed it up with quotes from the paper, quotes you lack the honesty to address.

Since you refuse to define free will then define determinism. Because no matter how you cut it Jichard being both determined and free is an oxymoron.

Tassman
10-31-2015, 09:11 PM
Nope Jichard, whether determinism is compatible with free will depends on the definition of free will.

Whatever definition one gives of “free will’, libertarian free will is not an option because it’s logically incoherent.


And if you define free will as the compatibilist then as Tass made clear a monkey has free will.

…and true to form you find the notion that a “monkey has free will”, like people, to be abhorrent therefore it must be wrong. :lmbo:

There’s no difference, apart from the higher intelligence of humans, between the decision-making process of humans and the other primates. Why would there be…because God inserted an immaterial ‘soul’ into humans at some unidentified time in the past, which elevated them above other creatures?? :lol: Tell us again seer, when and where in the evolutionary tree did this occur?

Tassman
10-31-2015, 09:16 PM
Since you refuse to define free will then define determinism. Because no matter how you cut it Jichard being both determined and free is an oxymoron.

Both compatabilists and incompatibilists recognise the unarguable fact of causal determinism as the governing force in the universe. The only difference between them is that the former argue for the exercise of limited free will and the latter don’t. Both positions agree that libertarian free will is not a valid option.

seer
11-01-2015, 08:50 AM
Whatever definition one gives of “free will’, libertarian free will is not an option because it’s logically incoherent.

Good then you would agree that determinism would not be compatible with LFW.




…and true to form you find the notion that a “monkey has free will”, like people, to be abhorrent therefore it must be wrong. :lmbo:

There’s no difference, apart from the higher intelligence of humans, between the decision-making process of humans and the other primates. Why would there be…because God inserted an immaterial ‘soul’ into humans at some unidentified time in the past, which elevated them above other creatures?? :lol: Tell us again seer, when and where in the evolutionary tree did this occur?

No, I just want Jichard to admit that the free will he is speaking of is in principle would be the same for monkeys. So in what sense is that free?

Adam
11-01-2015, 08:55 AM
Speaking of Determinism, Seer, looks like you're not in the Elect. You've been Left Behind with the rest of us sinners like Cow Poke and Lilpixieofterror. Not many Twebbers still posting today.

seer
11-01-2015, 09:04 AM
Both compatabilists and incompatibilists recognise the unarguable fact of causal determinism as the governing force in the universe. The only difference between them is that the former argue for the exercise of limited free will and the latter don’t. Both positions agree that libertarian free will is not a valid option.

First that is that is nonsense, there are incompatibilists who hold to LFW, Robert Kane comes to mind. And many like Thomas Reid and Peter van Inwagen also hold that free will is incompatible with determinism yet hold to LFW. They would deny that determinism is true - after all the fundamental make up of the quantum world is not deterministic. So no Tass, they don't all agree that LFW is not a valid option. And I have no idea what you mean by "limited" free will. What does that mean Tass?

seer
11-01-2015, 09:05 AM
Speaking of Determinism, Seer, looks like you're not in the Elect. You've been Left Behind with the rest of us sinners like Cow Poke and Lilpixieofterror. Not many Twebbers still posting today.

Did the elect leave without me? When did this happen?

Jichard
11-01-2015, 01:10 PM
Since you refuse to define free will then define determinism.

Sorry, I'm not falling for your deceptive tactics. What you're doing is disingenuously trying to move the goalposts to another topic so you can get off the actual topic: your misrepresentation of the research in question. You've resorted to this sort of tactic before, and I'm not falling for it. The issue is not whether I agree with the bolded portion of the quote; the issue is instead why you left out the bolded portion from your quote-mines of the post, even though the bolded portion makes it clear that the paper's "determinism condition" includes incompatibilism, and thus the paper's discussion of determinism does not reflect what "determinism" means in philosophy and in discussions by philosophers (including compatibilist philosophers). Seriously, seer, stop trying to evade the issue.

So how about you deal with the quote from the paper and admit that the paper's determinism condition includes compatibilism, and thus the determinism conditions from the paper does not represent what "determinism" means in philosophy?



Also, please stop willfully misrepresenting what I have "refuse" to do. I already discussed what free will was and I did so in my very first post on this thread (a post you've repeatedly, deceptively quote-mined). You're just not intellectually honest enough to address it. I've repeated this for you multiple times, but you are simply so dishonest that you pretend it doesn't exist. Once again:




"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"[...]

More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. ”
Just another example of why I don't trust a word you say.

Of course, none of this will stop you from repeating the fabrication that I have no defined free will, since when you're cornered on a subject (like you being conrnered on your misrepresentation of the paper mentioned in the OP, you try to evade the topic by engaging in tactics like lying and pretending things have not been explained to you.


Because no matter how you cut it Jichard being both determined and free is an oxymoron.

It's not an oxymoron at all. You're just unable to honestly address the subject of compatibilism, as you've repeatedly shown.

Jichard
11-01-2015, 01:16 PM
No, I just want Jichard to admit that the free will he is speaking of is in principle would be the same for monkeys. So in what sense is that free?

And I want you to admit that you are dishonestly pretending that the paper is looking at people's belief in determinism, when in fact, the paper's determinism condition doesn't count as determinism (as determinism is meant in philosophy) sine the determinism condition assumes incompatibilism.

Furthermore, I want you to admit that you were intellectually dishonest when you claimed the paper supported the following claims you made:


"And it seems that people who do believe that they are determined act less morally (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=251860#post251860)"

"And it seems, according to the study, that those who actually do believe in determinism are less moral. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=252351#post252351)"

"And I did not quote mine the paper in the OP, you can read it in context yourself. The fact is when people believe in determinism they are less moral - period. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=253827#post253827)"

even though the paper's authors warn against drawing those sorts of conclusion based on their paper:


"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long#fn-group-1


"Although the study reported here raises concerns about the possible impact of deterministic views on moral behavior, it is important not to overinterpret our findings. Our experiments measured only modest forms of ethical behavior, and whether or not free-will beliefs have the same effect on more significant moral and ethical infractions is unknown. In addition, a deterministic viewpoint may have a host of possible consequences, and only some of these may be unfavorable. For example, adopting the view that behavior is a consequence of environmental and genetic factors could encourage compassion for the mentally ill and discourage retribution in legal contexts (Greene & Cohen, 2004). A deterministic outlook may also enhance people's sensitivity to the subtle influences known to affect their goals and actions (Bargh, in press)."


Of course, I know you won't ever admit any of this, let alone address it in any sensible way. After all, when inconvenient facts are pointed out to you, you simply evade, misrepresent, lie, and so on.

Adam
11-01-2015, 03:16 PM
TO: Seer
No Twebber posted in the Chatbox after 10 PM All Hallow's Eve, Ten hours later activity resumed with such non-Elect as Cow Poke and Adam (me) bewailing their chagrin on being "Left Behind". Particularly absent today are far-away TWebbers--I guess the Lord snatched up around the globe the first areas to hail the new 2015 All Saints Day. What other day could be more appropriate?

So for history's record, apparently just after midnight, November 1, 2015.

seer
11-01-2015, 07:02 PM
It's not an oxymoron at all. You're just unable to honestly address the subject of compatibilism, as you've repeatedly shown.

You refused to define free will (that was not a definition you provided). Most compatibilists would say that if an agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action. True - but that would apply to a monkey or dog. And since you refuse to define determinism we can only conclude that you know it will not help your case. You are all bluster Jichard, and unprincipled to the core - back on ignore.

Tassman
11-01-2015, 09:29 PM
Good then you would agree that determinism would not be compatible with LFW.

Logical Fallacy! You’re ‘begging the question’ by assuming the existence of libertarian free will.

LFW is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. And, unless you deny the Deterministic position that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature, you have no choice other than to accept the reality of a causally determined universe. The alternative is to argue that things can begin without a cause.


No, I just want Jichard to admit that the free will he is speaking of is in principle would be the same for monkeys. So in what sense is that free?

You’re evading the fact that in principle there is no difference between the decision-making processes of say, Chimpanzees and humans.

If you disagree and argue that the human animal is different because God inserted an immaterial ‘soul’ into humans at some unidentified time in the past, which elevated them above other creatures, you must tell us when and where in the evolutionary tree this occurred, otherwise you’re left with an argument based only upon mythology deriving from the Bronze Age. And why would anyone take such an argument seriously?


<snip> You are all bluster Jichard, and unprincipled to the core - back on ignore.

Typical theist response when confronted by arguments they can't respond to, namely block your ears. :lol:

seer
11-02-2015, 04:45 AM
Logical Fallacy! You’re ‘begging the question’ by assuming the existence of libertarian free will.

I'm just making sure we are on the same page - you would agree, that if LFW existed that it would not be compatible with determinism - correct?


LFW is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe.

Good so we agree



You’re evading the fact that in principle there is no difference between the decision-making processes of say, Chimpanzees and humans.

OK...



Typical theist response when confronted by arguments they can't respond to, namely block your ears. :lol:

That is false Tass, his response depends on the theory of compatibilism. Where he refused a number of times to define free will, and has refused to define determinism. I mean heck Tass, you don't even buy compatibilism, and the only reason you are giving it any weight in this thread is because another atheist is using it to attack me. Really bad form old friend.

shunyadragon
11-02-2015, 09:16 AM
I'm just making sure we are on the same page - you would agree, that if LFW existed that it would not be compatible with determinism - correct?

Libertarian Free Will does not exist anyway, so what's your point? Determinism does not preclude the existence of Free Will.

seer
11-02-2015, 09:27 AM
Determinism does not preclude the existence of Free Will.

Prove it.

shunyadragon
11-02-2015, 10:25 AM
Prove it.

Prove it does. The problem is the concept of determinism in and of itself does nothing to influence whether human will is free or not, nor to what degree it may be free. It has already been demonstrated that determinism and Free Will is compatible in the concept of compatibilism.

In the course of this thread you have failed to demonstrate nor prove that this is false.




Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:



"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cl...en&as_sdt=0,26


"Suppose laypersons are presented with scenarios that describe a deterministic universe, and suppose that some respond that agents in that universe do not have free will (FW) and are not morally responsible (MR) [emphasis added] for their actions—they express “incompatibilist intuitions”—while others respond that agents in these deterministic universes can have FW and MR—they express ‘compatibilist intuitions.’ […]

Our hypothesis is that many people who appear to have incompatibilist intuitions are interpreting determinism to entail what we will call “bypassing,” and they take bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassing [emphasis added]. So, if the reason people express incompatibilist intuitions is that they mistakenly take determinism to entail bypassing, then those intuitions do not in fact support the conclusion that determinism, properly understood, is incompatible with free will.

What is “bypassing”? The basic idea is that one’s actions are caused by forces that bypass one’s conscious self, or at least what one identifies as one’s “self”. More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. As such, bypassing might take the form of epiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalism—the belief that certain things will happen no matter what one decides or tries to do, or that one’s actions have to happen even if the past had been different. Bypassing suggests that conscious agents have no control over their actions because they play no role in the causal chain that leads to their actions. For our study discussed below, we “operationalized” bypassing in a more precise way.

The crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassing […] The history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen [emphasis added]. Of course, incompatibilists generally agree with all this, but claim their arguments are not based on such mistakes (3-4).”


Once you make it clear to laypeople that determinism does not entail bypassing, then much of their rationale for accepting incompatibilism (i.e. accepting the idea that determinism is incompatible with free will) goes away. That is supported in the above paper, and in the following two papers:



"Folk Fears about Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism vs. Reductionism"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/F...onsibility.pdf

"Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions"
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/N...tes_Kvaran.pdf






You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the atheist does something immoral, unkind or untoward - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You couldn't help it, you were determined. And it seems that people who do believe that they are determined act less morally:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181791 You apparently didn't read the study (as expected). That's pretty clear, since you claim that the study was measuring the effects of people's belief in determinism, even though that isn't actually what the study is measuring. Instead, the study is measuring the effect of:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism)
and
a certain biological description of being human
[it seems that the authors are presuming that this conjunction entails the denial of free will, since the authors are presuming that the study participants will think the biological description in question is a deterministic description]
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will
That's made quite clear in the study. For example:



"The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/49.long


"[For experiment 1:]

First, according to the condition to which they were randomly assigned, they read one of two passages from The Astonishing Hypothesis, a book written by Francis Crick (1994), the Nobel-prize-winning scientist. In the anti-free-will condition, participants read statements claiming that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion, and also claiming that the idea of free will is a side effect of the architecture of the mind.

[...]

[For experiment 2:]

In the free-will condition, participants read statements such as, “I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behavior,” and “Avoiding temptation requires that I exert my free will.” In the determinism condition, participants read statements such as, “A belief in free will contradicts the known fact that the universe is governed by lawful principles of science,” and “Ultimately, we are biological computers—designed by evolution, built through genetics, and programmed by the environment.”"


So it's not a belief in determinism that's predicting people's cheating. Instead, it's:

exposing people to conjunction of incompatibilism (free will is incompatible with determinism
and
a certain biological description of being human
or:

exposing people to the denial of free will

Of course, that would not bother compatibilists, since compatibilists hold that free will is compatible to with determinism, not that free will does not exist nor that free will is incompatible with determinism. Furthermore, the "free-will condition" from experiment 2 is consistent with compatibilism, insofar as the condition involves one's mental states not being bypassed by genetic and environmental factors, something that determinism is consistent with (as per compatibilism). So the study's results don't measure the effects of accepting compatibilism. To generate results relevant to compatibilists, the study could have instead exposed people to the idea that free will is compatible with determinsm, and seen what effect that had. Or it could have exposed people to the conjunction of people have free will and determinism is true.


So really, seer, your OP is irrelevant to any determinist who thinks that free will is compatible with determinism and your OP is irrelevant to compatibilists [and thus irrelevant to the compatibility position held to by the majority of philosophers].

seer
11-02-2015, 10:54 AM
Prove it does. The problem is the concept of determinism in and of itself does nothing to influence whether human will is free or not, nor to what degree it may be free. It has already been demonstrated that determinism and Free Will is compatible in the concept of compatibilism.

In the course of this thread you have failed to demonstrate nor prove that this is false.

Are you freaking kidding? Are you so lazy that you have to use other peoples work? So try again Shuny, using your own words. First try defining free will. The tell us how is our will is both determined and free.

Adam
11-02-2015, 11:54 AM
TO: Seer
No Twebber posted in the Chatbox after 10 PM All Hallow's Eve, Ten hours later activity resumed with such non-Elect as Cow Poke and Adam (me) bewailing their chagrin on being "Left Behind". Particularly absent today are far-away TWebbers--I guess the Lord snatched up around the globe the first areas to hail the new 2015 All Saints Day. What other day could be more appropriate?

So for history's record, apparently just after midnight, November 1, 2015.
Well, with Tassman back from Down Under along with Starlight the Kiwi, I must revise my theory about the 24-hour gradual onset of the Rapture as midnight struck in each time zone on the coming of November 1, 2015. I now lack evidence as to when the Rapture occurred around the world--it was probably simultaneous as predicted of old (well, "as of new" really, the idea goes back to Darby just two centuries ago).
Nick Peters, aka Apologia Phoenix, has not been seen in Deeper Waters since the Rapture. Gee, did we have to be as holy as he was (or as obsessed with grammatical proprieties?) to be saved? Truly alarming.

Adam
11-02-2015, 12:06 PM
Latest news! Nick is back from Heaven! He must have asked for a Pass so he could come back to preach about what the Rapture is like!

The wrench in the works is that Apologia Phoenix STILL does not believe in the Rapture. How's THAT for a paradox?

Tassman
11-02-2015, 08:00 PM
I'm just making sure we are on the same page - you would agree, that if LFW existed that it would not be compatible with determinism - correct?

That’s a very big “IF”, and unsupported by any substantive evidence.


Good so we agree

I doubt it, unless you’re agreeing that the indisputable fact of causal determinism results in the logical incoherence and therefore the non-existence of Libertarian Free Will.


OK...

So you agree that there’s no difference in principle between the decision-making processes of say, Chimpanzees and humans, i.e. that the human primate is merely an intelligent ape and that neither possess ‘souls’. Good!


That is false Tass, his response depends on the theory of compatibilism. Where he refused a number of times to define free will, and has refused to define determinism.

What no one has done, including the estimable Jichard, is support your specific version of free-will, namely Libertarian Free Will. Such a notion is logically utterly incoherent in a universe wherein “every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs”.


I mean heck Tass, you don't even buy compatibilism, and the only reason you are giving it any weight in this thread is because another atheist is using it to attack me. Really bad form old friend.

I don’t dismiss ‘compatibilism’ out of hand; it’s supported by too many eminent philosophers, such as Prof. Dennett, to do that…although I’ve yet to be convinced of its viability in what all agree is a causally determined universe.

Jichard
11-02-2015, 08:38 PM
That is false Tass, his response depends on the theory of compatibilism.

That's false. My response depends on what the paper from the OP says. I've repeatedly shown how you've misrepresented what the paper says, and I've repeatedly backed this up with direct quotations from the paper. That's the case, regardless of whether or not compatibilism is true. It's telling that you persist in pretending otherwise.


Where he refused a number of times to define free will

That's a fabrication. You were told this in my very first post on this thread, but your usual dishonesty prevents you from admitting this.




"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"[...]

More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like.”

Really, seer, when will you tell the truth?

Jichard
11-02-2015, 08:39 PM
Are you freaking kidding? Are you so lazy that you have to use other peoples work?

Isn't that exactly what you did in the OP? And isn't that exactly what you do whenever you quote-mine and misrepresent sources, such as Sam Harris, David Chalmers, and Vilenkin?

Jichard
11-02-2015, 08:40 PM
Some self-reflection on the OP?


Are you freaking kidding? Are you so lazy that you have to use other peoples work?

Jichard
11-02-2015, 08:47 PM
You refused to define free will

Fabrication on your part. You were told this in my very first post on this thread, but your usual dishonesty prevents you from admitting this.




"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"[...]

More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like.”


(that was not a definition you provided).

It was a definition; no need for you to pretend otherwise.


Most compatibilists would say that if an agent is free from external coercion, they have freedom of action.

Why would I trust you when it comes to what compatibilists say, when you've been willfully dishonest regarding the compatibilist position and when I've already cited reputable sources on the compatibilist position?


True - but that would apply to a monkey or dog. And since you refuse to define determinism we can only conclude that you know it will not help your case.

And more fabrications about my position, as usual. I defined determinism long ago, though you're too dishonest to admit this:



The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

[...]


"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"Based on an extensive series of student and community surveys, we found that non-philosophers tended to distinguish four belief concepts: free will, scientific determinism, fatalistic determinism, and unpredictability. These distinctions were labeled after factor analyses showed four clusters of items.

[...] A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”). Finally, the fourth belief cluster referred to randomness, luck, and unpredictability. Because the latter theme was most prominent, we applied the label unpredictability. One example is “Life is hard to predict because it is almost totally random.” (130-131)

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."


You are all bluster Jichard, and unprincipled to the core - back on ignore.

Tassman was right:



Typical theist response when confronted by arguments they can't respond to, namely block your ears. :lol:

seer
11-03-2015, 04:40 AM
That’s a very big “IF”, and unsupported by any substantive evidence.

Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. And the evidence for LFW is our (yours and mine) everyday experience. I chose a university striped oxford shirt this morning, after some conscious deliberations. I could have chosen differently. It was my conscious choice, and nothing but my own decision prevented me from choosing otherwise.


What no one has done, including the estimable Jichard, is support your specific version of free-will, namely Libertarian Free Will. Such a notion is logically utterly incoherent in a universe wherein “every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs”.

Except hasn't quantum mechanics taught us that the universe is not deterministic?


I don’t dismiss ‘compatibilism’ out of hand; it’s supported by too many eminent philosophers, such as Prof. Dennett, to do that…although I’ve yet to be convinced of its viability in what all agree is a causally determined universe.

But you do in the end reject compatibilism. And BTW even Dennett does not think that LFW is incoherent and even made a pretty good case for it in his book.


While he himself is a confirmed compatibilist, even a determinist, in "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want," Chapter 15 of his 1978 book Brainstorms, Daniel Dennett articulated the case for a two-stage model of free will better than any libertarian.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dennett/

shunyadragon
11-03-2015, 01:10 PM
Are you freaking kidding? Are you so lazy that you have to use other peoples work? So try again Shuny, using your own words. First try defining free will. The tell us how is our will is both determined and free.

Determinism does not determine whether our will is free or not. You have not demonstrated how Determinism determines whether our will is free or not. Determinism does not describe that every event in the nature world including our will is predetermined. Maybe if you are Calvinist or some similar belief one may believe this. In compatablism our will may be in part free and in part determined by other circumstances.


We have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

seer
11-03-2015, 01:18 PM
Determinism does not determine whether our will is free or not. You have not demonstrated how Determinism determines whether our will is free or not. Determinism does not describe that every event in the nature world including our will is predetermined. Maybe if you are Calvinist or some similar belief one may believe this. In compatablism our will may be in part free and in part determined by other circumstances.


We have a will, but it is not necessarily free.

What are you talking about? Is everything determined or not? If not, then there is room for freedom, if not then there isn't.

Tassman
11-03-2015, 08:07 PM
Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. And the evidence for LFW is our (yours and mine) everyday experience. I chose a university striped oxford shirt this morning, after some conscious deliberations. I could have chosen differently. It was my conscious choice, and nothing but my own decision prevented me from choosing otherwise.

The chimpanzee choosing a banana off a tree thinks it could have chosen differently too, does this mean it’s exercising Libertarian Free Will or, like you, is he merely exercising the illusion of free will.

Do you agree that there’s no difference in principle between the decision-making processes of chimpanzees and humans, i.e. that the human primate is merely an intelligent ape and that neither possess ‘souls’.

seer
11-04-2015, 04:34 AM
The chimpanzee choosing a banana off a tree thinks it could have chosen differently too, does this mean it’s exercising Libertarian Free Will or, like you, is he merely exercising the illusion of free will.

Do you agree that there’s no difference in principle between the decision-making processes of chimpanzees and humans, i.e. that the human primate is merely an intelligent ape and that neither possess ‘souls’.

Except you claimed to like Dan Dennett, and he makes a good case for LFW. And he does this by denying that everything is deterministic.


"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision." (Brainstorms, p.295)


"This result is not just what the libertarian is looking for, but it is a useful result nevertheless. It shows that we can indeed install indeterminism in the internal causal chains affecting human behavior at the macroscopic level while preserving the intelligibility of practical deliberation that the libertarian requires. We may have good reasons from other quarters for embracing determinism, but we need not fear that macroscopic indeterminism in human behavior would of necessity rob our lives of intelligibility by producing chaos." (p.292)

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dennett/

Jichard
11-04-2015, 01:30 PM
Except you claimed to like Dan Dennett, and he makes a good case for LFW. And he does this by denying that everything is deterministic.

Pure, unrepentant misrepresentation. Daniel Dennett does not make a good case for libertarian free will. In fact, Dennett rejects there being libertarian free will. He rejects the idea that quantum indeterminacy is required for free will and he rejects the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be harnessed in some way that yields free will. He makes this painfully clear in his book Freedom Evolves, especially in its critique of the work of Robert Kane.

I mean, he literally writes things like:


Libertarians have long insisted that the compatibilist sorts of free will I am describing and defending are not the real thing at all, and not even an acceptable substitute for the real thing [...] According to us compatibilists, libertarians seem to think that you can have free will only if you can engage in what we might call moral levitation. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to levitate - and then to dash off in any direction with the merest flick of a whim? I'd love to be able to do that, but I can't. It's impossible. (Freedom Evolves, page 101).

[...]

An examination of the best positive case for libertarianism shows that it cannot find a defensible location for indeterminism within the decision-making processes of a responsible agent. Since it cannot motivate its defining requirement, we can leave indeterminism behind and consider more realisitic requirements for freedom, and how they could have evolved (Freedom Evolves, 136-137)."

So, once again, seer willfully misrepresents sources. Typical.

Tassman
11-04-2015, 07:08 PM
Except you claimed to like Dan Dennett, and he makes a good case for LFW. And he does this by denying that everything is deterministic.

Just answer the question seer. Do you agree that there’s no difference in principle between the decision-making processes of chimpanzees and humans, i.e. that the human primate is merely an intelligent ape and that neither possess ‘souls’…If not why not?

And, No I did not claim that Dennet made a good case for LFW, as usual you see what you want to see. I specifically said in #139 that “I’ve yet to be convinced of its viability in what all agree is a causally determined universe.” So how does this translate to me “liking” Dan Dennett? :glare:

shunyadragon
11-04-2015, 07:17 PM
What are you talking about? Is everything determined or not? If not, then there is room for freedom, if not then there isn't.

No, everything is not determined unless you are proposing something like Calvinism. Determinism does not propose that 'everything is determined.' Compatibilism includes Determinism and the potential of Free Will, and room for freedom.

seer
11-05-2015, 04:33 AM
Pure, unrepentant misrepresentation. Daniel Dennett does not make a good case for libertarian free will. In fact, Dennett rejects there being libertarian free will. He rejects the idea that quantum indeterminacy is required for free will and he rejects the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be harnessed in some way that yields free will. He makes this painfully clear in his book Freedom Evolves, especially in its critique of the work of Robert Kane.

I mean, he literally writes things like:


Libertarians have long insisted that the compatibilist sorts of free will I am describing and defending are not the real thing at all, and not even an acceptable substitute for the real thing [...] According to us compatibilists, libertarians seem to think that you can have free will only if you can engage in what we might call moral levitation. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to levitate - and then to dash off in any direction with the merest flick of a whim? I'd love to be able to do that, but I can't. It's impossible. (Freedom Evolves, page 101).

[...]

An examination of the best positive case for libertarianism shows that it cannot find a defensible location for indeterminism within the decision-making processes of a responsible agent. Since it cannot motivate its defining requirement, we can leave indeterminism behind and consider more realisitic requirements for freedom, and how they could have evolved (Freedom Evolves, 136-137)."

So, once again, seer willfully misrepresents sources. Typical.

Nonsense Jichard, Dennett himself says that his model would give what the libertarians want - would it satisfy all libertarians - doubtful.


This result is not just what the libertarian is looking for, but it is a useful result nevertheless. It shows that we can indeed install indeterminism in the internal causal chains affecting human behavior at the macroscopic level while preserving the intelligibility of practical deliberation that the libertarian requires. We may have good reasons from other quarters for embracing determinism, but we need not fear that macroscopic indeterminism in human behavior would of necessity rob our lives of intelligibility by producing chaos."

And why are you still in my threads?

seer
11-05-2015, 04:34 AM
No, everything is not determined unless you are proposing something like Calvinism. Determinism does not propose that 'everything is determined.' Compatibilism includes Determinism and the potential of Free Will, and room for freedom.

Good so everything is not determined. Then that does leave room for freedom.

seer
11-05-2015, 04:55 AM
Fabrication on your part. You were told this in my very first post on this thread, but your usual dishonesty prevents you from admitting this.

More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like.”

Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE? This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen


A person has free will if he is often in positions like these: he must now speak or be silent, and he can now speak and can now remain silent; he must attempt to rescue a drowning child or else go for help, and he is able to attempt to rescue the child and able to go for help; he must now resign his chairmanship or else lie to the members; and he has it within his power to resign and he has it within his power to lie.

Do you agree, disagree?

shunyadragon
11-05-2015, 06:05 AM
Good so everything is not determined. Then that does leave room for freedom.

Yes, Determinism allows for the potential of Free Will, and room for freedom.

So, what's the problem?

seer
11-05-2015, 06:25 AM
Yes, Determinism allows for the potential of Free Will, and room for freedom.

So, what's the problem?

No, determinism does not allow for freedom. Only if there are areas where there is no determinism is there a possibility for freedom.

shunyadragon
11-05-2015, 07:15 AM
No, determinism does not allow for freedom. Only if there are areas where there is no determinism is there a possibility for freedom.

This is only the case for 'hard determinism' in the extreme case. I terms of 'soft-determinism' as defined by William James and in compatibilism.



"I think that yesterday was a crisis in my life. I finished the first part of Renouvier's second Essais and see no reason why his definition of free will — 'the sustaining of a thought because I choose to when I might have other thoughts' — need be the definition of an illusion. At any rate, I will assume for the present — until next year — that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

seer
11-05-2015, 07:26 AM
This is only the case for 'hard determinism' in the extreme case. I terms of 'soft-determinism' as defined by William James and in compatibilism.



"I think that yesterday was a crisis in my life. I finished the first part of Renouvier's second Essais and see no reason why his definition of free will — 'the sustaining of a thought because I choose to when I might have other thoughts' — need be the definition of an illusion. At any rate, I will assume for the present — until next year — that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

I have no idea what your point is. Is soft-determinism not determinism? What do you mean by soft? How does that lead to genuine freedom?

shunyadragon
11-05-2015, 09:37 AM
I have no idea what your point is. Is soft-determinism not determinism? What do you mean by soft? How does that lead to genuine freedom?

'Soft determinism' is determinism by definition. Soft-determinism means there is room for freedom and potential of Free Will, and it is roughly equivalent to compatibilism. You need to read further and understand more sources on the philosophy of will. Read some sources like those on compatibilism and authors like William James to understand a world outside your own barbed wire fence.

The question of the nature of our will is still not objectively answered by either science, philosophy nor theologians as to what degree humans have Free Will. It is pretty well accepted that the concept of Libertarian Free Will does not reflect the reality of the nature of human will. To some degree it has been demonstrated that our decision making process is not free, but predetermined by a chain of circumstances. To what extent are our decisions predetermined is not at present known.

seer
11-05-2015, 10:00 AM
'Soft determinism' is determinism by definition. Soft-determinism means there is room for freedom and potential of Free Will, and it is roughly equivalent to compatibilism. You need to read further and understand more sources on the philosophy of will. Read some sources like those on compatibilism and authors like William James to understand a world outside your own barbed wire fence.

Stop being an idiot Shuny, I have read a number of these sources. That is why I'm asking the question. Soft-determinism is still determinism:


Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.

If our desires are determined, and we can't do otherwise, or the opposite, in any given situation, then we are just as determined. Given this definition a monkey would be free.



The question of the nature of our will is still not objectively answered by either science, philosophy nor theologians as to what degree humans have Free Will. It is pretty well accepted that the concept of Libertarian Free Will does not reflect the reality of the nature of human will. To some degree it has been demonstrated that our decision making process is not free, but predetermined by a chain of circumstances. To what extent are our decisions predetermined is not at present known.

So now you deny freedom of the will.

shunyadragon
11-05-2015, 03:18 PM
I have no idea what your point is. Is soft-determinism not determinism? What do you mean by soft? How does that lead to genuine freedom?

Please explain what you mean by 'genuine freedom.' Are you referring to libertarian free will?

It has been well documented and determined scientifically that libertarian free will is not a viable view.

Tassman
11-05-2015, 07:45 PM
If our desires are determined, and we can't do otherwise, or the opposite, in any given situation, then we are just as determined. Given this definition a monkey would be free.




Well it would have the illusion of freedom, just as we do. Do you have a problem with this? The behaviours and knowledge of all primates, including humans, are generated solely by the brain, and cannot be separated from that. There's no credible evidence of 'souls'. If you disagree give evidence-based reasons as to why.

seer
11-06-2015, 04:57 AM
Please explain what you mean by 'genuine freedom.' Are you referring to libertarian free will?

I gave a definition in post 154:


Peter van Inwagen:

A person has free will if he is often in positions like these: he must now speak or be silent, and he can now speak and can now remain silent; he must attempt to rescue a drowning child or else go for help, and he is able to attempt to rescue the child and able to go for help; he must now resign his chairmanship or else lie to the members; and he has it within his power to resign and he has it within his power to lie.

In other words, for the most part we have the ability to do the opposite. I chose a red shirt this morning, but I had the power to choose differently. It was my choice, I was not locked into a specific direction or choice by antecedent conditions.


It has been well documented and determined scientifically that libertarian free will is not a viable view.

OK, so I will ask again - it what sense are we free with your soft-determinism? Please explain.

seer
11-06-2015, 04:58 AM
Well it would have the illusion of freedom, just as we do.

And you have the illusion of being rational...

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 06:55 AM
Stop being an idiot Shuny, I have read a number of these sources. That is why I'm asking the question. Soft-determinism is still determinism:



If our desires are determined, and we can't do otherwise, or the opposite, in any given situation, then we are just as determined. Given this definition a monkey would be free.




So now you deny freedom of the will.

No, our desires represent the reasons we make choices.We still make choices.

If you chose to wear a red shirt, you will make the choice within a limited selection of shirts you desired to buy. Your desires ultimate decided what shirts and clothing you buy, and what you chose to buy. You still exercise your free will within the constraints of what you desire. What you desire is ultimate decided by many factors not in your control, like your culture and choice of religion, which in turn is in a large part determined for you by the culture and family you were raised in.

seer
11-06-2015, 07:49 AM
No, our desires represent the reasons we make choices.We still make choices.

If you chose to wear a red shirt, you will make the choice within a limited selection of shirts you desired to buy. Your desires ultimate decided what shirts and clothing you buy, and what you chose to buy. You still exercise your free will within the constraints of what you desire. What you desire is ultimate decided by many factors not in your control, like your culture and choice of religion, which in turn is in a large part determined for you by the culture and family you were raised in.

Yes, but our desires are determined. So again, where is the freedom?

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 09:06 AM
I gave a definition in post 154:

There is no definition for 'determinism' in post 154.

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 09:12 AM
Yes, but our desires are determined. So again, where is the freedom?

We still make a range of decisions based on our desires.

You still have not defined nor demonstrated 'genuine freedom,' and how that is different from making decisions and choices based on our desires.

You have to demonstrate Free Will based on the illusion or delusion of Libertarian Free Will, and not responded to this specifically.

If you chose to wear a red shirt, you will make the choice within a limited selection of shirts you desired to buy. Your desires ultimate decided what shirts and clothing you buy, and what you chose to buy. You still exercise your free will within the constraints of what you desire. What you desire is ultimate decided by many factors not in your control, like your culture and choice of religion, which in turn is in a large part determined for you by the culture and family you were raised in.

What other than our desires determines whether we make Free Will decisions?

seer
11-06-2015, 09:16 AM
There is no definition for 'determinism' in post 154.

It is a definition for free will.

seer
11-06-2015, 09:27 AM
What other than our desires determines whether we make Free Will decisions?

Our rational mind. We can have competing desires - I want a piece of that cake, or I want to watch my weight. My rational mind decides between the two options - and no matter which I choose I always had the power to do otherwise, to choose the opposite. That is libertarian free will.


You still have not defined nor demonstrated 'genuine freedom,' and how that is different from making decisions and choices based on our desires.

Yes, I did define it in post #154 and 163.



We still make a range of decisions based on our desires.

So do monkeys, so again where is the freedom?

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 10:04 AM
It is a definition for free will.

Not a good definition of Free Will. All it does is describe humans making decisions based on their desires. Such decisions take place based on our desires regardless of the degree of Free Will that humans have. Determinism regardless of hard or soft allows for such decisions with in the range of our desire to make decisions.

Even in hard-Determinism our desires are not rigidly mechanistically determined. The desires of different individuals in different cultures develop in a range of variable circumstances. These circumstances always give a range of possible choices. From your closet you have the choice of a red, blue, or plaid shirt based on your choice of the shirts you previously chose to buy. Your choices of shirts to purchase are decided by your desires, which are determined by your culture in one way or another.

seer
11-06-2015, 10:11 AM
Not a good definition of Free Will. All it does is describe humans making decisions based on their desires. Such decisions take place based on our desires regardless of the degree of Free Will that humans have. Determinism regardless of hard or soft allows for such decisions with in the range of our desire to make decisions.

Yes, it is a good definition of libertarian free will. It states that we have real choice, the power to do otherwise. Under my own volition I can choose the cake or not choose the cake. I can choose between two competing desires. So again, where is the freedom in your model? If I follow your logic a monkey has free will.

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 10:20 AM
Yes, it is a good definition of libertarian free will. It states that we have real choice, the power to do otherwise. Under my own volition I can choose the cake or not choose the cake. I can choose between two competing desires. So again, where is the freedom in your model? If I follow your logic a monkey has free will.

Again, we have a real choice under Determinism. You have failed to make the distinction of making choices either way.

Again . . .

Even in hard-Determinism our desires are not rigidly mechanistically determined. The desires of different individuals in different cultures develop in a range of variable circumstances, and have real choices and the decision to do otherwise. These circumstances always give a range of possible choices. From your closet you have the choice of a red, blue, or plaid shirt based on your choice of the shirts you previously chose to buy. Your choices of shirts to purchase are decided by your desires, which are determined by your culture in one way or another.

You have failed to describe how we would make choices outside the limits of our desires, as in the example of the shirts. You have only purchased a limited selection of shirts based on your desires and culture, unless it is a Halloween costume.

seer
11-06-2015, 10:30 AM
Again, we have a real choice under Determinism. You have failed to make the distinction of making choices either way.

Again . . .

Even in hard-Determinism our desires are not rigidly mechanistically determined. The desires of different individuals in different cultures develop in a range of variable circumstances, and have real choices and the decision to do otherwise. These circumstances always give a range of possible choices. From your closet you have the choice of a red, blue, or plaid shirt based on your choice of the shirts you previously chose to buy. Your choices of shirts to purchase are decided by your desires, which are determined by your culture in one way or another.

You have failed to describe how we would make choices outside the limits of our desires, as in the example of the shirts. You have only purchased a limited selection of shirts based on your desires and culture, unless it is a Halloween costume.

Shuny if you are claiming that I have the power to do otherwise, that I wasn't determined by antecedent causes to choose the red shirt, and that I really did have it within my power to choose a different shirt then you are speaking of libertarian free will.

Again:


According to the Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (InterVarsity Press, 2002), libertarian free will is defined as “in ethics and metaphysics, the view that human beings sometimes can will more than one possibility. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.” In the libertarian free will paradigm, the power of contrary choice reigns supreme.

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 11:52 AM
Shuny if you are claiming that I have the power to do otherwise, that I wasn't determined by antecedent causes to choose the red shirt, and that I really did have it within my power to choose a different shirt then you are speaking of libertarian free will.

Antecedent causes are very obvious as described.

Again:[/QUOTE]


It has already been determined and demonstrated by scientific research that libertarian free will does not exist, because to a certain extent antecedent circumstances limit not determine absolutely our choses.

For libertarian free will to true in all our decisions the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. It is clear that scientific research has demonstrated that this is not true as previously cited.

seer
11-06-2015, 12:02 PM
It has already been determined and demonstrated by scientific research that libertarian free will does not exist, because to a certain extent antecedent circumstances limit not determine absolutely our choses.

For libertarian free will to true in all our decisions the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. It is clear that scientific research has demonstrated that this is not true as previously cited.

Make up you mind Shuny, you said: The desires of different individuals in different cultures develop in a range of variable circumstances, and have real choices and the decision to do otherwise.


Do you believe that we have the power to do otherwise? Could I have chosen a different shirt? If you answer yes, then that is libertarian free will by definition. If not then in what sense are we free? Be specific please.

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 01:10 PM
Make up you mind Shuny, you said: The desires of different individuals in different cultures develop in a range of variable circumstances, and have real choices and the decision to do otherwise.


Do you believe that we have the power to do otherwise? Could I have chosen a different shirt? If you answer yes, then that is libertarian free will by definition. If not then in what sense are we free? Be specific please.

No, choosing your shirt among a limited choice in your closet does not demonstrate Libertarian free will by definition. Different philosophies concerning the nature of human will deal with the cause and nature of the decision making process, not the fact that people make different decisions at different times, and of course chose otherwise.

You have not responded to the fact that scientific research has demonstrated that the philosophy of 'Libertarian Free Will is a loser.

Of course, I forget. You disagree with science whenever it disagrees with your agenda.

seer
11-06-2015, 01:16 PM
No, choosing your shirt among a limited choice in your closet does not demonstrate Libertarian free will by definition. Different philosophies concerning the nature of human will deal with the cause and nature of the decision making process, not the fact that people make different decisions at different times, and of course chose otherwise.

You have not responded to the fact that scientific research has demonstrated that the philosophy of 'Libertarian Free Will is a loser.


Then there is no genuine freedom in your model. We are slaves to our desires and determined by antecedent conditions. If you take away the ability to do otherwise (libertarian free will) then you are left with determinism.

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 02:49 PM
Then there is no genuine freedom in your model. We are slaves to our desires and determined by antecedent conditions. If you take away the ability to do otherwise (libertarian free will) then you are left with determinism.

Still failing to respond . . .

No, choosing your shirt among a limited choice in your closet does not demonstrate Libertarian free will by definition. Different philosophies concerning the nature of human will deal with the cause and nature of the decision making process, not the fact that people make different decisions at different times, and of course chose otherwise.

You have not responded to the fact that scientific research has demonstrated that the philosophy of 'Libertarian Free Will is a loser.

seer
11-06-2015, 05:49 PM
Still failing to respond . . .

No, choosing your shirt among a limited choice in your closet does not demonstrate Libertarian free will by definition. Different philosophies concerning the nature of human will deal with the cause and nature of the decision making process, not the fact that people make different decisions at different times, and of course chose otherwise.

You have not responded to the fact that scientific research has demonstrated that the philosophy of 'Libertarian Free Will is a loser.

Shuny, it doesn't matter what science says, that is not what we are discussing - I am making the point that freedom and determinism are not compatible. And you keep saying that we can choose otherwise - that is the very definition Libertarian Free Will. In other words do you agree that I had the power to choose a different color shirt this morning, other than the one I did?

shunyadragon
11-06-2015, 07:21 PM
Shuny, it doesn't matter what science says, that is not what we are discussing - I am making the point that freedom and determinism are not compatible. And you keep saying that we can choose otherwise - that is the very definition Libertarian Free Will. In other words do you agree that I had the power to choose a different color shirt this morning, other than the one I did?

Yes, in determinism we can do otherwise, because antecedent circumstance allow multiple different choices.

It is obvious you ignore and do not care about science when it contradicts your agenda.

You have not responded to the fact that scientific research has demonstrated that the philosophy of 'Libertarian Free Will is a loser.

Tassman
11-06-2015, 09:07 PM
And you have the illusion of being rational...

Answer the question. How does the sense of freedom experienced by the other primates differ from the sensation of free choice experienced by the human primate? The behaviours and knowledge of all primates, including humans, are generated solely by the brain, and cannot be separated from that. If you disagree give evidence-based reasons as to why.

Jichard
11-07-2015, 01:20 PM
Stop being an idiot Shuny, I have read a number of these sources.

...says the idiot.

Jichard
11-07-2015, 01:26 PM
Except you claimed to like Dan Dennett, and he makes a good case for LFW. And he does this by denying that everything is deterministic.

More quote-mining and misrepresentation. You left this out of your quote-mine of your source, even though this is the very first thing said by your source:


"While he himself is a confirmed compatibilist, even a determinist, in "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want," Chapter 15 of his 1978 book Brainstorms, Daniel Dennett articulated the case for a two-stage model of free will better than any libertarian. (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dennett/)"

How does Dennett "den[y] that everything is deterministic", when Dennet is a determinist? :ahem:

Jichard
11-07-2015, 01:29 PM
Nonsense Jichard, Dennett himself says that his model would give what the libertarians want - would it satisfy all libertarians - doubtful.

Once again, stop quote-mining Dennett. He clearly says that the libertarian position is impossible and that the best case for libertarianism does not work:


Libertarians have long insisted that the compatibilist sorts of free will I am describing and defending are not the real thing at all, and not even an acceptable substitute for the real thing [...] According to us compatibilists, libertarians seem to think that you can have free will only if you can engage in what we might call moral levitation. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to levitate - and then to dash off in any direction with the merest flick of a whim? I'd love to be able to do that, but I can't. It's impossible. (Freedom Evolves, page 101).

[...]

An examination of the best positive case for libertarianism shows that it cannot find a defensible location for indeterminism within the decision-making processes of a responsible agent. Since it cannot motivate its defining requirement, we can leave indeterminism behind and consider more realisitic requirements for freedom, and how they could have evolved (Freedom Evolves, 136-137)."


And why are you still in my threads?

You should know why, you dishonest quote-miner:



Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE? This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?



Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way

Jichard
11-07-2015, 01:38 PM
Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE?

Please stop acting that something being determined prevents it from being free. As has been explained to you over and over and over and... determinism does not preclude freedom. Bypassing precludes freedom, since bypassing prevents one's conscious intentions from causing what one does. Determinism does not do that, since determinism allows one's conscious intentions to cause what one does. So determinism does not entail epiphenomenalism, fatalism, or anything else that might preclude freedom. I've explained this several times:



Once again, you try to mislead people into thinking that the only option is that determinism entails no free will. And you do this by ingoring compatibilism. Sorry, but informed people aren't going to fall for this. Free will is compatible with determinism, even though folks like you attempt to confuse people into thinking otherwise, by doing things like conflating determinism with bypassing,fatalism, or epiphenomenalism:



"Experimental Philosophy on Free Will: An Error Theory for Incompatibilist Intuitions"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5745820675733919131&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


"Suppose laypersons are presented with scenarios that describe a deterministic universe, and suppose that some respond that agents in that universe do not have free will (FW) and are not morally responsible (MR) [emphasis added] for their actions—they express “incompatibilist intuitions”—while others respond that agents in these deterministic universes can have FW and MR—they express ‘compatibilist intuitions.’ […]

Our hypothesis is that many people who appear to have incompatibilist intuitions are interpreting determinism to entail what we will call “bypassing,” and they take bypassing to preclude FW and MR. While bypassing does preclude FW and MR, it is a mistake to interpret determinism to entail bypassing [emphasis added]. So, if the reason people express incompatibilist intuitions is that they mistakenly take determinism to entail bypassing, then those intuitions do not in fact support the conclusion that determinism, properly understood, is incompatible with free will.

What is “bypassing”? The basic idea is that one’s actions are caused by forces that bypass one’s conscious self, or at least what one identifies as one’s “self”. More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. As such, bypassing might take the form of epiphenomenalism about the relevant mental states (i.e., that deliberations, beliefs, and desires are causally irrelevant to action), or it might take the form of fatalism—the belief that certain things will happen no matter what one decides or tries to do, or that one’s actions have to happen even if the past had been different. Bypassing suggests that conscious agents have no control over their actions because they play no role in the causal chain that leads to their actions. For our study discussed below, we “operationalized” bypassing in a more precise way.

The crucial point is that determinism, as defined by philosophers debating free will, simply does not entail bypassing […] The history of compatibilism might be caricatured as an attempt to drive home this point. Compatibilists have emphasized that determinism does not mean or entail that all events are inevitable, in the sense that they will happen no matter what we decide or try to do. They point out that determinism does not render our beliefs, desires, deliberations, or decisions causally impotent. Quite the contrary. So long as our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen [emphasis added]. Of course, incompatibilists generally agree with all this, but claim their arguments are not based on such mistakes (3-4).”


The research also supports my points about bypassing, since the research shows that the scientific determinism is not the same thing as the fatalistic determinism (the latter of which entails bypassing, while the former does not).

[...]



"Worldview Implications of Believing in Free Will and/or Determinism: Politics, Morality, and Punitiveness"
http://www-socpsy.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/karasawa/_src/sc1348/Carey20and20Paulhus2028201329.pdf


"[...]

A second cluster of beliefs was interpreted as fatalistic determinism: The highest-loading items are exemplified by “Fate already has a plan for each of us.” The third cluster was interpreted as scientific determinism because it included belief in biological forces (e.g., “People’s biological makeup influences their talents and personality”) as well as environmental forces (e.g., “Science has shown how your past environment created your current intelligence and personality”).

[...]

One common notion about determinism is that—given perfect knowledge of the laws of nature—all future events can be predicted from previous events. In principle, all current human behavior can be traced back to events at the beginning of time. Unfortunately, such arguments lead many to fear that science is fatalistic: If all matters are fully predictable, then people have no control over the future and choices do not matter. In truth, the logic of scientific causation does not imply fatalism (Mele, 2008; Pinker, 2002).

The need to distinguish scientific from fatalistic determinism is strongly supported by our present research on folk beliefs. Despite the common label, the distinctions made by our lay judges indicate two dramatically different conceptions of determinism. Not only are the two conceptions unrelated at the individual difference level, but they also exhibit a distinct pattern of external correlates.

The distinction is supported by our earlier finding that belief in scientific determinism is unrelated to an internal sense of control (Paulhus & Carey, 2011). After all, scientific causes of behavior are not necessarily external to the individual; nor do they undermine one’s decision-making process. Biological forces are certainly internal. Moreover, evidence that some people have a genetic predisposition to like chocolate does not rule out a role for free will in each decision to indulge.

The type of determinism that does undermine autonomy is the fatalistic version: It harbors the implication that our actions do not matter because the future is already set in stone. This pessimistic tone may explain why fatalistic determinism has maladaptive correlates, such as an external locus of control and a lack of emotional stability (Paulhus & Carey, 2011).

Our findings also suggest that believing in fatalistic determinism leads people to interpret causal explanations as inevitable (138-139)."


This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Same old falsehoods. You were told what free will is:


"More specifically, it is the thesis that one’s actions are produced in a way that bypasses the abilities compatibilists typically identify with free will, such as rational deliberation, conscious consideration of beliefs and desires, formation of higher-order volitions, planning, and the like. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8600-The-Beauty-Of-Determinism!&p=260168#post260168)"


Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?

I'm not interested in your quote-mines of people you've neither read nor understood (as you've done for Harris, Dennett, and Vilenkin, and so on). And I know you don't understand van Inwagen at all, since if you did, then you'd know van Inwagen rejects there being libertarian free will. So you wouldn't quote him in defense of libertarian free will; he thinks such free will is incoherent. I'm already familiar with van Inwagen's position; I've literally istended to lectures where he's laid it out. Of course, you're careful to leave this out of your quote-mines as usual.

In any event, I've already told you what my actual position is.

seer
11-08-2015, 05:10 AM
Yes, in determinism we can do otherwise, because antecedent circumstance allow multiple different choices.

Shuny if you agree that I could have chosen a different shirt than I did, then that is LFW by definition, the power of contrary choice.

Again:


According to the Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (InterVarsity Press, 2002), libertarian free will is defined as “in ethics and metaphysics, the view that human beings sometimes can will more than one possibility. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.”


So you are agreeing with LFW, if you believe I could have chosen differently.

seer
11-08-2015, 05:11 AM
...says the idiot.

Stay out of my threads Jichard.

shunyadragon
11-08-2015, 12:48 PM
Shuny if you agree that I could have chosen a different shirt than I did, then that is LFW by definition, the power of contrary choice.

No, and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

Again:




[quote] So you are agreeing with LFW, if you believe I could have chosen differently.

No and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

seer
11-08-2015, 02:12 PM
No, and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

No and Dennett agrees with me. Compatabilism considers Determinism and Free Will compatible.

That has nothing to do with what I said or the definition of LFW, which you seem to agree with. LFW states that we have the power of contrary choice (I was not determined to choose the red shirt, I had it within my power to choose the green), if you agree then climb on board, if not then it what sense are we free? Please define what you mean by free will.

seer
11-08-2015, 02:14 PM
Answer the question. How does the sense of freedom experienced by the other primates differ from the sensation of free choice experienced by the human primate? The behaviours and knowledge of all primates, including humans, are generated solely by the brain, and cannot be separated from that. If you disagree give evidence-based reasons as to why.

That is fine Tass, then our will is no more free than that of a monkey if you are right. Please inform Shuny of that fact.

Jichard
11-08-2015, 02:35 PM
Stay out of my threads Jichard.

Stop directing your posts at me, liar.




Seer,

If you want Jichard out of your thread, you are not allowed to post directly to him. Please state your intentions again either way


Then tell me how are these things; rational deliberation, conscious considerations, planning, etc... not just as determined as anything else - in what sense are they FREE? This is what I mean, you are not defining what free will means, in what sense are we free.

Let me quote Peter van Inwagen



Do you agree, disagree?


But the NASA press release says:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses



Are you saying that you understand NASA's study better than NASA?

shunyadragon
11-08-2015, 03:26 PM
That has nothing to do with what I said or the definition of LFW, which you seem to agree with. LFW states that we have the power of contrary choice (I was not determined to choose the red shirt, I had it within my power to choose the green), if you agree then climb on board, if not then it what sense are we free? Please define what you mean by free will.

In Compatibilism, LFW and determinism one has the power contrary choices. The Difference is LFW believes there are no antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices. Compatabilism and Determinism recognize there are antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices, but we still make choices.

Tassman
11-08-2015, 05:32 PM
That has nothing to do with what I said or the definition of LFW, which you seem to agree with. LFW states that we have the power of contrary choice (I was not determined to choose the red shirt, I had it within my power to choose the green), if you agree then climb on board, if not then it what sense are we free? Please define what you mean by free will.

Who knows what subconscious components were in play when you opted to wear your red shirt rather than the green one. But you cannot argue that your decision was a LFW decision...other factors of which you were unaware also informed your choice of shirt.


That is fine Tass, then our will is no more free than that of a monkey if you are right. Please inform Shuny of that fact.

Who knows what subconscious components are in play when a monkey opts for one banana in preference to another. But, as with you and your shirt, it is not making LFW decisions.

JimL
11-08-2015, 05:49 PM
In Compatibilism, LFW and determinism one has the power contrary choices. The Difference is LFW believes there are no antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices. Compatabilism and Determinism recognize there are antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices, but we still make choices.
But the "you" that makes those choices based on those antecedent conditions is your brain, not some ghost within the body. Thats the part that seer is grappling over with his "what causes me to choose a blue shirt rather than a red one? argument ." He believes that because he can make either the one or the other choice on any given day that it can't therefore be the brain itself that is doing the choosing unconsciously. The brain in its complexity is in constant conflict with itself and so its unconsciously made choices differ from one day to the next which makes it seem as though the option chosen is made freely and therefore made by a free willed agent or mind separate from the physical brain. There are many factors involved in the brains decision making process, consciousness itself being one of them, but the actual choice itself, in real time, is an unconscious one.

shunyadragon
11-08-2015, 06:06 PM
But the "you" that makes those choices based on those antecedent conditions is your brain, not some ghost within the body. Thats the part that seer is grappling over with his "what causes me to choose a blue shirt rather than a red one? argument ." He believes that because he can make either the one or the other choice on any given day that it can't therefore be the brain itself that is doing the choosing unconsciously. The brain in its complexity is in constant conflict with itself and so its unconsciously made choices differ from one day to the next which makes it seem as though the option chosen is made freely and therefore made by a free willed agent or mind separate from the physical brain. There are many factors involved in the brains decision making process, consciousness itself being one of them, but the actual choice itself, in real time, is an unconscious one.

I do not believe all the factors of the decision making process are known yet. It has been determined that there are significant subconscious elements that influence our decision making process. I believe there is a feed back process of information between conscious and subconscious self that our conscious self has a rational element that it is also influences the decision making process, but nonetheless the range of choices is always limited.

I simplistic Deterministic model does not take into consideration the information feedback from the conscious self that influences the subconscious in the decision making process. It is like that the conscious self provides the information and possible choices that the subconscious then uses to influence the choice.

It has also been demonstrated that our decision making process has a distinct fractal element within the range of possible choices.

JimL
11-08-2015, 06:45 PM
I do not believe all the factors of the decision making process are known yet. It has been determined that there are significant subconscious elements that influence our decision making process. I believe there is a feed back process of information between conscious and subconscious self that our conscious self has a rational element that it is also influences the decision making process, but nonetheless the range of choices is always limited.

I simplistic Deterministic model does not take into consideration the information feedback from the conscious self that influences the subconscious in the decision making process. It is like that the conscious self provides the information and possible choices that the subconscious then uses to influence the choice.

It has also been demonstrated that our decision making process has a distinct fractal element within the range of possible choices.

Absolutely. Lets take his red shirt blue shirt analogy for instance. Thoe choice to wear a red shirt is based on passed experience, experience that the person would have been conscious of at the time of his wearing it. In other words he would be aware of the experience the day of wearing the red shirt. it may have been a good day for him, or it may have been a bad day. Past conscious experiences such as these influence the present choices that the brain unconsciously makes. Once a choice is unconsciously made, one becomes aware of the experience associated with that choice, whether good or bad, which is stored in the brain as information and influences future unconscious decision making. But the choices themselves are made unconsciously, prior to ones awareness, even though his past awareness played a role in the present, unconscious, decision making process.

shunyadragon
11-09-2015, 04:36 AM
Absolutely. Lets take his red shirt blue shirt analogy for instance. Thoe choice to wear a red shirt is based on passed experience, experience that the person would have been conscious of at the time of his wearing it. In other words he would be aware of the experience the day of wearing the red shirt. it may have been a good day for him, or it may have been a bad day. Past conscious experiences such as these influence the present choices that the brain unconsciously makes. Once a choice is unconsciously made, one becomes aware of the experience associated with that choice, whether good or bad, which is stored in the brain as information and influences future unconscious decision making. But the choices themselves are made unconsciously, prior to ones awareness, even though his past awareness played a role in the present, unconscious, decision making process.

My point is that it cannot be definitively said '. . . but the actual choice itself, in real time, is an unconscious one.' It is not that simple.

seer
11-09-2015, 06:31 AM
In Compatibilism, LFW and determinism one has the power contrary choices. The Difference is LFW believes there are no antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices. Compatabilism and Determinism recognize there are antecedent conditions and circumstances that limit our choices, but we still make choices.

If we we have the power of contrary choice in both views, then I think we are splitting hairs.

shunyadragon
11-09-2015, 07:57 AM
If we we have the power of contrary choice in both views, then I think we are splitting hairs.

No frog hairs to split here. We have the power of contrary choice in both views. It is the role of antecedent conditions and circumstances and the role of the subconscious that differentiates LFW from Determinism.

Some radical determinists make a heavy issue of the scientific research concerning the role of the subconscious in the decision making process, but in reality over time there is a relationship between the conscious and subconscious to determine the knowledge, nature and limits of our choices in the real world.

JimL
11-11-2015, 05:39 PM
My point is that it cannot be definitively said '. . . but the actual choice itself, in real time, is an unconscious one.' It is not that simple.

Sure, but isn't that only because of your belief that "nothing can be definitely said to be a fact?" The science though has shown it to be so, i.e. that our actual choices are made at the subconscious level. You may not agree with the science, but unless you can counter it with evidence to the contrary, then it is that simple. Science has shown that choices are made at the subconscious level prior to conscious awareness.

seer
11-12-2015, 03:20 AM
Science has shown that choices are made at the subconscious level prior to conscious awareness.

Jim, you really need to get out more. Science has proved no such thing. The link below is long but well worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XjI0qhx5E

shunyadragon
11-12-2015, 06:56 AM
Sure, but isn't that only because of your belief that "nothing can be definitely said to be a fact?" The science though has shown it to be so, i.e. that our actual choices are made at the subconscious level. You may not agree with the science, but unless you can counter it with evidence to the contrary, then it is that simple. Science has shown that choices are made at the subconscious level prior to conscious awareness.

First, science does not conclude that 'that our actual choices are made at the subconscious level.' Research concludes that the subconscious level is important in our decision making process. It is an interaction between the conscious and subconscious levels that result in our decision making process. As I said it is not that simple as some conclude based on their 'agenda' either way.' LFW is obviously a looser here, but free will remains a part of the picture and has not been excluded based on science. The philosophy of comapatibilism remains the best option at present.

shunyadragon
11-12-2015, 06:58 AM
Jim, you really need to get out more. Science has proved no such thing. The link below is long but well worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XjI0qhx5E

True, but Libertarian Free Will has also been excluded as a possible explanation of the nature of our will. You can't have it both ways in your argument.

Again science does not prove anything.

seer
11-12-2015, 08:02 AM
True, but Libertarian Free Will has also been excluded as a possible explanation of the nature of our will. You can't have it both ways in your argument.

Again science does not prove anything.

What are you taking about? And LFW has not been excluded - that was discussed in the link. Or you can watch this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWULdRxEbo

Mele is a compatiblist but he doesn't dismiss LFW.

seer
11-12-2015, 08:04 AM
but free will remains a part of the picture

Again, in what sense is our will free? If not in the libertarian sense or contrary choice?

The Thinker
11-12-2015, 09:56 AM
Again, in what sense is our will free? If not in the libertarian sense or contrary choice?

shunyadragon is a compatibilist it seems. There is no sense in which our will is "free". To be "free" it has to be uncaused. And if it is uncaused there is no way rationality or evidence from your senses can effect it. That's why having a will that is caused is the only view that makes it coherent.

seer
11-12-2015, 10:02 AM
shunyadragon is a compatibilist it seems. There is no sense in which our will is "free". To be "free" it has to be uncaused. And if it is uncaused there is no way rationality or evidence from your senses can effect it. That's why having a will that is caused is the only view that makes it coherent.

Well we agree on something Thinker, it looks like we are both incompatibilists. :wink:

shunyadragon
11-12-2015, 12:28 PM
What are you taking about? And LFW has not been excluded - that was discussed in the link. Or you can watch this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSWULdRxEbo

Mele is a compatiblist but he doesn't dismiss LFW.

LFW is excluded based on the evidence.

shunyadragon
11-12-2015, 12:30 PM
Sure, but isn't that only because of your belief that "nothing can be definitely said to be a fact?" The science though has shown it to be so, i.e. that our actual choices are made at the subconscious level. You may not agree with the science, but unless you can counter it with evidence to the contrary, then it is that simple. Science has shown that choices are made at the subconscious level prior to conscious awareness.

I believe your overstating the conclusions of the current scientific research.

seer
11-12-2015, 05:35 PM
LFW is excluded based on the evidence.

No it's not, based on what, the science you say is not conclusive? So again, what sense is our will free, in your compatibilism?

Tassman
11-12-2015, 07:57 PM
No it's not, based on what, the science you say is not conclusive? So again, what sense is our will free, in your compatibilism?

Neuroscience is increasingly of the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of physics and chemistry, that determine our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. There’s no good evidence for the latter. If you disagree then you need to provide some actual evidence; merely sitting in judgement on the evidence provided by others is a cop-out, but sadly typical of you.

shunyadragon
11-13-2015, 05:07 AM
No it's not, based on what, the science you say is not conclusive? So again, what sense is our will free, in your compatibilism?

Your misquoting me, and misrepresenting the scientific research! LFW is been repeatedly found false by research, because our subconscious does play a significant role in the decision making process. What is inconclusive is the degree of Free Will, and the relationship between the conscious and sub conscious.

seer
11-13-2015, 05:57 AM
Your misquoting me, and misrepresenting the scientific research! LFW is been repeatedly found false by research, because our subconscious does play a significant role in the decision making process. What is inconclusive is the degree of Free Will, and the relationship between the conscious and sub conscious.

Then explain how our will is free, what is free about it.

The Thinker
11-13-2015, 12:41 PM
Then explain how our will is free, what is free about it.

Seer, I've asked you to logically explain free will. You never have. I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent.

seer
11-13-2015, 12:54 PM
Seer, I've asked you to logically explain free will. You never have. I'm asking you to make a logical case for your position. If you can't then your position is not logically coherent.

Well of course, since I believe that the rational immaterial spirit of the man is involved how could I ever demonstrate its influence on thoughts and desires? You are asking me to play by your materialistic rules.

shunyadragon
11-13-2015, 01:52 PM
Then explain how our will is free, what is free about it.

Already done that.

JimL
11-13-2015, 04:20 PM
Jim, you really need to get out more. Science has proved no such thing. The link below is long but well worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XjI0qhx5E
I've seen it before seer. Mele isn't asserting LFR of the sort you are defending, he admits to that at the end of the talk, nor does he show how consciousness plays an active roll in the actual, in real time, decision making. Consciousness plays a role, of course, in that the information processed by the brain is ultimately sent to it through the senses, but the actual choice made is the result of a subconscious process. If you accept the fact that you are your brain, and that your subconscious brain makes decisions based upon the information it contains, information which is consciously fed to it, then, since there is nothing else forcing or determining that informed information processer, then its/your decision can be argued to be a free willed decision. But such a free willed decision is still dependent upon antecedent conditions. There is no ghost in there directing or interpreting the brains functioning. Again, and I mentioned this once before, if that were the case, the inner ghost would then need a sort of brain of its own which would be redundant.

JimL
11-13-2015, 04:41 PM
First, science does not conclude that 'that our actual choices are made at the subconscious level.' Research concludes that the subconscious level is important in our decision making process. It is an interaction between the conscious and subconscious levels that result in our decision making process. As I said it is not that simple as some conclude based on their 'agenda' either way.' LFW is obviously a looser here, but free will remains a part of the picture and has not been excluded based on science. The philosophy of comapatibilism remains the best option at present.
Well critique the science then shunya. There is no evidence or experiment that I am aware of that shows consciousness to play a role in the actual real time decision making. The interplay between consciousness and the subconscious, the effect the one has on the other, takes place prior to the actual subconscious processing of information and ultimate decision making.

Tassman
11-13-2015, 05:35 PM
Well of course, since I believe that the rational immaterial spirit of the man is involved how could I ever demonstrate its influence on thoughts and desires? You are asking me to play by your materialistic rules.

Provide verifiable evidence that the human animal possesses a "rational immaterial spirit". If you cannot then you don't have an argument.

shunyadragon
11-13-2015, 07:26 PM
Well critique the science then shunya. There is no evidence or experiment that I am aware of that shows consciousness to play a role in the actual real time decision making. The interplay between consciousness and the subconscious, the effect the one has on the other, takes place prior to the actual subconscious processing of information and ultimate decision making.

It is not my critique of science that is the problem. Libet is the one who conducted the most research on the subject. Yes the subconscious played a role in the decision making process, but that is not all he concluded from the research. It your selective citing of the research that is the problem. Note the following:



Libet himself was a strong defender of free will, and he interpreted his own experiments as validating free will. He noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious "decision" after the readiness potential appeared.

Libet - 'Do we have free will?

I have taken an experimental approach to this question. Freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific electrical change in the brain (the 'readiness potential', RP) that begins 550 ms before the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350-400 ms after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional process is therefore initiated unconsciously. But the conscious function could still control the outcome; it can veto the act. Free will is therefore not excluded. These findings put constraints on views of how free will may operate; it would not initiate a voluntary act but it could control performance of the act. The findings also affect views of guilt and responsibility.

But the deeper question still remains: Are freely voluntary acts subject to macro-deterministic laws or can they appear without such constraints, non-determined by natural laws and 'truly free'? I shall present an experimentalist view about these fundamental philosophical opposites. . .

Potentially available to the conscious function is the possibility of stopping or vetoing the final progress of the volitional process, so that no actual muscle action ensues. Conscious-will could thus affect the outcome of the volitional process even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process, so that no act occurs.

The existence of a veto possibility is not in doubt. The subjects in our experiments at times reported that a conscious wish or urge to act appeared but that they suppressed or vetoed that. In the absence of the muscle's electrical signal when being activated, there was no trigger to initiate the computer 's recording of any RP that may have preceded the veto; thus, there were no recorded RPs with a vetoed intention to act. We were, however, able to show that subjects could veto an act planned for performance at a pre-arranged time. They were able to exert the veto within the interval of 100 to 200 msec. before the pre-set time to act (Libet et al., 1983b). A large RP preceded the veto, signifying that the subject was indeed preparing to act, even though the action was aborted by the subject...'

The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as 'bubbling up' in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing.

What I described before concerning compatibilism, and our will is an interaction between the conscious and the subconscious that determines our decision making process is actually what Libet and most other researchers concluded.


Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

JimL
11-13-2015, 07:52 PM
It is not my critique of science that is the problem. Libet is the one who conducted the most research on the subject. Yes the subconscious played a role in the decision making process, but that is not all he concluded from the research. It your selective citing of the research that is the problem. Note the following:



Libet himself was a strong defender of free will, and he interpreted his own experiments as validating free will. He noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious "decision" after the readiness potential appeared.

Libet - 'Do we have free will?

I have taken an experimental approach to this question. Freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific electrical change in the brain (the 'readiness potential', RP) that begins 550 ms before the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350-400 ms after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional process is therefore initiated unconsciously. But the conscious function could still control the outcome; it can veto the act. Free will is therefore not excluded. These findings put constraints on views of how free will may operate; it would not initiate a voluntary act but it could control performance of the act. The findings also affect views of guilt and responsibility.

But the deeper question still remains: Are freely voluntary acts subject to macro-deterministic laws or can they appear without such constraints, non-determined by natural laws and 'truly free'? I shall present an experimentalist view about these fundamental philosophical opposites. . .

Potentially available to the conscious function is the possibility of stopping or vetoing the final progress of the volitional process, so that no actual muscle action ensues. Conscious-will could thus affect the outcome of the volitional process even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process, so that no act occurs.

The existence of a veto possibility is not in doubt. The subjects in our experiments at times reported that a conscious wish or urge to act appeared but that they suppressed or vetoed that. In the absence of the muscle's electrical signal when being activated, there was no trigger to initiate the computer 's recording of any RP that may have preceded the veto; thus, there were no recorded RPs with a vetoed intention to act. We were, however, able to show that subjects could veto an act planned for performance at a pre-arranged time. They were able to exert the veto within the interval of 100 to 200 msec. before the pre-set time to act (Libet et al., 1983b). A large RP preceded the veto, signifying that the subject was indeed preparing to act, even though the action was aborted by the subject...'

The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as 'bubbling up' in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing.

What I described before concerning compatibilism, and our will is an interaction between the conscious and the subconscious that determines our decision making process is actually what Libet and most other researchers concluded.


Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.
Interesting. Not sure i buy it though. If one can consciously veto the unconscious decision to act, then why can't one consciously decide to act in the first place. After all, it is the same brain, and if consciousness can somehow veto the brains unconscious decision, then seer would need be correct and it would be a different agency than the brain itself that makes the final decision. Not sure Libets reasoning makes sense, and not sure most other researchers agree with his assessment either, but its worth a closer look. Thanks.

seer
11-14-2015, 03:38 AM
Already done that.

Shuny, you keep denying LFW based on "science" but neither you or I are materialists. Human beings have a rational soul, and that sould has an effect on the process. This is what I believe and what your own religion teaches.

http://www.bahai.org/beliefs/life-spirit/human-soul/


The Human Soul

The essential identity of every human being is a rational and immortal soul, which is “entirely out of the order of the physical creation.” Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”

It is through the exercise of the powers of the soul that human progress is achieved. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has said that the soul “can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.”

We are able to reflect divine attributes to the extent that we cleanse the mirrors of our hearts and minds through prayer, the study and application of the Sacred Scriptures, the acquisition of knowledge, efforts to improve our conduct and to overcome tests and difficulties, and service to humanity.

When death occurs in this world, the soul is separated from the body, and continues to progress in an eternal journey towards perfection.

seer
11-14-2015, 03:42 AM
Provide verifiable evidence that the human animal possesses a "rational immaterial spirit". If you cannot then you don't have an argument.

How could I prove something that is immaterial? Using what?

shunyadragon
11-14-2015, 04:28 AM
Interesting. Not sure i buy it though. If one can consciously veto the unconscious decision to act, then why can't one consciously decide to act in the first place. After all, it is the same brain, and if consciousness can somehow veto the brains unconscious decision, then seer would need be correct and it would be a different agency than the brain itself that makes the final decision. Not sure Libets reasoning makes sense, and not sure most other researchers agree with his assessment either, but its worth a closer look. Thanks.

This response may be a bit anecdotal, but here goes.

Based in the research the conscious self does not have complete veto power over the subconscious. It can veto sometimes, but the evidence indicates we do not have LFW.

There is also evidence that many decisions follow a fractal pattern within a range of possible choices like what shirt we chose to wear on a given day.

There is also heavy evidence that many decisions have a strong subconscious influence related to the culture and religion of the individual.

JimL
11-14-2015, 07:22 AM
This response may be a bit anecdotal, but here goes.

Based in the research the conscious self does not have complete veto power over the subconscious. It can veto sometimes, but the evidence indicates we do not have LFW.

There is also evidence that many decisions follow a fractal pattern within a range of possible choices like what shirt we chose to wear on a given day.

There is also heavy evidence that many decisions have a strong subconscious influence related to the culture and religion of the individual.
But then how would you define the conscious self as opposed to the unconscious self? This brings to mind Socrates assertion that he had an inner soul or function of some sort that stopped him from making the mistakes that he would otherwise have followed through with. To me, its just the brain, which is conflicted anyway, making a last minute adjustment, and perhaps doing so at a point where there is no more time left in which to veto it. I don't understand what people mean by combatibilism, i.e. that the will is free, but not quite free. The fact that there are multiple choices to be had in and of itself doesn't make the one ultimately chosen to be a freely chosen one. Where exactly does the freedom lay in the combatibilism theory?

seer
11-14-2015, 08:20 AM
But then how would you define the conscious self as opposed to the unconscious self? This brings to mind Socrates assertion that he had an inner soul or function of some sort that stopped him from making the mistakes that he would otherwise have followed through with. To me, its just the brain, which is conflicted anyway, making a last minute adjustment, and perhaps doing so at a point where there is no more time left in which to veto it. I don't understand what people mean by combatibilism, i.e. that the will is free, but not quite free. The fact that there are multiple choices to be had in and of itself doesn't make the one ultimately chosen to be a freely chosen one. Where exactly does the freedom lay in the combatibilism theory?

Remember Shuny's religion, like mine, teaches that we have a rational soul that influences to process.

shunyadragon
11-14-2015, 01:07 PM
Shuny, you keep denying LFW based on "science" but neither you or I are materialists. Human beings have a rational soul, and that sould has an effect on the process. This is what I believe and what your own religion teaches.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges that humans have a rational soul and some degree of Free Will, and yes we have an effect on the process. This does not translate into the necessity of LFW.

I have clearly acknowledged and shown references that there is evidence for a degree of Free Will, but not LFW.

seer
11-14-2015, 02:25 PM
The Baha'i Faith acknowledges that humans have a rational soul and some degree of Free Will, and yes we have an effect on the process. This does not translate into the necessity of LFW.

I have clearly acknowledged and shown references that there is evidence for a degree of Free Will, but not LFW.

Well how do you know that the will of the rational soul is not libertarian? You have been pointing to science to deny LFW, but the soul adds another component, so the best you can say is that it is an open question.

JimL
11-14-2015, 03:43 PM
Well how do you know that the will of the rational soul is not libertarian? You have been pointing to science to deny LFW, but the soul adds another component, so the best you can say is that it is an open question.
Which is why LFW makes no sense. If there were a rational soul with LFW then what use would a physical information processor be to it. Its redundant!

seer
11-14-2015, 04:34 PM
Which is why LFW makes no sense. If there were a rational soul with LFW then what use would a physical information processor be to it. Its redundant!


Look at it this way, the physical brain produces the immaterial thoughts, the soul or the "I" can help direct or work with the thoughts. The brain/thoughts are the clay and the soul is the potter. So both are needed.

Tassman
11-14-2015, 05:35 PM
How could I prove something that is immaterial? Using what?

Then you have no argument. You've already reached your conclusion based solely upon faith and intuition and thereby ruled yourself out of the discussion. The fact remains that in a demonstrably determined universe Libertarian Free-Will is logically incoherent, regardless of your delusional ideation.

Tassman
11-14-2015, 05:36 PM
Look at it this way, the physical brain produces the immaterial thoughts, the soul or the "I" can help direct or work with the thoughts. The brain/thoughts are the clay and the soul is the potter. So both are needed.

...except that there's not a shred of evidence to support this notion of yours. You've already acknowledged that you can't prove something that is immaterial. Great little fantasy world you live in seer. :lol:

shunyadragon
11-14-2015, 08:02 PM
Well how do you know that the will of the rational soul is not libertarian? You have been pointing to science to deny LFW, but the soul adds another component, so the best you can say is that it is an open question.

The scientific pretty much excludes the possibility of LFW. Yes, it is an open question as to the degree of Free Will we have.

JimL
11-15-2015, 03:36 AM
Look at it this way, the physical brain produces the immaterial thoughts, the soul or the "I" can help direct or work with the thoughts. The brain/thoughts are the clay and the soul is the potter. So both are needed.
But that is completely redundant and would be unnecessary for a thinking agency with LFW. In order for an immaterial soul to direct or work with immaterial thoughts produced by the physical brain, it would itself be in need of a thinking organism, or thought producer of its own, and having one of its own makes the former, the physical brain, redundant. You also have the problem of explaining exactly what you mean by immaterial thoughts, are they immaterial things that rise up and float about in immaterial space to be by some immaterial means observed by the immaterial soul.

seer
11-15-2015, 09:01 AM
The scientific pretty much excludes the possibility of LFW. Yes, it is an open question as to the degree of Free Will we have.


But science is not the last word Shuny, we have an immaterial soul, so the question of LFW is a completely open question.

seer
11-15-2015, 09:07 AM
But that is completely redundant and would be unnecessary for a thinking agency with LFW. In order for an immaterial soul to direct or work with immaterial thoughts produced by the physical brain, it would itself be in need of a thinking organism, or thought producer of its own, and having one of its own makes the former, the physical brain, redundant.

Well no Jim, it is not redundant. I would suggest that though the soul has the ability to be rational, it needs the actual thoughts to work with. That is the clay that the potter forms or directs. Both are needed to make the pot.


You also have the problem of explaining exactly what you mean by immaterial thoughts, are they immaterial things that rise up and float about in immaterial space to be by some immaterial means observed by the immaterial soul.

It is obvious that thoughts are immaterial - since no one can see, taste or touch them. How or where they exist I don't know, I just know they do exist.

shunyadragon
11-15-2015, 10:13 AM
But science is not the last word Shuny, we have an immaterial soul, so the question of LFW is a completely open question.

Yes, I 'believe' we have an immaterial soul, but we live in a material world, and no LFWis not a completely open question. You are grabbing at straws to justify your agenda.

seer
11-16-2015, 04:24 AM
Then you have no argument. You've already reached your conclusion based solely upon faith and intuition and thereby ruled yourself out of the discussion. The fact remains that in a demonstrably determined universe Libertarian Free-Will is logically incoherent, regardless of your delusional ideation.

No Tass, LFW is only a problem for the materialist. And I'm not a materialist nor is materialism logically justifiable.

seer
11-16-2015, 04:26 AM
Yes, I 'believe' we have an immaterial soul, but we live in a material world, and no LFWis not a completely open question. You are grabbing at straws to justify your agenda.

Nonsense, if the immaterial soul can effect the material world - like both our religions teach, then why isn't LFW a possible - be specific please.

shunyadragon
11-16-2015, 04:36 AM
Nonsense, if the immaterial soul can effect the material world - like both our religions teach, then why isn't LFW a possible - be specific please.

Yes, I believe the immaterial soul 'can effect' the material world.

Specifically; scientific research has clearly demonstrated that LFW does not exist.

Your religious agenda is anti-science. The Baha'i Faith endorses the harmony of science and religion.

seer
11-16-2015, 05:07 AM
Yes, I believe the immaterial soul 'can effect' the material world.

Then how do you know whether the rational soul has LFW or not?


Specifically; scientific research has clearly demonstrated that LFW does not exist.

But science has nothing to say about the rational soul Shuny.

The Thinker
11-16-2015, 08:07 AM
Well of course, since I believe that the rational immaterial spirit of the man is involved how could I ever demonstrate its influence on thoughts and desires? You are asking me to play by your materialistic rules.

I'm not asking you for scientific evidence for your belief in LFW, we've established that there isn't any. I'm asking you for a coherent a priori explanation of LFW, because it is technically incoherent. For example, outline a chronological order of events you think happen when one make a freely willed decision. Do freely willed beliefs have causes, yes or no? If so, what do you think (not know) is the cause? Until you can establish that LFW is even coherent, your view cannot even get off the ground.

The Thinker
11-16-2015, 08:08 AM
But science is not the last word Shuny, we have an immaterial soul, so the question of LFW is a completely open question.

The burden of proof is on you seer to demonstrate we have an immaterial soul. Simple declaring that we do does not establish it.

seer
11-16-2015, 08:13 AM
The burden of proof is on you seer to demonstrate we have an immaterial soul. Simple declaring that we do does not establish it.

Thinker, you are asking me to demonstrate something that can not be demonstrate scientifically, materially.

seer
11-16-2015, 08:18 AM
I'm not asking you for scientific evidence for your belief in LFW, we've established that there isn't any. I'm asking you for a coherent a priori explanation of LFW, because it is technically incoherent. For example, outline a chronological order of events you think happen when one make a freely willed decision. Do freely willed beliefs have causes, yes or no? If so, what do you think (not know) is the cause? Until you can establish that LFW is even coherent, your view cannot even get off the ground.

The answer mainly focuses on the fact that the soul is not in the deterministic stream. Once we jump out of the deterministic model, possibilities open up. That is as far as I'm going for now.

shunyadragon
11-16-2015, 08:55 AM
Then how do you know whether the rational soul has LFW or not?

The scientific evidence demonstrates the LFW is false.


But science has nothing to say about the rational soul Shuny.

Science is not attempting to demonstrate the existence of the soul. It is capable of demonstrating that LFW is false.

The Thinker
11-16-2015, 09:33 AM
Thinker, you are asking me to demonstrate something that can not be demonstrate scientifically, materially.

So how can you demonstrate it then? Demonstrate it anyway you can.

seer
11-16-2015, 09:34 AM
Science is not attempting to demonstrate the existence of the soul. It is capable of demonstrating that LFW is false.

Really how? How can science prove that LFW is false when it can not take into consideration the most important aspect of the human being - the rational soul?

The Thinker
11-16-2015, 09:37 AM
The answer mainly focuses on the fact that the soul is not in the deterministic stream. Once we jump out of the deterministic model, possibilities open up. That is as far as I'm going for now.

That doesn't demonstrate LFW. I can fully grant that souls exist and that still doesn't entail LFW. How does the soul choose the next thing it's going to think or do freely since you cannot have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought?

What is the difference between the mind, the will, and the soul? Explain.