TSAAFW

[LOGICZOMBIE]

​

yes,

our will is defined by desire

the only function of your will is to pursue desire

desire is constructed completely from our biology and experience

therefore

it is impossible for the will to be free from desire

and that makes it impossible for any act of will

to be free from the past


and even if you inject pure randomness into the mix

randomness is not and cannot be "your will"

and this very clearly means

any consequence of injected randomness

could never be credited to "your will"


so, indeterminism and unpredictability, even fundamental unpredictabilitycan never render freewill remotely plausible
​

Forum topics tagged #tsaafw

Recent and the most active #tsaafw forum topics

www.debateart.com

 

[scorpiomover]

our will is defined by desire

​

the only function of your will is to pursue desire​

​

desire is constructed completely from our biology and experience​

So you're just a monkey that is trying to impregnate as many women as possible?

You do realise that humans have been selected over hundreds of millions of generations to breed as much as possible, because those that didn't breed, did not pass on their genes, and only those that had offspring, passed on their genes? So only those with genes that meant they were more likely to reproduce, got passed on? So all of your genes and all of your biology is focussed on solely making as many babies as possible?

Why are you on the internet when you could be chasing women to impregnate and reproduce your genes?

therefore​

​

it is impossible for the will to be free from desire​

​

and that makes it impossible for any act of will​

​

to be free from the past​

Except that you're not in the past. All your current desires are from the present, because the past is gone. All you have are memories in the present about what you believe happened in the past. You can't even be sure that the past was anything like what you recall.

and even if you inject pure randomness into the mix​

​

randomness is not and cannot be "your will"​

​

and this very clearly means​

​

any consequence of injected randomness​

​

could never be credited to "your will"​

Randomness is not "your will". But selecting people randomly, is randomness.

So it isn't random that clearly 50% of people voted Republican in 2020. But you can't know whether the next person to walk into a polling station is a Democrat or a Republican. So their individual choice is "their will".

so, indeterminism and unpredictability, even fundamental unpredictabilitycan never render freewill remotely plausible​

Quite the opposite, dear fellow.

In an indeterminate world, you can't determine what someone's free will would choose. So they have often free will to decide their choice, excepting for those times in their lives when G-d decides to take away their choice at a particular moment and force them to do something. But then, those moments are not counted as their free choice. It's the rest, that is counted as their free choice.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Except that you're not in the past.

you can roughly anticipate the future

based only on your memories of the past

even one half second in the past

the present is ephemeral

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Randomness is not "your will". But selecting people randomly, is randomness.

So it isn't random that clearly 50% of people voted Republican in 2020. But you can't know whether the next person to walk into a polling station is a Democrat or a Republican. So their individual choice is "their will".

voting (or not voting) is also based on a combination of your biology and accumulated experience

voting is a deliberate act of will

and not random

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

In an indeterminate world, you can't determine what someone's free will would choose.

i can't predict exactly when a sorting machine will make an error

but that does not mean that sorting machines have freewill

 

[Old Things]

@scorpiomover makes an excellent point.

If we are simply run by our biology, then we should all aspire to get as much pleasure out of this life as possible. Meaning, and as a consequence of that, morality, serves no purpose. Thankfully, people do not actually live this way.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If we are simply run by our biology

Our morality is our biology.
Every cohesive group of more developed mammals needs code of conduct, to function effectively.
We humans use language to cooperate on very high level.
That leads to morals.
Without morals there is no humans, and therefore no human walked this Earth without morals.
We in the modern world just consider our morals superior to say savage cannibals of some jungle in Papua New Guinea.
However some jungle boy is probably going to have vastly more superior morals to wolfs or dogs or monkeys.

However not all people want to play fair or play it safe or morally right.
This is because circumventing morals is strategy for survival.
Morality has evolved due to efficiency.
Its vastly more profitable for humans to be moral than not.
We could almost say that morality is easy way out.

There is a man who made this abundantly clear, by writing the book Prince, where he clearly states that to be good is weakness.
..warning good leaders to not be so good lest they be subject to immoral men who will use their goodness for their own advantage.

Id say most of the day most of my life I have no need to be immoral.
In fact being immoral would be terrible for me, it be boring, unrewarding, and would be full of potential risks. Not because of prison or because my parents would spank me, not out of feelings of regret or shame or guilt, but simply because life is so much easier being moral.

 

[Old Things]

That leads to morals.

That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. We could have evolved like a preying mantis that eats it's spouce. But we don't do that and think anyone who does has done a great evil. So what your argument amounts to is that it is necessary for us to have evolved to use language that dictates our morality. The problem is that things are still wrong even though some people are perfectly fine with doing what is evil.

 

[Black Rose]

The brain is biological and where intelligence is.

Intelligence is what we use to be moral or immoral.

Nothing outside that but the agents that teach us.

Meaning a connection between inside and outside.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. We could have evolved like a preying mantis that eats it's spouce. But we don't do that and think anyone who does has done a great evil. So what your argument amounts to is that it is necessary for us to have evolved to use language that dictates our morality. The problem is that things are still wrong even though some people are perfectly fine with doing what is evil.

I know its hard to prove something like this, but honestly we are humans, which means we engage in multiple complex behaviors in large groups.
Most of morals just amounts to agreeing on general rules of games, so everyone can be happy and get by.
No different from say playing poker or monopoly, but on much grander scale.
Overtime people realized some repeating patterns, ergo greed, jealousy, murder, anger, impatience, and so on and so on..... and then we grew wise enough to counter balance those with virtues.
Christianity or Abrahamic religions are virtuous religions.
Ergo rules of game, some sort of baseline, and then virtues that multiply the effect of morality, so people get greater bang for buck by being good people.
More people are moral, the more we as group get out of the game.
But less people try being moral the more unhappy campers in group will be as there is less to go around.
That is why being lazy is frowned upon mostly. Because lazy means less food, less food means war and theft etc.

 

[Old Things]

Most of morals just amounts to agreeing on general rules of games, so everyone can be happy and get by.

That is not morality. That is mob rule.

 

[Black Rose]

morality is about knowing right and wrong and doing it

what that involves is or may be about the treatment of others and things

 

[ZenRaiden]

That is not morality. That is mob rule.

You are right.

Morality is agreeing on rules of the game that were given to us, by supreme being, and are kept in check by not so supreme beings priests, who know alot about the supreme being.

 

[Old Things]

That is not morality. That is mob rule.

You are right.

Morality is agreeing on rules of the game that were given to us, by supreme being, and are kept in check by not so supreme beings priests, who know alot about the supreme being.

I would never call morality a "game." A game is something people win or lose which benefits or losses them. Morality does not function that way. It is more moral to forgive a person than to hold a grudge. But you win nothing by not getting revenge.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I would never call morality a "game." A game is something people win or lose which benefits or losses them. Morality does not function that way. It is more moral to forgive a person than to hold a grudge. But you win nothing by not getting revenge.

Morality is group victory.

 

[birdsnestfern]

And, there is Objective Morality also.

Morality vs. Ethics​

Morality and ethics can be related and influence each other, but the two are different. In its simplest form, morals are what you believe, and ethics are what you do.

Objective Morality is here:
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-objective-morality-5525515

Some animals have a primitive sense of morality, such as chimpanzees punishing other chimps for violating rules of the social order and animals demonstrating empathetic behaviors towards others such as rhesus monkeys refusing to dispense electric shocks to fellow monkeys, even if they would get food as a reward in doing so.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

And, there is Objective Morality also.

instinctive morality is not objective

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Objective Morality is here:

This is literally the crux of the disagreement. "Objectively better, IF better means navigating away from the worst possible misery for everyone [...]." Alex' point seems to be that the universe itself has no prescription to do what increases wellbeing. Sam's point seems to be that, if we agree that wellbeing is better than suffering and use that as a foundation for ethics, "right" behaviour is rather determined. The fundamental question is whether one accepts that suffering should be avoided and wellbeing enhanced.

free food clothing and shelter for every human and every animal

 

[birdsnestfern]

instinctive morality is not objective

I agree mostly. Instinctively, a rabbit will know if it can be still and let someone pick it up, or if it needs to run. Its a feeling transmitted across species. Sometimes heart and thought are aligned under an objective.

“In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you”

Objective Morality is here:

This is literally the crux of the disagreement. "Objectively better, IF better means navigating away from the worst possible misery for everyone [...]." Alex' point seems to be that the universe itself has no prescription to do what increases wellbeing. Sam's point seems to be that, if we agree that wellbeing is better than suffering and use that as a foundation for ethics, "right" behaviour is rather determined. The fundamental question is whether one accepts that suffering should be avoided and wellbeing enhanced.

free food clothing and shelter for every human and every animal. .

One of those choices will show a more advanced species. A little girl could walk right up to a wild rabbit and it would let her pick it up, versus, it would know in its bones if a person was hunting it and would react physically by running. Creatures can pick up signals from each other to feel if something does not increase wellness.

 

[sushi]

i dont think one has much control of what happens in the universe on a lesser extent on earth.

we mostly react to circumstances.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Sometimes heart and thought are aligned under an objective.

the "objective" is to avoid pain and or death and pursue pleasure and or fulfillment

 

[Black Rose]

Sometimes heart and thought are aligned under an objective.

the "objective" is to avoid pain and or death and pursue pleasure and or fulfillment

I would add that to be happy one needs to be more than base desires.

Many people question what they want out of life.

This is seen in midlife crises where a person asks if what they are doing truly matters.

Is working at Walmart 8 hours a day something I want to do for the rest of my life?

And what if I wanted to explore something new?

What am I supposed to be?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What am I supposed to be?

 

[Black Rose]

What am I supposed to be?

what does that have to do with the midlife crisis?

existentialists have existed way before consumerism

 

[Black Rose]

It feels like I wasted my life partially, not because of the foods I ate but because I did not go to school or make the right decisions about who to hang out with. I did not really know anything much as a young adult. I did not know what I wanted or what to do. All I did mostly was think. I had the energy to waste time then like all young people do but now that I am older I do not have that energy. I do not have any skills other than thinking and economically that does not make money. It would bother me to sit inside all day doing nothing like the last 15 years. That would not bring any meaning to my life. I am just curious about what it is I will do in the next ten years.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

what does that have to do with the midlife crisis?

existentialists have existed way before consumerism

a sense of meaningfulness is generated by activities that trigger serotonin release

the vid isn't specifically about food

it's about dopamine addiction

and how to generate more serotonin

 

[Black Rose]

what does that have to do with the midlife crisis?

existentialists have existed way before consumerism

a sense of meaningfulness is generated by activities that trigger serotonin release

the vid isn't specifically about food

it's about dopamine addiction

and how to generate more serotonin

if you do not know what to do with your life

how do you select those activities that generate serotonin?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I would add that to be happy one needs to be more than base desires.

Maybe true, to some degree, but to be happy with the base is art in and of it self.
How many people never make it to the base, or worse die young.
Or how many people aim for the stars and they do hit them, and their life ends unhappy and is unhappy.
Glittering prizes all that is.

 

[Black Rose]

to be happy with the base is art in and of it self.

That might require a person to never think perhaps.

Once a person starts thinking that is when they stop doing.

Doing is what happens to block thinking.

Because thinking requires you to not know what to do for some period of time.

I can for instance be solving problems all the time until I cannot solve one.

I can be creating stuff all the time until I do not know what to make.

Then I am no longer using my body and mind and it becomes something that is empty.

When it is natural for a person to use the body to ignore the mind.

And it is natural to ignore the body with the mind.

Both require doing.

But then both stop doing and this is thinking deep and hard.

The mind/body needs to decide what the mind/body will do for the first time.

Instead of just having it do something that was predecided by the situation at hand.

 

[Old Things]

I would never call morality a "game." A game is something people win or lose which benefits or losses them. Morality does not function that way. It is more moral to forgive a person than to hold a grudge. But you win nothing by not getting revenge.

Morality is group victory.

That might be ethics, but not morality. Morality is something that is inherently right or wrong disregarding whether everyone or no one thinks so.

But this seems to be a big difference in personality between us. You are much more interested in societal norms because you have Fe (inferior function) and I am much more personal values driven (Fi).

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

how do you select those activities that generate serotonin?

they are described in the lecture

The 4Cs | Robert Lustig Website

robertlustig.com

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Morality is something that is inherently right or wrong disregarding whether everyone or no one thinks so.

how can we determine if current international copyright law is moral or immoral ?