34 of 168
34
The greatest proof of free will…
Posted: 01 April 2011 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 496 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 05:05 AM

Then what was the point in you responding to my original criticism with this?:

This was your original criticism:

Mingy Jongo - 24 March 2011 02:44 PM

I still think that the question, “does one have free will?” is irrelevant, as knowledge of the answer to it can not be used to make predictions, which I consider to be the definition of a “useful” question (though that is another topic entirely);

Obviously there are people who think we must change our judicial practice based on the idea that we are not free. Is that irrelevant?

Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 05:05 AM

Also, I really would like to see a response to this:
How do you know that it is moral to praise or punish in the first place; why retributive justice over restorative justice?

If you resist a dictatorial regime, would you like to be seen as ill, and then put into a psychiatric clinic, where your neural wiring is changed? Who defines what is crime? Are socialist ideas symptoms of illness? Court cases, where arguments are given if a crime is done, is an essence of modern society. We already accept that some people are not liable for their deeds because they are psychiatric patients. But where do we make the distinction between liability and unliability if we see everybody just as determined as everybody else?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 497 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2010-12-03
GdB - 01 April 2011 05:54 AM
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 05:05 AM

Then what was the point in you responding to my original criticism with this?:

This was your original criticism:

Mingy Jongo - 24 March 2011 02:44 PM

I still think that the question, “does one have free will?” is irrelevant, as knowledge of the answer to it can not be used to make predictions, which I consider to be the definition of a “useful” question (though that is another topic entirely);

Obviously there are people who think we must change our judicial practice based on the idea that we are not free. Is that irrelevant?

Just because they believe that it is relevant does not make it so in actuality; I already showed that their reasoning is invalid.

GdB - 01 April 2011 05:54 AM
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 05:05 AM

Also, I really would like to see a response to this:
How do you know that it is moral to praise or punish in the first place; why retributive justice over restorative justice?

If you resist a dictatorial regime, would you like to be seen as ill, and then put into a psychiatric clinic, where your neural wiring is changed?


No.

GdB - 01 April 2011 05:54 AM

Who defines what is crime?

Even if there exists an objective definition of crime, it is unknowable.  So I would say one’s surrounding society comes up with it.

GdB - 01 April 2011 05:54 AM

Are socialist ideas symptoms of illness?

Not in my opinion.

GdB - 01 April 2011 05:54 AM

Court cases, where arguments are given if a crime is done, is an essence of modern society. We already accept that some people are not liable for their deeds because they are psychiatric patients. But where do we make the distinction between liability and unliability if we see everybody just as determined as everybody else?

We cannot, but why do we need to?

My question is still unanswered.  I can generalize it even further: How does one know what, if anything, is moral?

[ Edited: 01 April 2011 07:30 AM by Mingy Jongo ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 498 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 07:24 AM

How does one know what, if anything, is moral?

Morality is a judgment predicated on values. The question seems to conflate moral reasoning with scientific analysis of physical objects. So fundamentally, the question is flawed.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 499 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
GdB - 01 April 2011 04:56 AM
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 04:46 AM

. . .I’m kind of speechless at the moment, but let me try to get this across one more time.  There is a blatant contradiction in the following statement; I have bolded the key words to help you find it:

If there is no morality, then we should change society.

You must address your speechlessness to the neurologists who argue like that, not to me. It is a blatant contradiction.

I was going to ask if you saw that as a problem, but apparently you do.

I’m rather happy that people are individuals that all don’t think alike and have different values.
I kind of like the freedom to decide my own morality, certainly, as caused by my own past experiences.

A universal morality sounds, even if possible, really, really boring.

However if there is no morality then a person is free to act in whatever why necessary to get what they want out of the world.
Truth is though that this seems to be the way that people who have power actually act. It’s only those that don’t have such power that complain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 500 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 07:24 AM

My question is still unanswered.  I can generalize it even further: How does one know what, if anything, is moral?

I suspect morality is culturally forced upon you because no one trusts an individual without morals.

The group, because of the need to work together decides what is acceptable behavior. However it also becomes forced, implanted in the children so they will be found acceptable to the group. One doesn’t want their kids to be outcast.

Morality is likely an artificial governor of human behavior. The morality of successful groups, those that survive gets passed on culturally IMO.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 501 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 07:24 AM

Just because they believe that it is relevant does not make it so in actuality; I already showed that their reasoning is invalid.

That is the relevance: give the arguments to convince them, or the politicians that decide on ‘scientific’ grounds. Otherwise you might be the next to get neurons newly wired.

Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 07:24 AM
GdB - 01 April 2011 05:54 AM

Court cases, where arguments are given if a crime is done, is an essence of modern society. We already accept that some people are not liable for their deeds because they are psychiatric patients. But where do we make the distinction between liability and unliability if we see everybody just as determined as everybody else?

We cannot, but why do we need to?

My question is still unanswered.  I can generalize it even further: How does one know what, if anything, is moral?

Now it is my turn to be flabbergasted. You think moral discussions are of no relevance? For the rest, PLaClair gave already a short, but perfect answer.

And Gnos, morality must not be universal to be relevant. Moral discussions are relevant when people bear the consequences of the actions, and with that on the values they have, are based.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 502 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
PLaClair - 01 April 2011 08:17 AM
Mingy Jongo - 01 April 2011 07:24 AM

How does one know what, if anything, is moral?

Morality is a judgment predicated on values. The question seems to conflate moral reasoning with scientific analysis of physical objects. So fundamentally, the question is flawed.

Loyalty is a good virtue yes?
Just figure out how to program into people that disloyalty to whomever is in charge is immoral. Something’s got to replace religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 503 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
GdB - 01 April 2011 10:48 AM

And Gnos, morality must not be universal to be relevant. Moral discussions are relevant when people bear the consequences of the actions, and with that on the values they have, are based.

I’m feeling a bit sarcastic today.  cool grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 504 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07

Ok, morality…

I care about people. I enjoy people. I like to see people express their own idealism. To prosper and seek what makes them happy.

However, people are easily coerced and manipulated. If I didn’t care about others, that would be a problem. Obviously there are enough people in the world who don’t care about others but also realize how easily people can be manipulated.

It is very difficult to tell the difference between those who care and those who don’t in many cases.

Otherwise I don’t care what people think of me, or how they pass judgment on my morals. If I didn’t like people so much it would be very easy to use people to get what I want. So I think the important thing is to get people to like each other. Then morality kind of takes care of itself.

Spirituality somehow gets people to accept each other. To be less judgmental. Certainly to be less selfish.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 505 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 01 April 2011 12:31 AM
Gnostikosis - 31 March 2011 10:07 AM

Saying circumstance might cause actual reality to mimic this scenario doesn’t make the scenario any less fictional. It will always be a fictional switch, a fictional bomb and a fictional GdB. Cheating would only be in calling any of it non-fictional.

Why does Stephen dos not understand this?

There are two problems.

1) is just water tight.

It makes no difference fictional or real, you are claiming the fiction could be actual.

But you don’t have a way that it could.

This is so mind numbingly obvious that it is frustrating to point that out over and over.

But there we go, perhaps you are determined never to get it.

The fact that Gnostikosis has entertained this rubbish is a shame.

the second problem seems to me less certain.

The problem seems to be that if counterfactual situations are fictional then influence/cause/effect are also fictional.

So looking when you cross the road doesn’t really make one thing happen rather than another and so why bother.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 506 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 01 April 2011 01:50 AM
StephenLawrence - 01 April 2011 12:16 AM

The problem is that in your logical system all counterfactuals are false counterfactuals.

That is because.

So 3a (the only full blown counterfactual) is false because it is in the past tense?

Tense is irrelevant.

I told you why it’s false in your system GdB.

It’s because:

1) You believe that in order to be true it needs to be possible.

2) But in your system you have no way that it could be actual

So in your system it is impossible and so it is also false as a consequence.

Of course the way to fix this is to allow for the counterfactual situation to arise as a result of different initial circumstances.

But you won’t bite the bullet.

Edit: And you won’t bite the bullet because you don’t want your actions depending upon the way the big bang banged, because oops there goes your free will.

Stephen

[ Edited: 01 April 2011 12:45 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 507 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Gnostikosis - 01 April 2011 10:52 AM

Something’s got to replace religion.

I hope that something will replace the religions that are dominant now. I would be delighted to see a new religion, grounded in science, reason and a universal ethic of love and generous service.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 508 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Gnostikosis - 01 April 2011 11:20 AM

Ok, morality…

I care about people. I enjoy people. I like to see people express their own idealism. To prosper and seek what makes them happy.

Seems you are an inherently moral person. IMO, you would be regardless of your spirituality or religion.

However, people are easily coerced and manipulated. If I didn’t care about others, that would be a problem. Obviously there are enough people in the world who don’t care about others but also realize how easily people can be manipulated.

It is very difficult to tell the difference between those who care and those who don’t in many cases.

Indeed, and many of the manipulators have been in positions of spiritual authority within a religion.

Otherwise I don’t care what people think of me, or how they pass judgment on my morals. If I didn’t like people so much it would be very easy to use people to get what I want. So I think the important thing is to get people to like each other. Then morality kind of takes care of itself.

I agree that “love thy neighbor…...” is a basic moral code for co-existence.

Spirituality somehow gets people to accept each other. To be less judgmental. Certainly to be less selfish.

Unfortunately, this acceptance and lower standards of judgement applies only to people within the specific spiritual community they belong to. Spirituality and especially religion have a history of hostility and judgemental condemnation (and war) against the “Infidel, Atheist, or simply a different religion.

Thus, while I agree in principle with your vision of cooperation, I am afraid that spirituality or religion do not contribute to moral behavior any more than any person of “good will”, be they secular or spiritual.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 509 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
PLaClair - 01 April 2011 01:48 PM
Gnostikosis - 01 April 2011 10:52 AM

Something’s got to replace religion.

I hope that something will replace the religions that are dominant now. I would be delighted to see a new religion, grounded in science, reason and a universal ethic of love and generous service.

With emphasis on the “personal emotional rewards” such a moral commitment brings to the practitioner, as well as the recipient.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2011 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 510 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 01 April 2011 02:03 PM

Seems you are an inherently moral person. IMO, you would be regardless of your spirituality or religion.

I doubt it’s inherent but still I have to wonder about it. What happen to make me this way.
A couple of Dodger fans beat up beat up a Giants fan to a critical condition which put him in a hospital.
Really? I mean over a baseball game? 

Indeed, and many of the manipulators have been in positions of spiritual authority within a religion.

Many get into positions of authority period. Religion is a useful tool in manipulating people. It’s not a necessary one.

I agree that “love thy neighbor…...” is a basic moral code for co-existence.

Yes, but that is me. I don’t need it as a moral code. It’s just who I am.

Unfortunately, this acceptance and lower standards of judgement applies only to people within the specific spiritual community they belong to. Spirituality and especially religion have a history of hostility and judgemental condemnation (and war) against the “Infidel, Atheist, or simply a different religion.

Religion has a problem with a need for “true believers”. Any ideology where there is a need for true believers, whether religious or otherwise is probably best to avoid.

Thus, while I agree in principle with your vision of cooperation, I am afraid that spirituality or religion do not contribute to moral behavior any more than any person of “good will”, be they secular or spiritual.

No, I am how I am and can’t really tell you why. Spiritual ideas just helped me explore that in different ways. Of course another individual would get something completely different out of it.

So as a neurologist might say, it has nothing to do with religion. It’s just a matter of how a person’s brain happens to be wired.

Profile
 
 
   
34 of 168
34