No, you didn't. I mean, far from formally establishing anything, you've just asserted your position. "X is not compatible with determinism, x is not compatible with determinism, x is not compatible with determinism" doesn't represent a reasoning process. Try something that looks more like:

"Premise 1 - x
premise 2 - y
conclusion 3 - z"

etc.

What are you blathering about? Seriously, elaborate please. If possible also clarify why this matters to the discussion.

Ok madnak, how's this?

1. Morality is a system of value judgments about human actions as good, evil, or perhaps neutral.
2. Actions are only performed by agents.
3. Agents choose which action to take among alternatives.
4. Under hard determinism, all events are predetermined.
5. From 4, we can see that there are no alternative actions. Only one chain of events is possible. So when we "decide" to do action A instead of action B, we only have the illusion of choosing action A.
6. From 5 and 3, we can see that there are no agents because no choices among alternative actions are possible.
7. From 6 and 2, we can see that no actions are performed.
8. Finally, since no actions are performed, we cannot make value judgments about them. Therefore morality is meaningless under hard determinism.

This hinges on the technical definition of action which I'm sure you will take issue with. If you redefine morality to be merely an aesthetic preference for or against things that people do, obviously that is compatible with determinism but such a "morality" seems pretty pointless to talk about.

That assumption that it is possible determine the future.

While my intuition induces me to believe the past, present and future are immutable, I think determining the state of the universe at any time is both practically and logically beyond us.

Our best way of determining the future is to wait and see what happens, however even then we can only view a restricted and distorted projection.

As to free will, I think this is a completely separate biological issue. In due course biologists will determine the processes that generate our sensation of free will, and how it developed. The advantages belief in free will gives our society is I think clear, so I suspect we can already answer the why.

LOL, yeah, because wiki is the perfect source for information.

I explained that couterfactuals depend on possible world semantics. Possible world semantics are gone in a deterministic system. Therefore, counterfactuals presuppose free will (of some sort...at least, it presupposes not determinism).

DUCY?!

madnak has made this claim for some time now both here and on other threads. I've never seen his assertion challenged by anyone nor have I seen him support it with references. I find it hard to believe myself. I think if you examined people properly and interpreted the results properly you would find that nearly everyone has the sense that when they make a choice they do so freely according to their will, that they could have chosen differently had they so willed, and that they were free to have willed differently than they did. I don't think madnak's personal subjective report is very compelling for a number of reasons.


Furthermore, I think the psychological and social act of assigning blame to people for wrong actions is nearly universal. I think this follows from the universal instinct people have for wanting revenge. Assigning blame is a psychological means of getting revenge. If madnak is correct in his thinking that the blame game flows from concepts of free will, then the ubiquitousness of the blame game indicates a simliar ubiquitousness of free will concepts.


Does everybody here agree with madnak's assertion above?


PairTheBoard

When you say this you appear compatiblist.

But when you say this something is amiss. By your logic the agent is just a gear in the machine. However, the gear does not determine the outcome of the engine running.

It's not contradictory, but it's not correct either.

It probably is universal, but likely not for the reasons you stated. I think it has more to do with responsibility in the traditional sense. Nobody likes to have the finger pointed at them with the mess that they have to clean up. That's why people like having leaders; they're the ones responsible for the all of the crap that goes wrong.

There wouldn't be a "blame game" if it wasn't for free will and personal responsibility, so yeah, that much is correct.


No.

P1. Self-determination is a definitional requirement for Agency.
P2. Agency is a definitional requirement for morality.
P3. There is no self-determination in a deterministic system.

C1. Therefore, there is no Agency in a deterministic system.
C2. Therefore, there is no morality in a deterministic system.

there is no problem with the word "act" in determinism. It means to take part in a causal chain. This occurs, events unfold... even in a deterministic world. We can hope we act in such a way as to bring about better states of affairs. This hope is also part of the causal chain. We prefer to observe better states than worse states. Deliberation is ok in a deterministic world.

1 a : the act of deliberating b : a discussion and consideration by a group of persons (as a jury or legislature) of the reasons for and against a measure

even if deliberation is determined, it still occurs. It is perfectly compatible with determinism. We see it every day. We do not know the outcome, but the outcome is determined.

as for choose....I never use the word choose because it implies free will.

No, he's just saying that with nothing to back it up.

To act is to be ACTIVE. There is no active agent in determinism. This is where you can't use "act" as in "act so as to bring about". You change the meanings of the words "deliberate" and "act" in a deterministic system and you don't seem to realize that. The common meaning of the words requires an active agent. No such agent exists in your system.

i don't agree with madnak's claim about western cultures either. I think i've already laid out a reason people feel free on page 1.

lol

I have never used the word agent...that is a madnak thing. I've only talked of the observer watching events unfurl.

these events as we have labeled them "act" "deliberate" still take place in a deterministic system whether or not an agent is doing them. Yes the meaning changes if you remove the agent. But in the definition deliberation from m-w, I see no words that I would need to remove in order make it compatible with determinism. When I say act, I mean be a part of a causal chain. That is all.

A line of code is active in a program if it gets read. Much like we are active in a system if we unfurl as a part of a causal chain.

I've never said there is morality in a deterministic system. I have however said that it is useful to talk about even in a deterministic system. This is because the delusion is so prevalent. However, I've also started to lay the ground work for the new system in which everything is a status crime. I believe this delusion free system to be a better, more effectual system. I defy you to tell me why I'm wrong.

Sigh...the dictionary is no crutch to lean your argument upon. "Act" requires agency and an active agent. A rock does not, properly speaking, act upon the ground when it falls off a cliff. In physics terms, they bastardize the meaning of "act" in this way, but it is improper. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. Value requires an active agent and not merely the sort of "acts" of the rock. If you want to speak of things like values, then you DO need to remove your sense of "act" from your determinism. They are incompatible. Only the rock sense of "act" is compatible.

When you say "act so as to bring about an outcome" you cannot mean the active sense, since there is no active agent. But, no such sentence makes sense in a deterministic system if all you mean is the rock sense of "act". Deliberation is not the rock sense of act; deliberation requires an agent. A rock does not deliberate, only active agents do. Deliberation is not something that happens to an agent, it is something that the agent does.

You have destroyed the meaning of deliberation if you try to use it as you do in a deterministic system.

You're wrong because you're valuing. You can't value in determinism!

Here you are valuing one system as more "effectual" than another. But this has no meaning. All you can mean is that your body is making the utterance or that your brain is having these thoughts...it isn't something that YOU, as agent, can do. If you believe that one is more effectual, then there's nothing you can do about it to bring about one system rather than another. Either the system will come about, with no influence from anything YOU, as agent, do, or it will not for the same reasons.

The meaning of such a sentence is that you believe that it can influence the future: if we just realized x, then y would happen and y is better than the status quo.

But this is meaningless in determinism: nothing you do, as agent, will act so as to bring about one outcome rather than another. So, to 'prefer' one outcome to another is merely a state of the world whereby we draw an arbitrary circle around a cog and call it "you" but doing so doesn't add meaning to the system.

Agent causationists argue that it does: causation must flow THROUGH the agent and thereby something is added, even though they believe in the deterministic system. Their position is just as bad as yours: the agent doesn't add anything.

Meaning requires agency. Value requires agency. You can't mix meaning or value into a deterministic system, but you (harddeterminism) continue to do so and you are wrong to do so.

P1. Agency is a requirement for Value.
P2. There is no Agency in a deterministic system.

C1. Therefore, there is no Value in a deterministic system.

P3 is debatable. It actually is possible to have self-determination in the deterministic system, but it would be confined by it and not independent of it. Agency is still internal and contingent on the system. The "illusion" is that it isn't.

With the evolution of specialized organs such as eyes ears nose mouth skin has come the ability to interpret the world around you. A rock has none of these, but in essence the use of these things by an organism is acting as the rock acts. With the evolution of the brain and memory/imagination/self-awareness came the ability to interpret past events project into an unknown future and imagine other states of affairs. This is the deliberative process, and while it is not exactly like the rock acting upon the ground...it is still completely determined and acts (in the rock sense) within a causal chain. I'm sorry if I equivocated on the word act, but I assure you I've never meant it to be anything agent-like. Value statements do occur within the system, and have value (survival value not real value) to the organism making them. Outside of this organism yes the value statements are meaningless, existence IS meaningless...to think otherwise is an extraordinary claim that requires a radical leap. One can still observe oneself as part of a causal chain, make value statements (again not real value, but value to the organism) and act (as a rock acts not as an agent acts) as a part of a causal chain.

Desire, preferable, act, etc. all have meaning within a deterministic universe. This meaning is locked up within the construct of the human condition, and outside of this means nothing...but so what...The human condition is to apply value to a valueless world in order to better survive. That seems reasonable to me.

I don't believe I've ever said act as "to bring about the outcome". I've always meant to act "to be a part of a causal chain".

I'm not entirely sure what I've just done, but if I've separated "value" from agency I'm perfectly okay with it.

good discussion though...your attention to detail wrt semantics is astounding!

No, I doubt anyone does.

i think there are two arguments going on here... the argument about what goes on inside the human condition, and what goes on outside.

you seem hell bent on saying value cannot exist in a deterministic world...it can...so long as it is seated inside the human condition...providing "value" not VALUE! Value statements have always been seated here, they have no real VALUE, nothing does. Just as "Beauty" or "desirable" has no meaning outside the human condition. They are not in contradiction with a deterministic universe, because they are fabrications of the human mind that unfolded in time due to evolution. Still no agents, still no choice. One can observe their role in the causal chain however, jack chose jill because she was more beautiful, or because he enjoyed talking to her. These are value statements inside the human condition that are compatible with determinism. Yes meaningless. Yes determined. Yes acting like complicated rocks.

One can see the actions (rock actions not agent actions) of MLK Jr. bringing about a more desirable state of affairs. One can suspect what might have happened had he not been born (a moot practice, since he was born). One can suspect what might happen in the future if everyone pretended he was never born...and thus act as a rock acts like this (if you find racism preferable[within the human condition]) or not like this (if you prefer equality). This is not a moot practice, since the future is unknown (though predetermined with fuzzy bits for quantum mechanics).

Slightly off topic, but a great link to get you started on the road to thinking about the problems with choice. Just think how much simpler all of this would be in a non-agent world.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-causal/