There is no Hope without Jesus

[Kurieuo]

Yes, Natural Law.

And argument from intuition.

All Harris and those who share his same inclinations for determinism provide is really a standard physicalist accounting of the way in which it must be. Whether or not such is true, it is just assumed we are physically determined, that our decision making is part of a mechanistic process. Since we're merely a product of such, we don't have any real freedom in choosing A, B or even simply not A.

Consciousness is far from understood. Science has done little to explain it, and many on both sides believe it is because it is qualitatively different from the physical order. What those like Harris who are pure phsysicalists show, is where the logical outcome of their physical worldview ends up. In total rejection of what we all intuitively believe is true -Yet, such a conclusion, that we have no real freedom to do otherwise and therefore aren't really reponsible for our decisions or actions is far from proven. It hasn't even been proven a tittle, nor can we get much at what creates and is responsible for consciousness - where the correlation truly is that we can tinker with it.

So then, I see no reason to reject my intuition, nor why others should, simply because we wish to stick to a purely physical worldview. There is no reason to reject my intuition that justice is real. Reject my intution that fairness is real. Reject my intuition that we are responsible for our actions, and indeed can shape our own lives. Reject my intion that love really does exist rather than merely being an illusion generated by physical effects.

Indeed, I consider it something so wildly stupid to believe that we aren't really responsible. If I must believe in determinism under physicalism/materialism, then such is a smoking gun for me that it is wrong.

[PaulSacramento]

And yet, physics refutes Harris and others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I

[Nils]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I think you need to revisit your computer analogy.
Do you mean AI ?
Computers have no free will because they are PROGRAMMED not to, or better yet, we don't know how to program that into them, yet.
AI is a different matter, hence the issues so many have with AI.

I am talking about computers and AI runs on computers so what is the difference?
You think that computers may have free will. How do you define that kind of free will?

Nils

[Nils]

So much to comment, I haven't got time enough, but I try.
Just a short one. now. Kurieuo, you write " Indeed, I consider it something so wildly stupid to believe that we are really responsible, it is for me a smoking gun which tells me physicalism/materialism is wrong.".
This sentence is unclear to me. Is a "not" missing?

Nils

[Kurieuo]

So much to comment, I haven't got time enough, but I try.
Just a short one. now. Kurieuo, you write " Indeed, I consider it something so wildly stupid to believe that we are really responsible, it is for me a smoking gun which tells me physicalism/materialism is wrong.".
This sentence is unclear to me. Is a "not" missing?

Nils

Yes, I tend to accidentally sometimes leave out the "not". I've corrected my final paragraph. Thanks.

[Nils]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

Ken,
Are not computers making decisions? I don't understand what you mean. The computers that will control the self-driving cars, for instance, they have to make decisions all the time.

What does the example with the two brothers show more than they are different? They have differnet genes for example. Then you say that we can choose, "no matter our heredity or environment". If you include some randomness, it seems that you refer to some forth factor not included in the three I mention here. What is this?

If you believe in some spiritual entity that entity also had to be created, if not by heredity or environment, by some other external entity, perhaps God. So in that case there is a forth factor, but that factor is also external to the person so still the person is completely dependent on external factors and not originally dependent on itself. Then there is no room for a true responsibility.

This view has been advanced by the philosopher Galen Strawsson 1986, see Wikipedia, and I have never seen any good contra argument. Also, it is according with my intuition that I have had since I was fifteen (if intuition counts).

Nils

[Kenny]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

Ken,
Are not computers making decisions?

No; computers only do what they are programmed to do. They are incapable of independent thought.

I don't understand what you mean. The computers that will control the self-driving cars, for instance, they have to make decisions all the time.

The computers on self-driving cars are programmed to react to the sensors around the car. They do not decide to react to the sensors, they have no choice; they can only do what they have been programmed to do by an outside source (programmer)
People are different; though our decisions may be influenced by circumstance, experience, or outside sources, they are not determined by them.

What does the example with the two brothers show more than they are different? They have differnet genes for example. Then you say that we can choose, "no matter our heredity or environment". If you include some randomness, it seems that you refer to some forth factor not included in the three I mention here. What is this?

Free will. The ability to conjure independent thought; and act on them.

[Nils]

In short:
Your subjective moralistic view works because you are raised in a society that has laws that are based on an objective moralistic view.

With “that my view works” I mean that it is a good morality for a society. Do you agree? Then it seems impossible that the functioning of my view is related to our current society. What do you mean`?

You can afford to be subjective because there are Laws in place and you were raised to act knowing that "sought and should" do exist.

I don’t understand. I am not “subjective”. I think that the base for morality is subjective. That’s different.

You can believe that you have no choice in your decisions and that we shouldn't punish people that choose to do bad things because it isn't their choice, because you are raised in a society that protects you from that natural consequences of what would come out of that view.

You seem to assume that some horrifying consequence would come out of my view. Please explain. My view, even if totally accepted, would result only in small changes in the criminal systems in at least Norway and Sweden (I don't know the criminal systems of the other Nordic countries). Regarding Norway read about Anders Behring Breivik on Wikipedia.

You can believe that responsibility is not related to freedom of choice, though you can't logically explain why ( neither can Sam Harris by the way) people should be held accountable for actions that they have no choice in making, and you cna believe that because you live and were raised in a society that actually believes that people DO CHOOSE and ARE held accountable and we have Laws and rules BECAUSE of it.
The very laws that allow you to have a safe life and have human rights.

What do you mean by a logical explanation, which criteria are do you use? Is there any logical explanation of why there are rules in chess or hockey? The reason is pragmatic, you need rules to be able to play chess or hockey. The same with societies.

Nils
.

[Nils]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

Ken,
Are not computers making decisions?

No; computers only do what they are programmed to do. They are incapable of independent thought.

I don't understand what you mean. The computers that will control the self-driving cars, for instance, they have to make decisions all the time.

The computers on self-driving cars are programmed to react to the sensors around the car. They do not decide to react to the sensors, they have no choice; they can only do what they have been programmed to do by an outside source (programmer)
People are different; though our decisions may be influenced by circumstance, experience, or outside sources, they are not determined by them.

Computers do not only react on sensors, they also relate to their inner states, just as person do. Do you have another definition of “decide” than the standard? Se for example https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decide
“decided; deciding
transitive verb
1 a : to make a final choice or judgment about
• decide what to do
• couldn't decide whether to take the job or not
b : to select as a course of action —used with an infinitive
• decided to go
c : to infer on the basis of evidence : conclude
• They decided that he was right.
2 : to bring to a definitive end
• one blow decided the fight
3 : to induce to come to a choice
• her pleas decided him to help
•
intransitive verb
: to make a choice or judgment
• decide on where to go”

This definition applies to computers as well as persons ( even if the examples are related to humans)

What does the example with the two brothers show more than they are different? They have differnet genes for example. Then you say that we can choose, "no matter our heredity or environment". If you include some randomness, it seems that you refer to some forth factor not included in the three I mention here. What is this?

Free will. The ability to conjure independent thought; and act on them.

What is “independent” thought? Independent of what? In heredity and environment is usually included everything that follows internally from the environment for instance you inner states, desires, beliefs, preferences, views, decisions. Environment is everything you have experienced and all external forces including God (if you believe in God) that have acted upon you. This is independent of if you believe in a spiritual part of you or if you are a materialist. Even a spirit is ruled by causality.

I admit that there are philosophers that not only think that there is the standard “event causality”, that events acts on us. They also believe in “agent causality”, that the agent (undefined) as a being outside time acts on the physical (or maybe also the spiritual) body at specific times. However, this view is highly speculative and there are lot of problems with it and it is commonly regarded as untenable in philosophical literature.

Nils

[Kenny]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

Ken,
Are not computers making decisions?

No; computers only do what they are programmed to do. They are incapable of independent thought.

I don't understand what you mean. The computers that will control the self-driving cars, for instance, they have to make decisions all the time.

The computers on self-driving cars are programmed to react to the sensors around the car. They do not decide to react to the sensors, they have no choice; they can only do what they have been programmed to do by an outside source (programmer)
People are different; though our decisions may be influenced by circumstance, experience, or outside sources, they are not determined by them.

Computers do not only react on sensors, they also relate to their inner states, just as person do. Do you have another definition of “decide” than the standard? Se for example https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decide
“decided; deciding
transitive verb
1 a : to make a final choice or judgment about
• decide what to do
• couldn't decide whether to take the job or not
b : to select as a course of action —used with an infinitive
• decided to go
c : to infer on the basis of evidence : conclude
• They decided that he was right.
2 : to bring to a definitive end
• one blow decided the fight
3 : to induce to come to a choice
• her pleas decided him to help
•
intransitive verb
: to make a choice or judgment
• decide on where to go”

This definition applies to computers as well as persons ( even if the examples are related to humans)

What does the example with the two brothers show more than they are different? They have differnet genes for example. Then you say that we can choose, "no matter our heredity or environment". If you include some randomness, it seems that you refer to some forth factor not included in the three I mention here. What is this?

Free will. The ability to conjure independent thought; and act on them.

What is “independent” thought? Independent of what?

Independent thought are thoughts that come from you, not outside sources.

In heredity and environment is usually included everything that follows internally from the environment for instance you inner states, desires, beliefs, preferences, views, decisions. Environment is everything you have experienced and all external forces

But for humans, the external forces you mention do not dictate how or what we act upon. This is because we have the free will to act and our actions come from within.

[Nils]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

Ken,
Are not computers making decisions?

No; computers only do what they are programmed to do. They are incapable of independent thought.

I don't understand what you mean. The computers that will control the self-driving cars, for instance, they have to make decisions all the time.

The computers on self-driving cars are programmed to react to the sensors around the car. They do not decide to react to the sensors, they have no choice; they can only do what they have been programmed to do by an outside source (programmer)
People are different; though our decisions may be influenced by circumstance, experience, or outside sources, they are not determined by them.

Computers do not only react on sensors, they also relate to their inner states, just as person do. Do you have another definition of “decide” than the standard? Se for example https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decide
“decided; deciding
transitive verb
1 a : to make a final choice or judgment about
• decide what to do
• couldn't decide whether to take the job or not
b : to select as a course of action —used with an infinitive
• decided to go
c : to infer on the basis of evidence : conclude
• They decided that he was right.
2 : to bring to a definitive end
• one blow decided the fight
3 : to induce to come to a choice
• her pleas decided him to help
•
intransitive verb
: to make a choice or judgment
• decide on where to go”

This definition applies to computers as well as persons ( even if the examples are related to humans)

What does the example with the two brothers show more than they are different? They have differnet genes for example. Then you say that we can choose, "no matter our heredity or environment". If you include some randomness, it seems that you refer to some forth factor not included in the three I mention here. What is this?

Free will. The ability to conjure independent thought; and act on them.

What is “independent” thought? Independent of what?

Independent thought are thoughts that come from you, not outside sources.

In heredity and environment is usually included everything that follows internally from the environment for instance you inner states, desires, beliefs, preferences, views, decisions. Environment is everything you have experienced and all external forces

But for humans, the external forces you mention do not dictate how or what we act upon. This is because we have the free will to act and our actions come from within.

@310
Ken, perhaps I was unclear. Assuming a materialistic world view, what affects you is heredity and environment and that is all that affects you, including your inner states, desires, beliefs, preferences, views, decisions etc. Immediately after conception you are affected by your genes only but soon the environment will be as important. From that point on everything in you is due to heredity and environment including all aspects of you, the “within” and your will, directly or, mostly, indirectly. There never emerges a You that is uninfluenced by heredity and environment (or maybe some randomness).

If you are a theist just add God as part of the environment.

(What about your definition of “decision”?)

Nils

[Kenny]

Think of a computer. The program and inputs determine its output. If you change the inputs, the output will change (no free will). The same with humans. Heredity and environment determine our behaviour. If you change the environment (saying that you will punish murders) you will prevent some murdering. No free will is needed.

Nils

I remember speaking to two brothers at different times; one was abusive to his girlfriends, the other kind. The abusive one said he was abusive to women because he grew up seeing his dad beat his mom and that’s all he knew; by watching his dad. The non-abusive one said he grew up watching his dad beat his mom and all he knew was to not be like his dad.

I think the problem with your computer analogy is the computer has no choice but to react to its input because it is incapable of making a decision. People are different; no matter our heredity or environment, we can still choose to do differently because we are capable of making a decision.

Ken,
Are not computers making decisions?

No; computers only do what they are programmed to do. They are incapable of independent thought.

I don't understand what you mean. The computers that will control the self-driving cars, for instance, they have to make decisions all the time.

The computers on self-driving cars are programmed to react to the sensors around the car. They do not decide to react to the sensors, they have no choice; they can only do what they have been programmed to do by an outside source (programmer)
People are different; though our decisions may be influenced by circumstance, experience, or outside sources, they are not determined by them.

Computers do not only react on sensors, they also relate to their inner states, just as person do. Do you have another definition of “decide” than the standard? Se for example https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decide
“decided; deciding
transitive verb
1 a : to make a final choice or judgment about
• decide what to do
• couldn't decide whether to take the job or not
b : to select as a course of action —used with an infinitive
• decided to go
c : to infer on the basis of evidence : conclude
• They decided that he was right.
2 : to bring to a definitive end
• one blow decided the fight
3 : to induce to come to a choice
• her pleas decided him to help
•
intransitive verb
: to make a choice or judgment
• decide on where to go”

This definition applies to computers as well as persons ( even if the examples are related to humans)

What does the example with the two brothers show more than they are different? They have differnet genes for example. Then you say that we can choose, "no matter our heredity or environment". If you include some randomness, it seems that you refer to some forth factor not included in the three I mention here. What is this?

Free will. The ability to conjure independent thought; and act on them.

What is “independent” thought? Independent of what?

Independent thought are thoughts that come from you, not outside sources.

In heredity and environment is usually included everything that follows internally from the environment for instance you inner states, desires, beliefs, preferences, views, decisions. Environment is everything you have experienced and all external forces

But for humans, the external forces you mention do not dictate how or what we act upon. This is because we have the free will to act and our actions come from within.

@310
Ken, perhaps I was unclear. Assuming a materialistic world view, what affects you is heredity and environment and that is all that affects you, including your inner states, desires, beliefs, preferences, views, decisions etc. Immediately after conception you are affected by your genes only but soon the environment will be as important. From that point on everything in you is due to heredity and environment including all aspects of you, the “within” and your will, directly or, mostly, indirectly. There never emerges a You that is uninfluenced by heredity and environment (or maybe some randomness).

If you are a theist just add God as part of the environment.

(What about your definition of “decision”?)

Nils

Heredity and environment is a part of who I am. If heredity and environment is responsible for my decisions, that's the same as saying I am responsible for my decisions. Sorta like saying; my legs gets me from point A to point B

[RickD]

Nils,

It seems to me, that you're making free will into something it isn't. You're making it more complicated than it really is.

Free will is simply the ability to choose from among any possible choices.

[Nils]

Heredity and environment is a part of who I am. If heredity and environment is responsible for my decisions, that's the same as saying I am responsible for my decisions. Sorta like saying; my legs gets me from point A to point B

You may say so but the problem is that you can’t influence your heredity and the past environment so if heredity and environment is responsible for your decision then you can’t influence your decision; you can’t choose and if you can’t choose you don’t have a free will and you are not truly responsible.

Nils

[Kenny]

Heredity and environment is a part of who I am. If heredity and environment is responsible for my decisions, that's the same as saying I am responsible for my decisions. Sorta like saying; my legs gets me from point A to point B

You may say so but the problem is that you can’t influence your heredity and the past environment so if heredity and environment is responsible for your decision then you can’t influence your decision; you can’t choose and if you can’t choose you don’t have a free will and you are not truly responsible.

Nils

Heredity and environment are only 2 of countless things that I am, that contributes to (not determine) the decisions I make. At the end of the day, what I decide to do comes from within; not an outside source.