There is no Hope without Jesus

[PaulSacramento]

The general answer is pragmatism.

Which is no answer.


Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.

What is your category for "satisfactory" and satisfactory for whom? based on what?

[PaulSacramento]

I asked earlier what kind of logic you refer to but I don't think that I got any answer.

Logic based on reasoning and experience ( and not just OUR experience, by history as well of course).

Where is the logic of holding someone accountable for actions not under their control?

[Kenny]

Influenced? Or controlled. If everything in you and I are only influenced by heredity and environment that means we can still choose to act outside of those things. Unless everything in us are completely controlled by heredity and environment, our freewill remains intact. Do you agree?

I really think that it should be clear what I mean. I wrote "influenced by hereity and environment (H&I) ... and nothing more". Earlier I talked about causation, that H&I is the cause to who you are.

Is Heredity and environment the same as “who we are”/us? If not, what’s the difference?

Ken

Ken, I would say that H&E (and as ususal, maybe randomness) is the only cause of who we are.
Nils

I didn’t ask what is the cause of who we are, I asked is H&E THE SAME as who we are. If not, what’s the difference?

[PaulSacramento]

Hereditary and environment, Nature and nurture, Genetics and adaptation, etc.

They all mean the same things, that we are a SUM of what we are and what we are exposed to and how we learn and adapt to it.
If there was no choice then what we do would be based SOLELY on our genetics and environment.
BUT you would still have to address WHICH of those factors would be dominate at any given time and WHY.

[Nils]

Influenced? Or controlled. If everything in you and I are only influenced by heredity and environment that means we can still choose to act outside of those things. Unless everything in us are completely controlled by heredity and environment, our freewill remains intact. Do you agree?

I really think that it should be clear what I mean. I wrote "influenced by hereity and environment (H&I) ... and nothing more". Earlier I talked about causation, that H&I is the cause to who you are.

Is Heredity and environment the same as “who we are”/us? If not, what’s the difference?

Ken

Ken, I would say that H&E (and as ususal, maybe randomness) is the only cause of who we are.
Nils

I didn’t ask what is the cause of who we are, I asked is H&E THE SAME as who we are. If not, what’s the difference?

I am sorry, I don't understand. In some sense I may be my heredity or my genes. But in which way can my environment, from conception up till now, be who I am? You are a part of my environment and influence/control/cause who I am, partly, but I hope we can agree that I am not You.
Nils

[Kenny]

I really think that it should be clear what I mean. I wrote "influenced by hereity and environment (H&I) ... and nothing more". Earlier I talked about causation, that H&I is the cause to who you are.

Is Heredity and environment the same as “who we are”/us? If not, what’s the difference?

Ken

Ken, I would say that H&E (and as ususal, maybe randomness) is the only cause of who we are.
Nils

I didn’t ask what is the cause of who we are, I asked is H&E THE SAME as who we are. If not, what’s the difference?

I am sorry, I don't understand. In some sense I may be my heredity or my genes. But in which way can my environment, from conception up till now, be who I am? You are a part of my environment and influence/control/cause who I am, partly, but I hope we can agree that I am not You.
Nils

So if I understand you correctly, when it comes to the H&E that you speak of; you, Nils, the person with the brain, is the H, and the E is just influence. Is that correct? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Ken

[Nils]

Is Heredity and environment the same as “who we are”/us? If not, what’s the difference?

Ken

Ken, I would say that H&E (and as ususal, maybe randomness) is the only cause of who we are.
Nils

I didn’t ask what is the cause of who we are, I asked is H&E THE SAME as who we are. If not, what’s the difference?

I am sorry, I don't understand. In some sense I may be my heredity or my genes. But in which way can my environment, from conception up till now, be who I am? You are a part of my environment and influence/control/cause who I am, partly, but I hope we can agree that I am not You.
Nils

So if I understand you correctly, when it comes to the H&E that you speak of; you, Nils, the person with the brain, is the H, and the E is just influence. Is that correct? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Ken

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me. The environment has and will affect me. It together with my genes are the only causes of why I am as I am. Is this clear?
I am not sure if this is what you want, what you are looking for. It would be clearer if you tell that.
Nils

[Kenny]

Ken, I would say that H&E (and as ususal, maybe randomness) is the only cause of who we are.
Nils

I didn’t ask what is the cause of who we are, I asked is H&E THE SAME as who we are. If not, what’s the difference?

I am sorry, I don't understand. In some sense I may be my heredity or my genes. But in which way can my environment, from conception up till now, be who I am? You are a part of my environment and influence/control/cause who I am, partly, but I hope we can agree that I am not You.
Nils

So if I understand you correctly, when it comes to the H&E that you speak of; you, Nils, the person with the brain, is the H, and the E is just influence. Is that correct? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Ken

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me.

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

[Nils]

Hereditary and environment, Nature and nurture, Genetics and adaptation, etc.

They all mean the same things, that we are a SUM of what we are and what we are exposed to and how we learn and adapt to it.
If there was no choice then what we do would be based SOLELY on our genetics and environment.

Yes

BUT you would still have to address WHICH of those factors would be dominate at any given time and WHY.

If You are based SOLELY on Heredity and Environment, do you think that this You can decide which of H&I would dominate? To do that decision or choice you have to base it on something, apparently not on H&E but H&E is the only thing you can use as a base. It doesn't seem consistent.

I asked earlier what kind of logic you refer to but I don't think that I got any answer.

Logic based on reasoning and experience ( and not just OUR experience, by history as well of course).

Where is the logic of holding someone accountable for actions not under their control?

In logic you uses is a deductive method to deduce a conclusion from some premises, but the truth of the conclusion is dependent of the truth of the premises. I think were disagree on the premises so the problem is not the logic. See more below.

The general answer is pragmatism.

Which is no answer.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.

What is your category for "satisfactory" and satisfactory for whom? based on what?

Satisfactory to me and people who think as I do, based on our rational thinking and experiences.

It doesn’t seem to me that we come anywhere in this discussion.
To be a bit more productive I’ll try to state some premises and come to a conclusion:

P1. Assume that there are no good arguments for an objective moral. (For instance that there is no God and moral Naturalism isn’t a satisfactory idea).
P2. Assume that we despite P1 want to live in a decent society like a welfare state with liberty and personal security.
P3. Assume that we think that without an objective moral there is no argument for a desert based juridical system (That could be argued even if there is an objective moral, but forget that now).

What should I do if I think that these three premises are true? Try to hide in a corner? No.
To me it seems that your answer is that the conclusion would be disastrous and therefore one of the premises has to be wrong and we have to believe in absolute morality and hence God. To me for other reasons, that way is not possible so I have to stick with the premises. So what to do?

I notice that there are societies that work rather well without any knowledge of absolute morality, I think of some animals, apes and early humans. I notice that it is possible to create rules that make a decent living. Unfortunately we have to create a system with punishment for those who don’t follow the rules. Hopefully, this will cause most persons to follow the rules but we have to punish those who don’t, those that were unlucky to have the wrong genes and wrong environment not understanding the stupidity of there actions. Punishm, not because of they deserve it but because it is needed to maintain the rules. If it were possible we would prefer not to punish them but say to all others that we do, but that will not work in the long run.

With the three premises, this is the best way forwards. This system is not ideal, it’s pragmatic, but it works. And note, I also think that it is a better system, gives a better society, than to continue believing in absolute moral and desert based punishment. I think that without desert we will get a better society, not only for the unlucky ones but for everybody. With less crime, less hatred and less fear. A society with fairness, respect and liberty. It takes more effort to argue for this in detail but I think that it can be done successfully.

Nils

[Nils]

I didn’t ask what is the cause of who we are, I asked is H&E THE SAME as who we are. If not, what’s the difference?

I am sorry, I don't understand. In some sense I may be my heredity or my genes. But in which way can my environment, from conception up till now, be who I am? You are a part of my environment and influence/control/cause who I am, partly, but I hope we can agree that I am not You.
Nils

So if I understand you correctly, when it comes to the H&E that you speak of; you, Nils, the person with the brain, is the H, and the E is just influence. Is that correct? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Ken

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me.

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

[Kenny]

I am sorry, I don't understand. In some sense I may be my heredity or my genes. But in which way can my environment, from conception up till now, be who I am? You are a part of my environment and influence/control/cause who I am, partly, but I hope we can agree that I am not You.
Nils

So if I understand you correctly, when it comes to the H&E that you speak of; you, Nils, the person with the brain, is the H, and the E is just influence. Is that correct? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Ken

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me.

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

[Nils]

So if I understand you correctly, when it comes to the H&E that you speak of; you, Nils, the person with the brain, is the H, and the E is just influence. Is that correct? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
Ken

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me.

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

What do you mean by "independent thought"? Independent of what? Independent of H&E? If so, how is that possible?
How do you define Free will?
Nils

[Kenny]

Ken, I’m not happy with your way to describe me. To me, my intellect, feelings, desires, thoughts, memory etc are stored/expressed/implemented in/by/on my brain (I don’t know the best short way to express it). That together with my body inclusive my genes constitute me.

Great! Now that is the response I was looking for. Now getting back to the freewill discussion, everything stored, expressed, and implemented by your brain is your decision, your thoughts your actions, and a result of your freewill. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?

KEn, I am confused. Where does free will come in?
To be a bit detailed:
In the reasoning I assume a definition of free will as something that is above H&E and I think you accept that definition.

At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I don’t know much about the brain development of infants; as far as their ability of independent thought and their ability to make decisions, but I would say whenever stage a person develops this ability, that is when they have developed free will

What do you mean by "independent thought"?

the ability to think on your own, in spite of outside influences.

Independent of what? Independent of H&E? If so, how is that possible?

You have an unusual definition of Heredity and environment, so I’m not sure if it is free of how you define H&E, but I define heredity as what is inherited from from one generation to another, and environment strictly as an outside source.
Just because someone may inherit (for example) an addictive gene, doesn’t mean they will become an addict. And just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful. So to answer your question, yes; independent of how I define H&E.

How do you define Free will?
Nils

The ability to make decisions on your own.

[PaulSacramento]

Hereditary and environment, Nature and nurture, Genetics and adaptation, etc.

They all mean the same things, that we are a SUM of what we are and what we are exposed to and how we learn and adapt to it.
If there was no choice then what we do would be based SOLELY on our genetics and environment.

Yes

BUT you would still have to address WHICH of those factors would be dominate at any given time and WHY.

If You are based SOLELY on Heredity and Environment, do you think that this You can decide which of H&I would dominate? To do that decision or choice you have to base it on something, apparently not on H&E but H&E is the only thing you can use as a base. It doesn't seem consistent.

I asked earlier what kind of logic you refer to but I don't think that I got any answer.

Logic based on reasoning and experience ( and not just OUR experience, by history as well of course).

Where is the logic of holding someone accountable for actions not under their control?

In logic you uses is a deductive method to deduce a conclusion from some premises, but the truth of the conclusion is dependent of the truth of the premises. I think were disagree on the premises so the problem is not the logic. See more below.

The general answer is pragmatism.

Which is no answer.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.

What is your category for "satisfactory" and satisfactory for whom? based on what?

Satisfactory to me and people who think as I do, based on our rational thinking and experiences.

It doesn’t seem to me that we come anywhere in this discussion.
To be a bit more productive I’ll try to state some premises and come to a conclusion:

P1. Assume that there are no good arguments for an objective moral. (For instance that there is no God and moral Naturalism isn’t a satisfactory idea).
P2. Assume that we despite P1 want to live in a decent society like a welfare state with liberty and personal security.
P3. Assume that we think that without an objective moral there is no argument for a desert based juridical system (That could be argued even if there is an objective moral, but forget that now).

What should I do if I think that these three premises are true? Try to hide in a corner? No.
To me it seems that your answer is that the conclusion would be disastrous and therefore one of the premises has to be wrong and we have to believe in absolute morality and hence God. To me for other reasons, that way is not possible so I have to stick with the premises. So what to do?

I notice that there are societies that work rather well without any knowledge of absolute morality, I think of some animals, apes and early humans. I notice that it is possible to create rules that make a decent living. Unfortunately we have to create a system with punishment for those who don’t follow the rules. Hopefully, this will cause most persons to follow the rules but we have to punish those who don’t, those that were unlucky to have the wrong genes and wrong environment not understanding the stupidity of there actions. Punishm, not because of they deserve it but because it is needed to maintain the rules. If it were possible we would prefer not to punish them but say to all others that we do, but that will not work in the long run.

With the three premises, this is the best way forwards. This system is not ideal, it’s pragmatic, but it works. And note, I also think that it is a better system, gives a better society, than to continue believing in absolute moral and desert based punishment. I think that without desert we will get a better society, not only for the unlucky ones but for everybody. With less crime, less hatred and less fear. A society with fairness, respect and liberty. It takes more effort to argue for this in detail but I think that it can be done successfully.

Nils

I just have one question:
What do you base ANY of this on?

[PaulSacramento]

I notice that there are societies that work rather well without any knowledge of absolute morality, I think of some animals, apes and early humans.

Where did you get that idea ??
Please define absolute morality.