Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:13 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:23 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:09 pm
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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmWhat do you mean by "independent thought"?

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

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmIndependent 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.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmHow do you define Free will?
Nils

The ability to make decisions on your own.

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:13 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:23 pm
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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmWhat do you mean by "independent thought"?

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

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmIndependent 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.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWell, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWith the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWe may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:13 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:23 pm
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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmWhat do you mean by "independent thought"?

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

"on your own", se below.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmIndependent 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.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWell, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWith the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWe may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

B. W. wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:02 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:15 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:13 am

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 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmWhat do you mean by "independent thought"?

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

"on your own", se below.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pmIndependent 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.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWell, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWith the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pmWe may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

You don't know children do you???
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:20 am

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.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:18 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:04 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:11 am 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.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:07 am

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.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:05 am

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 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:22 am It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

HOW isn't relevant as much as WHY.

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:43 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:22 am It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:22 am Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:48 am

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:22 am Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

Since you missed this the first time, I'll ask again.

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:14 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:48 am

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:22 am Nils,

Lemme guess...you don't have any children?

Since you missed this the first time, I'll ask again.

Rick, I try to answer the posts in the right order and it takes some time, so please, be patient.

I don’t think that I have ever read such a short message that brought so many thoughts!
The first thought is that I hope that you are able to do better guesses / conclusions in other areas

More seriously, it probably shows how big the difference is between on one hand my cultural subgoup and yours including many of the debaters on this site. I guess (hopefully better than you) that your comment relates to the problem of raising children without punishment. I can tell you that among my close relatives and my close friends there is never practiced backwards looking punishment, i.e. punishment because of the child “deserves” it but only actions that were meant to deter from future bad behavior (but of course without any physical or psychical violence). In a wider part of my social subgroup, I don’t know, but I have never heard of anyone having a different attitude. This I put in relation to what I a few years ago read in a discussion on a USA based philosophical professional forum. They were discussing (informally) how to punish disobedient teenagers. I thought it was horrifying.

But to answer your question. I have three children and some grandchildren and my relation to them has always been good (and also, they confirm it )
Nils

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
In the philosophical litterature there are several definitions of free will. How can you say that any of these are wrong.

I am interested in Free WIll as a base for moral desert. As Galen Strawsson says: It is a matter of punishment of hell and the bliss of heaven.