The Universe Unfolding And Our Part In It.

[JosephM]

Dutch,

 

I make a distinction because choice is just an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.) whereas "free will" is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained (not restricted or limited). (You yourself used the words "Hence we have freewill, however limited." in post 46 )

 

While morality is as you say "about right and wrong as seen through societies eyes" and we can have guidelines and systems set in place to apply consequences, who can really put their finger on the real cause. We can apply the consequences as we see fit (and in society we should) but to deem responsibility because of an act of "free will" is, in my view, without knowledge. What makes the violator make different choices than me? Is it "free will" ? I think not since choice is constrained by factors both seen and unseen.

 

Just clarifying my thoughts concerning your comments,

Joseph

Edited August 5, 2014 by JosephM

[romansh]

Joseph

Have I always not believed in free will? Definitely not.

Did my belief in free will affect my ability to explore reality ... I think so. I never put my scientific scrutiny to the subject because I had an unconditional belief. So did my past belief (in free will) prevent my exploration? Obviously the answer is no ... but it certainly did inhibit that exploration.

[romansh]

Dutch

Does a more complex organism have more free will than a simple one? I don't think so. Its behaviours can be more complex that's all.

 

An bacterium responds to inputs ... so do I.

 

Morality? If we have no free will then the concept of morality seems to be a non sequitur. That does not mean I don't feel the relevant emotions like guilt shame pride etc that evolution has endowed me with a capacity for. Evolution has endowed me with the capacity to see the colour blue. I don't have to believe blue exists intrinsically.

 

Regarding mediation in the school environment ... is it the teacher who should be held accountable for a lack of skills to deal with a wayward pupil. Perhaps it is the principal for not providing the training or the government for not providing the funding. In each case we draw an arbitrary boundary of where we think the blame lies and who to hold accountable. Or we can try fixing the perceived problem.

 

I agree we tend to live compatibilist lives ... interestingly it does not have to be that way.

[glintofpewter]

We can apply the consequences as we see fit (and in society we should) but to deem responsibility because of an act of "free will" is, in my view, without knowledge. What makes the violator make different choices than me? Is it "free will" ? I think not since choice is constrained by factors both seen and unseen.

 

 

Joseph

 

What do we gain by avoiding the language of free will and moral repsonsibility and substituting the language of choices and consequences? (I think there may be a good answer.) We still have to parse the influences on the choice made and moderate the consequences accordingly.

Regarding mediation in the school environment ... is it the teacher who should be held accountable for a lack of skills to deal with a wayward pupil. Perhaps it is the principal for not providing the training or the government for not providing the funding.

In each case we draw an arbitrary boundary of where we think the blame lies and who to hold accountable. Or we can try fixing the perceived problem.

 

 

Rom

That we can make an endless list of interconnected heirarchies of cause and effect should not absolve us of the call to discern and make intelligent choices. My wife did not seek an arbitrary boundary; she sought, within the sphere of her influence, the best possible place to make a change. Any or all of those involved - student, parents, teacher, principal, the building(all staff at the school) - might be asked to change behaviors. If the building as a whole will not create an environment that helps the child succeed Diane would try to find another placement for the student. If she failed then there was a likelyhood that the parent would file a lawsuit.

I don't understand this insistence that there can be no intellingent, contingent, disdernment of responsiblity. For me a powerful reading of the Garden of Eden story sees it's climax in humans growing up and taking responsibility.

I think that often the idea of determinism blinds us to the richness of the evolutionary processes, by ignoring the importance of creativity and novelty.

Dutch

[romansh]

Dutch ... what we do when hold a portion of an endless list of interconnected hierarchies accountable is draw an arbitrary boundary within that endless list. I will admit it is a useful boundary ... but arbitrary nonetheless.

 

Responsibility has two meanings ... there is the moral responsibility that we assign to one another and responsible in the sense of the sun is responsible for much of life on Earth or an electrical short was responsible for the fire.

 

That you think some of us don't see the richness of evolution and that we ignore creativity and novelty is a strange position to take.

 

Now I have tried to answer your questions perhaps you could answer mine for a bit. Which bit of you is free from cause and effect?

[JosephM]

 

Joseph

 

What do we gain by avoiding the language of free will and moral repsonsibility and substituting the language of choices and consequences? (I think there may be a good answer.) We still have to parse the influences on the choice made and moderate the consequences accordingly.

Dutch

Dutch,

Avoiding the language of "free will" does not avoid moral responsibility. As i have said, it is societies function to set them and i concur with that function even though i may not be in agreement with a particular moral position of society. The point is, in my view, that the language and understanding of choice and consequences enters the equation from a standpoint of consciousness that is devoid of anger, arbitrary blame and pride and closer to acceptance, reason and love from which better solutions to our problems can be found. That , i believe is what we have to gain from such an understanding of the illusory nature of such a concept as "free will".

In summary, when we assume we have truly "free will" (choice without limitations or constraints) we draw that "arbitrary boundary" ( i believe Rom has mentioned) and enter into what i perceive as a separation from Truth instead of bringing us to wiser solutions through a more peaceful level of consciousness.

Anyway those are my thoughts on your comment,

Joseph

PS I think the spirit of what i am saying was recorded in Paul speaking to the Corinthians... "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

Edited August 7, 2014 by JosephM
PS.

[glintofpewter]

Regarding mediation in the school environment ... is it the teacher who should be held accountable for a lack of skills to deal with a wayward pupil. Perhaps it is the principal for not providing the training or the government for not providing the funding.

In each case we draw an arbitrary boundary of where we think the blame lies and who to hold accountable. Or we can try fixing the perceived problem.

 

ar·bi·trar·y

adjective

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable;

antonyms: reasoned, rational

2. (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed;

Rom, which meaning of arbitrary are you using in response to the example I gave? How is what I described different from trying to fix a perceived problem?

 

 

Responsibility has two meanings ...

 

 

Rom, Did we ever use the second meaning of this word?

The point is, in my view, that the language and understanding of choice and consequences enters the equation from a standpoint of consciousness that is devoid of anger, arbitrary blame and pride and closer to acceptance, reason and love from which better solutions to our problems can be found.

 

 

I appreciate your expansive restatement of your position.

Do you mean to say that when we use acceptance, reason and love as a lens to see the behaviors that we have more and better solutions from which to choose?

Does a more complex organism have more free will than a simple one? I don't think so. Its behaviors can be more complex that's all.

 

 

Rom, Sometimes in our discussion free will seems to be an absolute so I hesitate to answer a yes or no question. If the paraphrase below is acceptable then my answer is yes.

Does a more complex organism have more freedom out of which to make choices than a simple one? I don't think so. Its behaviours can be more complex that's all.

Which bit of you is free from cause and effect?

 

This is where we need to go but I think we need to add the concepts if "chance and necessity" that Father George Coyne uses in his talks about the "Dance of the Fertile Unniverse"

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

I intended to comment on soma's account which ended with his surfing metaphor. I think the arc of his account points to the process of human development, whether it is "moral development" or "faith development", etc and the think that is one of the underlying forces here. Soma, maybe I put meaning in your story which you did not intend.

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

 

 

Do you mean to say that when we use acceptance, reason and love as a lens to see the behaviors that we have more and better solutions from which to choose?

 

Dutch,

 

Yes and that when one comes from the position that behavior is based truly on "free will" (without limitation or constraint) there is, in my view, a propensity to use less of those virtues to assimilate wiser solutions.

 

Joseph

[soma]

Dutch feel free. I put it out there for stretching and comments.

[romansh]

ar·bi·trar·y

 

Either sense ... though more the first one.

 

Rom, Did we ever use the second meaning of this word?

 

I had it in the back of my mind ... I certainly did not exclude it from our discussion. Did you?

 

Plus I would have hoped that when doubting the concept of morality the second sense of responsibility becomes more prominent or self evident.

 

Do you mean to say that when we use acceptance, reason and love as a lens to see the behaviors that we have more and better solutions from which to choose?

 

I was thinking more that understanding of how the universe unfolds leads to acceptance (as opposed to apathy. I can still dislike actions and be an activist for a cause, just that I am accepting of my opponent.

 

Rom, Sometimes in our discussion free will seems to be an absolute so I hesitate to answer a yes or no question. If the paraphrase below is acceptable then my answer is yes.

Does a more complex organism have more freedom out of which to make choices than a simple one? I don't think so. Its behaviours can be more complex that's all.

 

 

I copied you question verbatim Dutch. I also answered it. Perhaps you could have a go at answering it? I must admit I would answer no to your question. In both cases the universe is responsible for the organism, complex or simple.

 

his is where we need to go but I think we need to add the concepts if "chance and necessity" that Father George Coyne uses in his talks about the "Dance of the Fertile Unniverse"

 

 

If you and Mr Coyne think your will is free from chance and necessity then fine. Chance does nothing to free the will. Now if you could have a go at answering the my question. Which bit of you is free from cause?

Edited August 9, 2014 by romansh

[glintofpewter]

Rom,

 

There are too many fragments in our conversation. I made an error in cutting and pasting that led to confusion and I feel you haven't answered a question that would have highlighted an important issue. This post is a fresh start I hope

I will not use the following words: free will, moral, responsibility

I will be using the following: choices, consequences, influences, norms, accountability.

The universe is not responsible for anything; the universe did not cause anything; the universe is everything we are aware of and we part of that universe.

Not everyone will agree with me that the processes of evolution and the unfolding of the universe are the same thing. We usually limit natural selection and another terms to describe evolution of life, but I think that, for example, the necessary formation of hydrogen molecules from the chance or random meetings of hydrogen atoms 100-200 million years after the big bang are part of the evolutionary processes that led to the existence of humans. Assuming evolution as a lens can also help us understand whether or how school staff have colaesce around positive or negative attitudes on how to treat students with special needs.

I am the intersection of many causes but only if we were omniscient could we figure out which event caused which aspect of my being. For example: Am I bipolar because I was abused at six or are the two initially not related? How have they interacted since to be part of who I am today? Out of the several alternatives for my future actions, which should I choose and what would be the outcome?

Cause and effect or determinism can provide a generally satisfying, but incomplete analysis of past events and is unable to predict 100% of the time the outcomes of the choices available to complex systems. The simpler a unit of system is the few alternatives it has, the more complex a system is the more choices are available.

The indeterminism is not wholly a result of our incomplete knowledge. The sequences, consequences, and influences of the many interactions simply cannot be known. The outcomes will not be random or capricious, but complexity, novelty and creativity will play a part.

As you have said acceptance of what is leads to mental health and a kinder view of the behoavior of others. Recognition that the make-up of our brains and external events control or influence our behavior is best seen through a lens of acceptance, love, and our common humanity. When a person violates the norms of society, that society, hopefully using the lens of acceptance and love, will choose an appropriate consequence.

Society chooses the norms. These norms are not always good and they are available for outside groups to evaluate and to call or effect correction. The teachings of Jesus are an important contribution to the discussion of which behaviors are for good and which are not.

The present state of the universe could not have been predicted, even if all causes were known. The future of the universe cannot be known even if all effects can be known. There is no way of predicting the contributions of chance, novelty, and creativity, which are part for the evolutionary process and the unfolding of the universe.

Dutch

Edited August 10, 2014 by glintofpewter

[romansh]

 

Rom,

 

There are too many fragments in our conversation. I made an error in cutting and pasting that led to confusion and I feel you haven't answered a question that would have highlighted an important issue. This post is a fresh start I hope.

 

Yes there are many fragments to this ... all I want to know is which bits of you if any are independent of cause.

 

I will not use the following words: free will, moral, responsibility

I will be using the following: choices, consequences, influences, norms, accountability.

The universe is not responsible for anything; the universe did not cause anything; the universe is everything we are aware of and we part of that universe.

 

You say you will not use responsibility ... yet you say the universe is not responsible? You must be using the moral sense of responsible, but you were not going to use moral either. It is difficult I understand.

Not everyone will agree with me that the processes of evolution and the unfolding of the universe are the same thing.

 

 

I have no problem with the use of evolution and the universe unfolding ... though I did not really understand the remainder of the paragraph.

 

The indeterminism is not wholly a result of our incomplete knowledge. The sequences, consequences, and influences of the many interactions simply cannot be known. The outcomes will not be random or capricious, but complexity, novelty and creativity will play a part.

 

 

I never claimed indeterminism is a result of incomplete knowledge. But on the whole it is smoke smoke screen that gets in a way of fruitful conversation. You are speaking to an agnostic here Dutch ... I don't even know what can be known. As for the concept of random here is a nice essay on the subject. At the bottom of the page there is link Can you behave randomly? ... interesting if you have an hour to spare.

As you have said acceptance of what is leads to mental health and a kinder view of the behoavior of others. Recognition that the make-up of our brains and external events control or influence our behavior is best seen through a lens of acceptance, love, and our common humanity. When a person violates the norms of society, that society, hopefully using the lens of acceptance and love, will choose an appropriate consequence.

 

 

Not quite what I said but that is OK for now.

I am the intersection of many causes but only if we were omniscient could we figure out which event caused which aspect of my being. For example: Am I bipolar because I was abused at six or are the two initially not related? How have they interacted since to be part of who I am today? Out of the several alternatives for my future actions, which should I choose and what would be the outcome?

 

 

Yes I agree you are at an intersection of causes ... the question remains do you believe you are a free agent that is somehow independent of those causes whether they be classical or quantum? Again yes you make choices but the choice that you make is it independent of the antecedent causes?

 

Society chooses the norms. These norms are not always good and they are available for outside groups to evaluate and to call or effect correction. The teachings of Jesus are an important contribution to the discussion of which behaviors are for good and which are not.

 

 

Yes we can read that into Jesus' teachings we can also read that we should not judge .. ie parse into good and bad. You can read that into the fall as well.

 

Cause and effect or determinism can provide a generally satisfying, but incomplete analysis of past events and is unable to predict 100% of the time the outcomes of the choices available to complex systems. The simpler a unit of system is the few alternatives it has, the more complex a system is the more choices are available.

 

 

Satisfaction is a red herring here. Here you fall into for me what is a fairly common response to the argument. Because Laplace was wrong, determinism is false; then we can consider libertarianism as true. It is not the number of choices that are available to an organism simple or complex that is at issues here ... it is the underlying mechanism. I agree a complex organism will have a more complex mechanism. No freedom here that I can see.

 

The present state of the universe could not have been predicted, even if all causes were known. The future of the universe cannot be known even if all effects can be known. There is no way of predicting the contributions of chance, novelty, and creativity, which are part for the evolutionary process and the unfolding of the universe.

 

 

And yet we can predict the near future with some limited success. A quick look at my work calendar will allow me know what is coming (not in absolute certainty) ... And I predict the Palestinian Israeli conflict will continue for some years with the normal ups and downs.

 

The fact that we can't predict accurately is interesting, but irrelevant to free will. You are arguing for a two hundred year old Laplacian understanding of free will. We have moved on.

 

Again which part of you is independent of cause so we can study that bit in a bit more detail?

Edited August 10, 2014 by romansh

[glintofpewter]

Rom,

 

I will consider you post as a whole later.

 

all I want to know is which bits of you if any are independent of cause.

 

 

As I said I am the intersection of causes that cannot be fully known. I think the important question is whether there is the possibility for novelty, something new.

[romansh]

Rom,

 

I will consider you post as a whole later.

 

 

As I said I am the intersection of causes that cannot be fully known. I think the important question is whether there is the possibility for novelty, something new.

 

Again you don't answer my question Dutch, what part of you is actually free from cause? If the answer is nothing or I don't know fair enough. Whether a limited being can know the full extent of the universe is irrelevant to the question of free will and how the universe actually unfolds.

 

If the answer is I don't know a belief in free will becomes interesting. If the answer is nothing then we are not talking about free will per se.

 

Regarding novelty and new ... does evolution create novelty and new creatures? If so, does that mean evolution itself or the universe unfolding has free will? Novelty and new might be important, but that does not mean they are tied to an absence of cause.

 

There is something about the concept of free will of an independent intrinsic actor that comforting to humans.

Edited August 10, 2014 by romansh

[glintofpewter]

As I said in the previous post "cannot be fully known".

As I said in the previous post I am not talking about free will.

[romansh]

As I said in the previous post "cannot be fully known".

 

 

So is it a fair translation to say you don't know whether there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? And what about, do you think there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? You said the universe is not responsible for anything. Are you saying you are a self-made man? (This brings the wag's addendum to mind) Thereby relieving God of an almighty responsibility.

 

How about this and responsibility?

http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm

 

As I said in the previous post I am not talking about free will.

 

 

So the universe and how it unfolds is somehow independent of free will? can we clarify what this discussion is about?

[JosephM]

Rom asks..

 

 

what part of you is actually free from cause?

 

Just for your amusement....

 

That unseen part of me that is the same in you and all that is and is responsible for that which APPEARS as cause and effect and the unfolding of the universe but in reality is beyond all such concepts and scripts making up the drama of life..

Your mind is consciousness which has put on limitations. Beyond that limitation there is no cause, only happenings.

 

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

1. Rom said

Yes there are many fragments to this ... all I want to know is which bits of you if any are independent of cause.

Dutch replied

 

 

I am the intersection of causes which cannot be fully known. That which is novel is a good candidate for being independent of cause but it cannot be fully known.

2. Rom said

I will not use the following words: free will, moral, responsibility

I will be using the following: choices, consequences, influences, norms, accountability.

 

 

Dutch said

I forgot to give you credit for the word responsible.

3. Rom said

You say you will not use responsibility ... yet you say the universe is not responsible? You must be using the moral sense of responsible, but you were not going to use moral either. It is difficult I understand.

 

 

4. Dutch said

I was using the "rom" sense of the word 'responsible' and forgot to put single quotes around it. It is not my word. I did not use the word moral.

5. Rom said

... interesting if you have an hour to spare. Can you behave randomly?

 

 

Dutch said

I don't have an hour to spare. Share what you think is useful. I cannot behave randomly but random events may influence my choices and behaviors. I can increase my choices through spiritual, psychological and physical practices which to whatever extent allow me to see unconscious causes.

6. Rom said

Yes I agree you are at an intersection of causes ... the question remains do you believe you are a free agent that is somehow independent of those causes whether they be classical or quantum? Again yes you make choices but the choice that you make is it independent of the antecedent causes?

 

 

Dutch said

a: I am not "at" the intersection of causes. My being is the ongoing intersecting of causes, which cannot be fully known

b: Chance and novelty are as close as I can get in understanding one aspect of evolution. Whether a chance or novel event is part of that iintersecting causes or events I call "myself" cannot be fully known.

7. Rom said

It is not the number of choices that are available to an organism simple or complex that is at issues here ... it is the underlying mechanism. I agree a complex organism will have a more complex mechanism. No freedom here that I can see.

 

 

Dutch

Complex organisms have more choices from which to choose and they make those choices, whether it is a single person choosing chocolate ice cream or a school staff working as a whole to reject a class of students.

8. Rom said

And yet we can predict the near future with some limited success.

 

 

Dutch said

Exactly

9.Rom said

The fact that we can't predict accurately is interesting, but irrelevant to free will. You are arguing for a two hundred year old Laplacian understanding of free will. We have moved on.

 

 

Dutch said

I am not Laplace. LaPlace is irrelvelant. My discussion is not about f_w_.

#10 Rom said

Again which part of you is independent of cause so we can study that bit in a bit more detail?

 

 

Dutch said

See #1 above

[minsocal]

As for myself, I frequently revisit the of story of The Garden of Eden. Here is a story of a dawning, of becoming. Well, at least as I read it, anyway. It is a human story, very human. Somewhere along the way evolution spawned consciousness. The element of consciousness most important here is that of awareness. I am aware of myself, others, and the consequences of human actions. With that comes ... responsibility? I cannot change the laws of nature, but then, conscious awareness is now a "law of nature". Hmmmm ...

[glintofpewter]

minsocal,

great to read your words again

 

Dutch

[minsocal]

Likewise Dutch,

 

Myron

[romansh]

As for myself, I frequently revisit the of story of The Garden of Eden. Here is a story of a dawning, of becoming. Well, at least as I read it, anyway. It is a human story, very human. Somewhere along the way evolution spawned consciousness. The element of consciousness most important here is that of awareness. I am aware of myself, others, and the consequences of human actions. With that comes ... responsibility? I cannot change the laws of nature, but then, conscious awareness is now a "law of nature". Hmmmm ...

 

I must admit I like the story of the fall too. But I don't think anyone here is changing the laws of nature ... I'm just asking that we understand them. Our (at least for most of us) understanding of nature is predicated on cause and effect. I don't think consciousness is any different. It would appear our consciousness is very much a historical introspection. Albeit a very recent introspection.

 

Thinking in terms of good and evil is a pragmatic way of looking at things ... but I don't think the laws of nature actually concern themselves with good and evil. To get back into the "garden of Eden" perhaps we should stop thing in terms of good and evil.

Edited August 12, 2014 by romansh

[Larry]

What does not unfold ongoing is dead.

[romansh]

Even what we call dead and inanimate unfold.