Apologies for the long post; I think this is a very interesting discussion.
I'd like to take a step back and identify two core assumptions where I think we possibly disagree, which help lead us to differing conclusions on the subject of free will.
One is humanity's place in nature. Humans may have evolved to be the most intelligent beings on Earth, but I believe we are still fundamentally part of nature. We are large, extremely intelligent apes. When it comes to the workings of nature, I don't think that status makes us any different from the rest of creation. On the other hand, it
seems to me like some of you see humans as above nature in some way, at least partially if not completely. It seems you believe that our capacity, for example, to control impulses is evidence that we've conquered part of our animal nature. In contrast, I would simply say that we are not controlling our animal nature, we simply perceive that to be the case because we've evolved a nature quite a bit more complex than other animals, thanks to the evolution of our intelligence and capacity for language.
Second, and related to the first, I do not believe in any sort of metaphysics whatsoever. No god, no soul, no essence that makes anyone or anything particularly special. I'm curious to know if any of you do, because in many ways it seems to be at the crux of this idea of human "specialness." If I believed in some sort of metaphysics - a soul, a special essence, whatever you want to call it - it would be a lot easier for me to see humans as more than a highly advanced creature of nature, and therefore easier to imagine that we might have free will. Without any metaphysical belief, I'm forced to rely on evidence and build from the scientific knowledge we possess.
------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
There is no room for morality or ethics in a determined world... and that bothers me.
|
Morality, like everything else, is far less special than we like to think. It, like everything else, is part of our biology.
Morality Altered by Brain Stimulation (2010)
By stimulating a certain region of the brain, scientists can alter a person's ability to make moral judgments.
Sense of justice discovered in the brain (2006)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10239
Jonathan Haidt on the 5 moral foundations and the moral roots of liberals and conservatives (2008)
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions (2010)
Yes,
Baraka_Guru, the same can also be said for our drive to accomplish. As you can see above, I don't separate material existence from moral life. I don't know if you do, but I get that impression based on the fact you separated them in your discussion. Just as morality is a product of our evolution, so too is our drive to accomplish. The idea of "going against the grain" to achieve is misleading. It hinges on a false narrative of free will conquering a monolithic human nature. Except human nature isn't monolithic, which is partially displayed in the first video above. The people who have gone against the grain to achieve did so because they evolved to do just that. It's how the whole process works.
------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
... and that bothers me.
|
This comment (and others like it) really sticks out to me. I have to ask: so what if it bothers you? I'd really like to believe that there's something to look forward to after death. I'd rather not imagine that when I die that will be it, period. Nothingness. Not even nothingness.
Less than nothingness. I'd love to know the future beyond my death, or be sent on to new experiences, but instead I'm faced with the belief that my death will be the ultimate end, nothing special about it at all. It's not that I
want to believe this, it's that I
must. I must believe it because - quite literally - the only reason I have not to believe it is that it bothers me. That's not a good rationale for determining truth.
At the same time, being bothered is a matter of perspective. As bothersome as the lack of an afterlife may be, I also feel that the truth of the universe is
far more beautiful than any metaphysics could ever imagine. In the end, it's a net positive. The very real likelihood of determinism is one consequence of this amazingly interconnected universe that I think adds to its beauty. I may not have free will, but that doesn't diminish my unique (literally!) contributions to this massive universe. Even more amazing to me is that all these elements of existence are behind the evolution that gives me the capacity to appreciate this greatness in the first place.
Point is: determinism is not depressing to me. At least, no more than the idea that we share a common ancestor with apes and were not made in god's image.
------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
We are both a product of our environment and an agent with in it.
|
Now there's something I completely agree with.
It needs to be recognized that when determinism is discussed, it doesn't end with us and our determined actions. Our actions may be determined by the laws of physics and all that has happened before now, but those actions are a continuation of that process and will determine future actions - for us, and others. We may not technically be free, but we most certainly play an important role in our localized universe.