filtherton

So not to brag or anything, but I'm pretty good at math/logic and I'm fairly good at remembering obscure information. This means that I take standardized tests well and get really good grades in math classes (and various applied science classes). I applied to and was accepted to two of the best schools in the world for the subject I am interested in. Hmm, maybe there is a bit of bragging going on. Let's all take a moment and bask in the subdued glow of my humility.

I did nothing to earn my talents- they are extension of things I was either born with or acquired during my upbringing, namely intelligence, stubbornness, pragmatism, idealism, a complete disregard for a good night's sleep, etc. I didn't choose to be good at math. My natural abilities aren't the result of hard work and any hard work I have engaged in has been due to largely to my stubbornness, which is itself something I didn't earn.

All of my redeeming qualities can be traced directly back to aspects of my life or personality which I had no control of and deserve no credit for. All of the things I have succeeded at are the result of me being at the right place at the right time with the right state of mind and the right capabilities. I consider myself extremely lucky, I don't really feel like I've really earned anything because I assume that anyone who was in my position who had my particular inadvertently obtained talents and abilities would have done the same things in my place. I made do with what I had, which is all anyone ever really does.

In other words, though I have experienced a fair amount of success, I don't know that I deserve credit for any it because I was just doing what came naturally. Similarly, when I do make mistakes, I don't beat myself up over them because I was just doing what came naturally.

It seems fairly normal to think of the formation of a personality as being the result of a collaboration between nature and nurture. Notice that neither nature or nurture imply effort on the part of the person being characterized.

So I guess my question is: how much credit do individuals deserve for our/their successes and failures?

I think that the answer to this question has significant implications in determining particular aspects of one's political and social philosophies and I am interested to see if my time on the politics board will aid me in predicting responses. For instance, if one is to assume, perhaps rather counterintuitively, that everyone is doing the best that they can with what they have, then one might tend to favor working towards a society that provides a robust safety net so that even people who aren't capable of taking care of themselves aren't left to rot.

Ourcrazymodern?

I don't know, filtherton. I think that one who has expended more effort probably deserves more credit. It's an aspect of personal responsibility, which is highly valued by and valuable to society, though unevenly encouraged. Inequities abounding further the confusion, but we should help the less fortunate no less than we would expect to be helped, while counting our blessings. (I reckon, naturally.)

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Cynthetiq

well you could go ever more deeper down that same rabbit hole and say that you had no control over where you wound up on the planet, and in what time period. You could have been born during The Crusades or the Middle Ages to a noble family with the same effort you're describing.

But the reality is that like OCM is stating is that AFTER some of the givens you are stating, there's some effort that an individual has to take in order to achieve.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

filtherton

I don't think there is such a thing as an objective measure of effort. I think that when someone is doing something they enjoy or something that comes natural it feels effortless. I put in an hour of cardio three times a week. The hour a week I put in on Friday takes more effort than it does on Monday even though my output is approximately the same either day.

In some sense effort can be approximated via external measures. I get paid hourly and my wage is ideally meant to compensate me for my effort, but it's more a crude estimate of market value of my output- in other words it has very little to do with how much effort I put into my work.

I definitely earned my undergraduate degree, but I guarantee I put in less effort than many of my classmates.

I don't think it's at all simple.

Ourcrazymodern?

Well, I meant subjective effort, in terms of the credit an individual could take. Think, maybe, Special Olympics? Having worked harder to accomplish (X) is sometimes its own reward, often unsung.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Toaster126

Having the ability to do something is often not earned, per se, but the desire to do something and/or stick with it certainly requires choice of action, which is something one can take credit for.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

SecretMethod70

Technically speaking, I would say none seeing as how I'm not convinced there is such a thing as free will. That said, it's impossible to live life according to that assumption, and free will provides a useful tool to describe our perception of the world, even if it does nothing to describe it's technical underpinnings.

So with that in mind, I would say I agree with Cynthetiq that eventually there comes a point when the individual's choices ought to be considered to play a significant role in the outcome of events. Even then, it's important to keep in mind that outside factors never go away, and we should be open to the fact that what seems an easy and obvious choice for one person can be much less so for another.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

filtherton

I'm inclined to agree with you here about free will. I think it's a useful idea, but ultimately that it's nothing more than fantasy.

In terms of choice, well, going back to the free will thing, I don't think it exists in any sort of meaningful way. I'm not entirely certain that people deserve credit for their choices because I think that the choices people make are the simply the manifestation of a whole collection of external factors interacting in an inconceivably dynamic and complex way. So the fact that I'm not an IV drug user isn't something I can really take credit for, because given a few different rolls of the dice up the line a bit, I could easily have ended up an IV drug user. The difference between the IV drug using filtherton and the current filtherton isn't filtherton, it's luck, so why would I get any credit?

I'm not saying we shouldn't take appropriate measures to mitigate the potential harmful effects that result from the choices people make. Clearly we need to deal with people in appropriate ways according to whichever arbitrary standards we've defined for ourselves. What I am saying is that I think that people are merely conduits for the manifestation of an impossible to reduce combination of personal experience and physical laws.

In other words, nothing's personal.

Ourcrazymodern?

But if nobody gets any credit for anything, & all punishment is arbitrary, of what interest is carrying on? The banks would go broke & any survivors would have to go learn new lessons in la-la-life from our utopian comrades. Apples are oranges in more ways than one. Doesn't thinking of oneself as the victim-cum-benefactor of circumstances make one into nothing at all? This becomes a little depressing, filtherton.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

filtherton

It would be depressing. However, I think that the promise of recognition is a pretty good motivator for people to do good (and bad) and so I don't think that it would make sense to stop giving people recognition, even if they're ultimately doing what just comes naturally to them.

Ourcrazymodern?

So loving myself benefits everyone.

Give yourself more credit.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

bow35

I think you need a challange.
For an example: Go to India or South America and meet with new culture.

__________________
Everything is allowed, but not everything is healthy

Idyllic

Filtherton, I believe your mother and father deserve a great deal of recognition for doing such a spectacular job in rearing such an upstanding individual as yourself, and if it wasn't your parents, then who ever did so, and If you did most of the self rearing, then you deserve a great deal of credit for your achievements.

Tell me, if it was your parents, do you feel that deserve some credit, and do you think they would say, Oh' we were just doing our jobs....... of course they were, still they did an extraordinary job, more than you can recognize as it seems life has come pretty easy to you, your achievements anyway.

When you meet in life with something that does not come easy and you tackle it anyway, will you allow yourself to take the credit and to recognize that you deserve it and by accepting that credit you are in no way belittling the efforts of others who do or do not achieve.

This isn't about comparison and the ease of existence, it is about self confidence, and age will bring that without the fear of losing your humility. It is o.k. to be proud and to take credit for your accomplishments regardless of if they were easy or not. If you really want the sense of self worth, push yourself harder, but be prepared to slip a little and understand the humanity in that. You may be just living the Filtherton life, but the Filtherton living it sounds pretty praise worthy to me.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

filtherton

I guess I didn't intend this thread to be so much about me. I suppose I should have been more general with the OP.

I see what you all are saying. I don't think that I've universally embraced the notion that I don't deserve credit for the things I've done. I just think it's worthwhile to recognize the overwhelming portion of my lot which is due solely to chance.

Charlatan

I think there is a lot to be said about parental support, genetics, the luck of where and when you were born, etc. but I don't believe you should discount free will entirely.

That is to say, I don't believe that so called great men like Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, Nelson Mandela, etc. go there simply because they tried hard and persevered. I can safely say that no person succeeds or fails alone. We are a product of our environment. However, to completely divest yourself of any agency is to strip, in my opinion, all meaning from life.

You can still have all the breaks, a great upbringing, excellent opportunities and great genetics and still fail. The individual has a choice to act or not act on that which he or she has been provided. Choices are made throughout a lifetime which influence future choices and actions.

We are a combination of all of these things, not the least of which is our own agency.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cynthetiq

so why Jimmy Carter and not Billy?

Why JFK and not RFK or Teddy?

I've known lots of trust fund babies that didn't amount to shit and others that made more millions than they ever wanted.

Shouldn't Colin Powell have just become some gangbanger? Or the Harlem Four not be into politics but into being hooligans?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

filtherton

I hear you Charlatan. I think if I believed in free will, we'd be on the same page.

Well, there's a lot more that goes into who we are than just the SES of our families and our racial demographics, though these things do seem to play a huge part.

Charlatan

I don't want to live in a world that is absent of free will. I do not believe I am a predetermined machine. That way lies gods and sticky things like fate and I definitely don't believe in those things.

I stand by my belief in our self directed agency which is greatly influenced by forces beyond our control.

Less than that and I want no part of it. Take the key out of my clockwork spring and cease to wind it. I would rather rust than carry on in a pre-determined world.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

SecretMethod70

Except whether or not there is free will has nothing to do with what you want. In fact, if there's no free will, it's not really up to you whether or not you will accept it: the atoms in your body, reacting to the atoms they've come in contact with, which were reacting to atoms before that, will move in such a way that you either do or do not accept the premise.

Whether or not there is free will says nothing of the existence of higher powers - in fact, I find it less likely, not more likely, that free will exists if there is no god. Without a god, I see no reason why we should consider ourselves immune to the machinations that other animals are subject to. If you'd prefer to believe that other animals have free will too, I see no reason to consider animals immune to the machinations that trees are subject to. Finally, if you prefer to consider all life has free will, I see no evidence that life is subject to different laws of physics - action and reaction - than rocks. The planets did not choose to exist, they are merely the result of billions of years of action and reaction taking place since the big bang. Life, it seems to me, is also the result of a very complex series of actions and reactions taking place on this planet - and beyond. Whether I want this to be the case really has nothing to do with it at all.

Like I said earlier though, it doesn't really matter. Considering the very real possibility that free will does not exist really does nothing for us other than provide an interesting exercise in thought. We're not truly capable of comprehending the absence of free will in the first place, and we don't have any choice other than to keep on existing. Whether one believes in free will or not, we will all live our life as if our will is free, because our bodies - the result of billions of years of action and reaction in the form of evolution - know no other way to exist.*

----

Addendum: Quantum physics does add a new consideration to the issue, but one would more accurately describe the results of quantum physics as random will, not free will. This randomness may be just enough to keep us thinking our will is free.

There is also the theory of compatibilism, which posits that free will and determinism can, in fact, coexist. I've only just begun to consider the arguments for this approach, but I will say I've found them generally unconvincing so far.

----

* Interestingly, I popped over to Wikipedia's extensive entry on free will and saw that "psychologists have shown that reducing a person's belief in free will makes them less helpful and more aggressive." It seems to indicate that the consideration of such things may be inherently detrimental to our existence, which of course provides a possible reason we cannot truly conceive of human life without free will. It is also the reason that I give no consideration to the subject outside of discussions such as this: as interesting as it is to think about free will, I recognize that belief in free will is an important part of our existence. To the degree that I can shut off the fact I am unconvinced of its existence, I do, and I freely (hah! ) suggest that others do the same.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Baraka_Guru

I will simply say that you have free will, but you are not free of the consequences of exercising it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Idyllic

ay, there's the rub

The rivers flow carries us all in the same direction, but you must decide to swim, float or ride, or you can fish from the shores and watch the people pass you by, but still enjoy life.

Cast your line or throw your raft, we will all determine our carriage, even choose a captain, but in the end, the choice is still your own.

Though the destination may be the same, the currents for each will be every changing, and the path will be as varied as snowflakes, destiny implies logic, the only thing logical about life is death, so we are all destined..... to die, sooner if by free will, later if by destiny, both rub.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

SecretMethod70

Elaborating a bit on my own thoughts to add to this discussion, after posting earlier this morning I was reminded of an excerpt which I have included on my Facebook profile for quite some time that speaks directly to the subject of free will. It is from Baruch Spinoza, whose thoughts on free will have, admittedly, heavily influenced my own...

On the improvement of the understanding: The ethics ; Correspondence - By Benedictus de Spinoza

Wikipedia also has a decent summary of Spinoza's view of free will, which I think is worth sharing here:

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Baraka_Guru

I'm not comfortable stopping and resting on the determinism of Spinoza. I prefer to go at least as far as Kant, who came later, and his categorical imperative, within which he speaks of autonomy:

The faculty of desire in accordance with concepts, insofar as the ground determining it to action lies within itself and not in its object, is called a faculty to do or to refrain from doing as one pleases. Insofar as it is joined with one's consciousness of the ability to bring about its object by one's action it is called choice (Willkür); if it is not joined with this consciousness its act is called a wish. The faculty of desire whose inner determining ground, hence even what pleases it, lies within the subject's reason is called the will (Wille). The will is therefore the faculty of desire considered not so much in relation to action (as choice is) but rather in relation to the ground determining choice in action. The will itself, strictly speaking, has no determining ground; insofar as it can determine choice, it is instead practical reason itself. Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wish can be included under the will. That choice which can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which can be determined only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be animal choice (arbitrium brutum). Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself (apart from an acquired proficiency of reason) not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will.

- Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, 6:213-4

Categorical Imperative - Wikipedia

Kant does not deny the existence of external causation, and so he is not subscribing to an ultimate free will. He views free will as the power of human reason as it acts within the confines of cause and effect. This is most brilliantly displayed by moral choices, especially in the context of Kant's wider philosophy.

Although I don't entirely discount the philosophies of those preceding Kant, I do view Kant as more or less a starting point for most, if not all, contemporary thought on such matters.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

SecretMethod70

Kant has great worth, but I find Spinoza compelling on this topic mainly because his idea of free will conforms more easily to what we know to be true through science. It's not that one needs to go back to Spinoza to find arguments against free will, rather it's that I think his are quite clear. It doesn't hurt that his explanation is what originally set me on the path of free will skepticism a number of years ago.

Schopenhauer, in a sense, modified Kant toward once again recognizing a lack of free will when he spoke of our "will to live." That individual will is merely a manifestation of the single Will: Schopenhauer understood it as nature, and now we can understand nature as a phenomenon of physics (even if we can't yet use physics to describe the incredibly complex interactions of nature, we know it is behind them). Recognizing our will to live as our sole objective will and part of the greater Will of nature, it removes humanity from the pedestal we so often try to put ourselves on and reunites us with the rest of existence which most of us have very little problem admitting lacks free will.

Jumping further ahead in time, we can consider Einstein who was unafraid to unite philosophy and science:

My CredoI find myself agreeing with such viewpoints in large part because I don't view philosophy as an isolated discipline, and so I try to consider it in the context of our other knowledge. There are many things we do not know and for which philosophical thought experiments are useful exercises to understand the world around us. We do have a decent idea of the general nature of the universe though: there are laws, and all of existence conforms to those laws. To the degree existence does not conform to those laws - the very real but not totally confirmed possibility of quantum randomness - it is random, not willful. In that context, I have a hard time taking seriously any philosophy of will that does not in some way recognize that underlying truth of the universe.

If I believed in a higher power, I might be willing to accept that human beings are instilled with some essence that allows the electrochemical impulses in our bodies to act according to something other than the rules of physics, but I do not believe in such a power. Without that belief, I currently see no way to reject determinism. At the moment, that means also rejecting free will, but perhaps compatibilism will win me over. I haven't sufficiently explored the idea yet, but at present it seems unlikely to me that free will and determinism can somehow coexist.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

bow35

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru:
The opposite:
Yes I man is free of the consequennces of exerrcising rigtheousness.
Yes I man is free of Karma.
Yes I man is free of casting judgement upon himself.
Yes I man is free.

__________________
Everything is allowed, but not everything is healthy

Cynthetiq

the semantics of will is the crux of what you guys are saying, I don't disagree, but the context that I understand Free Will isn't about being able to will something to happen or being but able to CHOOSE freely.

The idea that I can pick and choose, decide what I think is best for any situation is what I understand the concept of free will.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

SecretMethod70

I don't think we're actually talking about different things cynthetiq. The point of determinism is that you do not actually choose, you merely think you choose because you are unaware of the underlying forces driving you toward that choice. This is demonstrated in recent neurological studies where scientists are starting to be able to predict what choice a person will make before they consciously make it.

The compatibilist argument is essentially one of perception over reality: You perceive choice, therefore choice exists regardless of deterministic factors. I prefer to focus discussion like this on the reality rather than the perception, but fully admit that the perception is what has more consequence in daily life.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Cynthetiq

I'm not sure I understand, and what I do understand, If that's the case, then why look when crossing the street or even not take more chance or risk at every opportunity?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

SecretMethod70

For the most part, it comes down to Schopenhauer's will to live, which I think can be reasonably interpreted as the biological imperative. We know, thanks to our past interactions with the existing world (which passed on this information thanks to its past interactions, etc) that not looking when you cross the street could cause death. We have evolved an aversion to death, and therefore we look before crossing the street.

It's really not so bleak as I think most people interpret it. So what if we're essentially programmed to do the things we do? We still enjoy life nonetheless, and we're not programmed to truly comprehend our lack of will anyway, so understanding this on the level of higher brain function is not going to change how we feel about our will at its core. Furthermore, it actually describes a rather beautiful view of the universe. Maybe I don't actually have free will, but my lack of free will comes from my physical body reacting to the physical existence around me. Only, those reactions are also actions, which cause reactions in that very physical existence. It is the ultimate in interconnectedness, and so even without free will we are each an influential part of existence.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Charlatan

If I remember my studies from many years ago, it was compatibilism that appealed to me.

My understanding is such that absolute determinism is not a reality. Rather, I feel it is complex mix of influences arising the "the way things are" and the myriad choices made by all that impact upon each of us on a continual basis. We are both a product of our environment and an agent with in it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

Yes, when you put it this way, it sounds compelling. The problem I have with determinism is that it overlooks our capacity for a certain level of agency. Though agency is often referred to in a moral context, I can see how it can be considered when observing our everyday life in other areas.

Smeth, I understand your interest leans more towards our relation to the universe in a scientific way, but I myself tend to look at the whole package of material existence and moral life. Without agency and a certain level of free will, I don't think many of humanity's greatest accomplishments could have been achieved. Much of the things of great worth were created by "going against the grain."

I find it hard to believe that they occurred as an outcome of a chain of events without some strong human influence that had some input in terms of the path that is taken. It's all relational. Causality is a force to be reckoned with, but I don't think it renders free will an impossibility; it merely renders it a limited human capacity. We don't respond to stimuli as plants do. We even act in ways inconsistent with much of the animal world.

If human agency were that powerless, I think we'd still be years, decades, if not centuries behind where we are now both technologically and culturally. Much of what has been achieved came at a great cost, at such great risks with a long line of failures.

Of course, it could be argued that this drive to accomplish is a part of our programming. But then giving up and calling it quits would be too.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

I don't think that determinism leaves out agency at all. I think it completely incorporates agency.

I don't think a lack of free will requires mindless intellectual or social conformity.

Ourcrazymodern?

Mind you, conformity inhibits our wills. The agency is ours.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

filtherton

On the other hand, it could be argued that we're always conforming to something. We're just terribly inconsistent, from moment to moment, about what we choose to conform to.

Charlatan

Determinism, if followed to its logical conclusion, can have all the appearances of agency but ultimately cannot contain any choice. All action and inaction, all conformity or non conformity, etc. is the result of external forces.

There is no room for morality or ethics in a determined world... and that bothers me.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ourcrazymodern?

What bothers me is beautiful individuals not appreciating themselves.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

filtherton

I admit that it does sound kind of depressing. I think that agency does exist, but that can only occur as an immediate extension of all that has come before it based on both external and internal forces.

I think that there is room for morality and ethics in a determined world. They are just two of the many variables which can affect the outcome of a decision. I think that saying "there's no such thing as free will" is exactly the same thing as saying that every decision a person makes is the natural result of all relevant factors. So if morality is important to a person, that person's decisions will factor in morality (whatever morality happens to mean to that person).

Me too. I try to appreciate myself as much as I can. Sometimes too much. I appreciate my circumstances as much as I can because I know that shit happens. I still don't necessarily feel all that inclined to take credit for where I'm at.

Dusk

I think the only credit I can take for my situation is that I made the choice to be the vessel in which all the things I embody are retained inside of.

SecretMethod70

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.

------

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.

------

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.

------

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.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ourcrazymodern?

I think I believe much of what you do, SM, but I perceived this thread as more personal.
How much credit do you take?

There's nothing less than nothingness.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT