I’d add to my comments on gods morality and free will, that a spinozan god..particularly…probably couldn’t be said to have a moral dimension of this sort any more than a volcano does. It’s not a force of nature, but the force of nature. It doesn’t set out with the intent to harm by purposely causing a tsunami- it is the tsunami, or rather…the tsunami is like breathing in our out for us., and we, likewise…are like breathing in or out to it.

(November 23, 2021 at 11:21 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I’d add to my comments on gods morality and free will, that a spinozan god..particularly…probably couldn’t be said to have a moral dimension of this sort any more than a volcano does.  It’s not a force of nature, but the force of nature.  It doesn’t set out with the intent to harm by purposely causing a tsunami- it is the tsunami, or rather…the tsunami is like breathing in our out for us., and we, likewise…are like breathing in or out to it.

Well put. This seems a good expression of the difference between moral evil and natural evil. The former requires a free agent to compass it, while the latter has no intent, and is only ‘evil’ from the perspective of those free agents affected by it.

Boru

(November 23, 2021 at 10:04 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(November 22, 2021 at 7:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A god could lack free will and it would still be a god, just as….if we lacked free will, we’d still be people, still be all that we are.  Theistic gods are categorized as such because they’re like us, not in some different class.  If the whole universe could credibly be called personal and intervening, a pantheistic god would exist.  Pantheism would be true.  No extra levels or different stuff required.

Not having free will would seem to rob our actions of what is traditionally conceived of as moral significance.  Such a move would be fatal for a god.

You can build an AI to drive a car. The AI is a set of algorithms but just because it is a set of algorithms doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make good decisions.
It has input in the form of video and it processes the video and make decisions and gives an output.

As for morality, it is not really different than being a good car driver. There is a certain set of rules that humans want to live by.
The rules are connected to human emotions.
Again, you will have an input stage ---> which leads to the processing stage ----> which leads to an output.

I try Boru, I try. We even recognize the distinction when it comes to alleged free agents like people. We don’t insist that every bad act certifies a bad actor. Even when some person does set out with the intent to harm and accomplishes that intent - we might still decide that they’re incompetent, rather than evil. Gods, too, often incompetent. Sometimes explicitly, always implicitly.

(November 23, 2021 at 11:13 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

(November 22, 2021 at 2:37 pm)Alan V Wrote: First of all, I see "determined or random" as a false dichotomy.

So, you are suggesting that there is a 3 rd state. Explain to me how the 3 rd state operates.

People do things because of reasons.  Reasons are not the same thing as material causes in a reductionistic sense.  The wiring of the human brain works the same no matter what is decided.

(November 23, 2021 at 11:13 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

Quote:Humans also "fill in the blanks" to interpret situations without enough information (like you are doing), and choose between frames of reference so they have a better idea which algorithms to apply to which situations. Also, humans create their own programs.

This is not a 3 rd state. We use our logic and fill in blanks where it is appropriate. Humans are simply a far more sophisticated program than a Win XP.

The human brain takes input from reality, it learns from reality. We also learn from our peers.
The human brain’s circuits are plastic.
A program like Win XP is static but neural based algorithms are designed to learn.
Yes, when a baby is born, its brain is initialized to a certain state. The brain is not a total blank like your hard drive or RAM that you buy from the store.

You are depending on an outdated, behavioristic or reflexive model of the human brain.  A living brain is much more than a computer, so the analogies only go so far.

The emergent position (as contrasted with reductionism) is that there exists both bottom-up and top-down causation.  Brains create their own information which is often as causal as any more direct physical cause of behaviors.  This means that potential causes are sometimes selected and not merely added together as in a mathematical equation.

(November 23, 2021 at 11:13 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: For the brain, it needs to work in a certain way, it needs to be logically and this means having rules, having circuits, which means it is deterministic.

Free will decisions are virtual, yet still causal.  They are in addition to what is merely determined on a less complex level.  That is what makes them emergent.

I am saying all this to contrast the perspectives of emergent materialism with reductionistic (deterministic) materialism.  Science has not decided which is correct yet.  Scientists and philosophers are still arguing over the issues, and many have strong opinions one way or the other. I have read books expressing both perspectives.

For more of an overview, see for instance Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy.

(November 23, 2021 at 1:29 pm)Alan V Wrote: People do things because of reasons.  Reasons are not the same thing as material causes in a reductionistic sense.  The wiring of the human brain works the same no matter what is decided.

You can forget about atoms if that is something that bothers you.
I am talking about order vs disorder, deterministic vs random.

Quote:You are depending on an outdated, behavioristic or reflexive model of the human brain.  A living brain is much more than a computer, so the analogies only go so far.

The emergent position (as contrasted with reductionism) is that there exists both bottom-up and top-down causation.  Brains create their own information which is often as causal as any more direct cause of behaviors.  Otherwise crazy people wouldn't try to do impossible things like fly off rooftops.

How does the bottom-up and top-down process work?
If brain create information, do they use a process of some kind or no process at all?

Fly off a rooftop is something that you can have in a deterministic system with a deterministic brain. In that person’s judgment, he thinks he can do his stunt and survive. Maybe his plan isn’t perfect, maybe he did not consider every single state of the system.
A team of engineers can design and plane and test it out and find that it crashes. This is why using computer simulations, small models helps, since it reduces the costs.

So, how do brains create information?

Quote:Free will decisions are virtual, yet still causal.  They are in addition to what is merely determined on a less complex level.  That is what makes them emergent.

I am saying all this to contrast the perspectives of emergent materialism with reductionistic (deterministic) materialism.  Science has not decided which is correct yet.  See for instance Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy.

What do you mean by virtual? Are you talking about a process that is not done by atoms and that they are done by something else?
What do you mean by causal?

I looked at the link. i am not sure how it is related to free will. I would like to have an explanation as to what free will is.
For me, it looks like a software such as Win XP, an AI that drives a car, they do have free will.
I’m not saying that the human brain is identical to Win XP or a AI that drives a car. The recipe of the brain seems to involve more.
People seem to be saying that a deterministic brain does not have free will. <---- I don’t understand why they are saying that.

We really should start a separate thread.

(November 23, 2021 at 1:09 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:

(November 23, 2021 at 10:04 am)Angrboda Wrote: Not having free will would seem to rob our actions of what is traditionally conceived of as moral significance.  Such a move would be fatal for a god.

You can build an AI to drive a car. The AI is a set of algorithms but just because it is a set of algorithms doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make good decisions.
It has input in the form of video and it processes the video and make decisions and gives an output.

As for morality, it is not really different than being a good car driver. There is a certain set of rules that humans want to live by.
The rules are connected to human emotions.
Again, you will have an input stage ---> which leads to the processing stage ----> which leads to an output.

That's an example of what G.E. Moore calls the naturalistic fallacy. "Like" moral good isn't moral good, and never the twain shall meet.

Quote:In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of explaining something as being good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature (1738–40). However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism.

Wkipedia || Naturalistic fallacy

(November 23, 2021 at 8:35 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(November 23, 2021 at 1:09 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: You can build an AI to drive a car. The AI is a set of algorithms but just because it is a set of algorithms doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make good decisions.
It has input in the form of video and it processes the video and make decisions and gives an output.

As for morality, it is not really different than being a good car driver. There is a certain set of rules that humans want to live by.
The rules are connected to human emotions.
Again, you will have an input stage ---> which leads to the processing stage ----> which leads to an output.

That's an example of what G.E. Moore calls the naturalistic fallacy.  "Like" moral good isn't moral good, and never the twain shall meet.

Quote:In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of explaining something as being good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature (1738–40). However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism.

Wkipedia || Naturalistic fallacy

Where do you see the fallacy?
I admit that
input stage ---> which leads to the processing stage ----> which leads to an output.

is not the full algorithm behind morality.
This is why I threw in loosely “The rules are connected to human emotions.” in there.

Keep in mind that your initial sentence that started this part of the discussion was
“Not having free will would seem to rob our actions of what is traditionally conceived of as moral significance. Such a move would be fatal for a god.”

so, I would first need to understand what is free will, how does a brain executing free will behave.

Any reduction of moral whatsits to natural whatsits can be described that way.

To be fair, it’s contended to be a fallacy, but not recognized as one in the same way that a converse error might be. It’s not immediately obvious that or why moral whatsits can’t reduce to natural whatsits- but non naturalists would like to argue that they don’t.

A pantheistic morality is explicitly natural, though…and so, in that context, it’s moot. Non naturalism is a better fit for panentheism. The non natural being a part of the panentheist “plus” in the universe plus formulation of the sacred or divine.

From your comments about the moral algorithm referring to human emotion, you might be accurately classified as a non-cognitivist.

Additionally, don’t read too much into the term non natural, I can just about guarantee it doesn’t mean what it sounds like at first pass, I could have described your stated position as non natural non cognitivism, for example. That moral statements purport to report facts but do not, instead reporting our desires, which we intuitively apprehend.

Lack of free will strongly suggests we shouldn't hold moral agents (including the pantheistic "god") accountable for their actions. But there is still room for the determinist/incompatablist to judge actions morally good or bad. The determinist/incompatabalist thinks we ought not hold people morally responsible for their choices because their choices are merely nature unfolding according to its laws. 

The correct thing to do is see to the causes of immoral behavior and fix those. Otherwise, you're just getting mad at the water for fizzing after an alka-seltzer tablet has been dropped in. Don't get mad at the water for fizzing. Stop the alka-seltzer tablet from being dropped in if the fizzing bothers you so much.

But there's nothing stopping the determinist from judging fizzy water as better/worse than non-fizzy water. Of course, some hard determinists are also moral nihilists. That makes sense too. Both metaethical theories are compatible with determinism as I see it.