Moral Nihilism

[Kyuuketsuki]

I see it like this.

When you put it like that, I would call it free will.

To both of you that's fine ... you can see it like that (or call it free will) but ultimately it's your opinion and doesn't prove whether we do or don't have free will.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Yep, it doesn't. I just don't believe in it because I have no evidence. And by that though I mean when we define it as something more than mere evitablity which is obvious that we have either way, with our without actual 'free will' as in influencing our own decisions and whether or not this universe is deterministic or INdetermistic - we still have evitability either way, I mean; we still avoid things and situations, etc, whether we have any real 'choice' in the matter or not.

In anything other than simply 'evitability', etc I don't know how 'free will' would exactly work or what it would even BE like. How we would even tell? I just don't believe in anything more than that because I know of no evidence. I assume we just have thoughts influenced by other thoughts etc, and we don't actually choose THEM ulitimately, they just happen. Whether the universe is indeterministic or deterministic I know of no evidence of 'free will' other than if it is defined as simply 'evitability'.

And I expect evidence of course. I don't know how the hell that would work...how can we ULTIMATELY choose our own thoughts, make our own decisions, choose our own decisions or 'make' our own thoughts, or whatever, etc? I Mean....where is the evidence for that? The thoughts and decisions are influenced by each other and by environment and genetics - I don't know of any evidence that it's any more than that. As far as I know if they're not determined then they're simply more random; bouncing about a bit more - not that we CHOOSE them - because the 'choices' we MAKE themselves I have no reason to believe are chosen! They just happen and if we think choosing equates to having any choice in the matter then that's not evidence. Just because we think we can make our OWN choices is not evidence.

We ARE making choices whether we like it or not is my view. And they just happen, we make 'choices' as WE view them - but they just happen.

We do one thing as opposed to do something else and then think "I chose that" - did you? Maybe it wasn't determined, but your actual choosing that was just physics bouncing about as far as I'm concerned and YES it may have been able to be another way...but can YOU influence that? Can you choose WHICH? I know of no evidence that you can.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Go Ev!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol ty

EvF

[g-mark]

The universe doesn't care if all the homo sapiens kill each other, why should you or I?

Ummmm....because we DO? And it's a good fucking thing TOO?

Empathy? Human feelings?

Sorry - I had to pick this one out.

EvF

Interesting statement.

In anything other than simply 'evitability', etc I don't know how 'free will' would exactly work or what it would even BE like. How we would even tell?

Do you not make decisions for yourself?

The evidence is in your decisions. As you make descisions and you are aware. You may have to live with the fact that you may never have your proof.

And I expect evidence of course. I don't know how the hell that would work...how can we ULTIMATELY choose our own thoughts, make our own decisions, choose our own decisions or 'make' our own thoughts, or whatever, etc?

For some things there is no evidence and there never will be. It will just be a thought.

because the 'choices' we MAKE themselves I have no reason to believe are chosen!

How do you explain choice in what we do?

What happens if you don't make a choice?

[infidel666]

All I am saying is that if we have free will, then so does a chess computer AI that has the ability to learn to play different opponents based on feedback from playing those different opponents. It makes "choices" too.

These questions are for everyone: Do you think that a learning chess computer AI has "free will?" If not, why not? Do animals have free will? Does free will require sentience? Does free will require life? What is sentience? What is life? What makes humans so special? Is it a soul? How is it possible to believe in "free will" without engaging in a bit of "magical thinking?" What is your definition of free will and who or what has it?

[Kyuuketsuki]

All I am saying is that if we have free will, then so does a chess computer AI that has the ability to learn to play different opponents based on feedback from playing those different opponents. It makes "choices" too.

Quite possibly.

Do you think that a learning chess computer AI has "free will?" If not, why not?

I doubt it because we pretty much know how it works given that we created it but I concede there may be enough randomisation to give the appearance of some kind of freewill. It's a but like the argument I use when people say robots will never have free will ... I adopt a Turing test style approach and say that regardless of how it is programmed if it appears to have free will then it probably does (at least what we consider to be free will ... the kind I am not convinced exists).

Do animals have free will?

Inasmuch as we have yes, I believe so.

Does free will require sentience?

Does free will require life?

As in organic? See above ... I believe that one day AI will replace us or merge with us (it's already happening if you think about it).

What is sentience?

The illusion of free will perhaps, self awareness maybe.

What is life?

One website (Kate Hillard) gives 6 characteristics of life: cells, , organization, energy use, homeostasis, growth & reproduction.

I'd agree except I wouldn't specify cells, I'd say cells or something that carrions out an equivalent function.

What makes humans so special?

We are special but only to us (IOW nothing).

Is it a soul?

No.

How is it possible to believe in "free will" without engaging in a bit of "magical thinking?"

Free will is an assumption.

What is your definition of free will and who or what has it?

I'm in Ev's camp

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

In anything other than simply 'evitability', etc I don't know how 'free will' would exactly work or what it would even BE like. How we would even tell?

Do you not make decisions for yourself?

The evidence is in your decisions. As you make descisions and you are aware. You may have to live with the fact that you may never have your proof.

If I 'make decisions' in the sense that I do stuff and think I had any choice in the matter. Where is the evidence that I did? Simply believing that I had I had any choice in the matter of my decisions is not evidence that i do.

As far as I know the 'choices I make' themselves just happen and bounce about - I mean it's just physics. Whether I do or don't take credit for them or not is not evidence or not for if I really have any choice in the matter in the choices themselves.

And if the choices themselves CAN'T be chosen then it makes no practical difference to determinism. So how is THAT free will? It would simply mean that if they're not determined and they're like that that that they're bouncing about more randomly (however slight or much) rather than being predetermined.

Where is the evidence that I have any choice in the matter? I 'make decisions' but if I take credit for them that is NOT evidence that I have any choice in those decisions.

As far as I know they just happen.

For some things there is no evidence and there never will be.

Maybe so. I mean I certainly don't believe the human race is going to last forever anyway. And I also think that there are very probably some things that are just beyond the human capacity to 'know'. And how would you know if there weren't or not if it's outside the human capacity to know?

It will just be a thought.

The brain is being studied though .Whether consciousness can ever be fully understood or not I do not know.

But the thing is, yes - a thought. We have thoughts. And sometimes those thoughts contain our belief that we CHOOSE those thoughts. I know of no evidence that we do though. As far as I know our thoughts just happen - and if they just happen then the thoughts influence each other and the environment does - it's just physics, and any 'decisions' we make whether we take credit for them or not - is not evidence that we are doing anything other than simply just thinking stuff WITHOUT any choice in the matter - we could still BELIEVE we have a choice in our own thoughts without having any. But I know of any evidence that we DO.

As far as I know at least a LOT of us (those who believe in 'free will' basically) take credit for our own choices and BELIEVE we 'made them happen'. Some don't believe that.

And I know of any evidence TO believe that. As far as I know there is no evidence of 'free will' - believing we have choice is not evidence of choice.

How do you explain choice in what we do?

We do stuff because of physics and part of that physics includes us having thoughts that sometimes include us BELIEVING we CHOSE those thoughts or 'made that decision' happen. But I know of no evidence of us actually making stuff happen as far as I know we are simply part of physics bouncing about whether that includes us simply BELIEVING that we 'make choices' or not - I know of no evidence that we ACTUALLY DO 'make choices' - it's just physics whether determined or INdetermined and therefore more random.

Determinism imples NO free will.

But INdeterminism doesn't imply free will.

There is no evidence of free will in either case as far as I know. It is simply that with determinism it's impossible and with INdeterminism the possibility is perhaps open. I still no of no evidence whatsoever - it may be possible but I still have no reason to believe it's any more probable whatsoever other than the possibility merely being open perhaps.

What happens if you don't make a choice?

We 'make choices' in the fact we do stuff and say "I chose to do that" - we take credit for it. But as far as I know there is no evidence that we actually DID. We believe we have a choice in the matter. I know of no evidence that we actually do though. It's just physics.

EvF

[Tiberius]

If free will is such an assumption, how is "not free will" any less of an assumption? As far as I see it, we have the evidence for free will, which is that we make choices (at least we think we do), and other people can observe us making choices.

To say "there is no free will" is tantamount to saying that all information in the universe has sprung from nothing, that because our choices are not choices, everything we have ever written, invented, etc is all predetermined from the moment we are born (and retrospectively the moment life emerged). It means that William Shakespeare was "destined" to become a writer and poet, and that his choices didn't make him what he became.

The view that others here seem to be presenting is not one of "no free will", but one of "limited free will", which is one I can understand. It is a compromise between the two, saying that because we are simply "gene machines" some of our actions are based solely on instinct and internal decisions, whilst the apparent presence of consciousness and self-awareness means that some decisions are made in the conscious mind.

There is a distinction between the two, but as I've already said, I think "not free will" leads to ridiculous conclusions when you take it back in time.

[Edwardo Piet]

If free will is such an assumption, how is "not free will" any less of an assumption?

I need a reason to believe in this 'free will' thing - I would think NO 'free will would be the default. Because there's already evidence for physics and the mechanics of the universe. But no evidence (as far as I know) that we can influence THAT other than what we are doing simply BECAUSE of it whether we like it or not. In which case we don't really influence stuff 'ourselves' because we are PART OF it. We are bound by the same things as far as I know; either we are determined like the rest of the universe (determinism) or we're not (indeterminism) and we're more random. This applies to the rest of physics - what evidence is there even remotely that it isn't exactly the same for US? I know of no evidence that PHYSICS ITSELF has 'free will' - why would we be any different?


The fact people merely believe that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?

As far as I see it, we have the evidence for free will, which is that we make choices (at least we think we do), and other people can observe us making choices.

See above. How is that even remotely evidence?

How is the fact we BELIEVE we have free will remotely evidence for it's existence? If we DIDN'T believe in free will would that be evidence that it DOESN'T exist?

So are all the people who DON'T believe in free will evidence against it? if not then how on earth are those who DO believe in it evidence FOR it? And don't we need some reason to believe it DOES exist or DOES have some presence in the universe first?

The fact people merely BELIEVE that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be any different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?

Don't you need evidence FOR the existence of something first? Like evidence for the existence of something that gives us any reason to believe whatsoever that we choose our own thoughts? Why ELSE would we believe it? Just because it's common to believe that we do? (and has been throughout history).

If 100% of people in the world BELIEVED they had 'free will' that in itself would not be evidence of free will. How WOULD it be? If it WAS evidence then what would it be like if people believed in free will but it DIDN'T exist??

We're of course not just in the universe, but part of it - so we are just as bound by physics as everything else. And physics doesn't have 'free will' as far as I know because there's no evidence of that so where's the evidence that we do or that we'd be any different? Where's the evidence that we are a special case? There is evidence that at least some of us BELIEVE we are and/or BELIEVE we have 'free will' but this is not even remotely evidence for the TRUTH of it - how could it be??

To say "there is no free will" is tantamount to saying that all information in the universe has sprung from nothing, that because our choices are not choices, everything we have ever written, invented, etc is all predetermined from the moment we are born (and retrospectively the moment life emerged).

'no free will' is the default right? Because: there is evidence for physics whether it's indetermined or determined. Our thoughts happen, they are physics. We believe that we MAKE them happen...but I know of no evidence of the truth of this actually happening whatsoever. As far as I know they 'just happen' and are simply influenced by other thoughts and the environment and genetics, etc. There actually IS evidence for the environment and genetics - and I would at least think there is also evidence that our thoughts effect each other.. your thoughts are (at least) often based on other thoughts you just thought. You develop 'a train of thought', etc...

...There is evidence for THOSE things. But I do not know of any evidence that we physically choose our own thoughts...how would we do that? What evidence is there for that?

And choices and decisions of course...are thoughts TOO - so if thoughts 'just happen' because 'that's the way the physics bounce' (indeterministic) or because they're determined (determinism) - where's the choice in that? I know of no evidence that we have any more 'free will' than an atom. We just commonly BELIEVE we do. Sure we have more EVITABILITY - more capability - but do we have any more real 'choice' in the matter? I don't believe so. Because I know of no evidence of that whatsoever. Our thoughts and decisions ultimately 'just happen because of physics' whether we like it or not, whether we take credit for them or not and whether we believe we have any 'free will' or not.

It means that William Shakespeare was "destined" to become a writer and poet, and that his choices didn't make him what he became.

You're talking about determinism. Which does indeed make 'free will' impossible. I do not know of the evidence on either side for determinism or indeterminism. I just know that although the universe being determined makes free will IMPOSSIBLE - that I know of no reason to believe whatsoever that INdeterminism does anything more than perhaps open a possibility for it?

Determinism='free will' is impossible.

INdeterminism='Free will' is now perhaps, possible - but as far as I know no more probable other than the fact the mere possibility is perhaps open. I STILL know of no evidence that we actually make decisions other than the fact we (at least those who believe in free will) merely believe we do. INdeterminism just means the universe isn't determined; i.e. physics is more random... How does more random remotely give any evidence of or reason to believe in 'free will'

A dice is random. Does it have any more choice in how it gets thrown than if the dice were rigged? Just because there are more possibilities?

The view that others here seem to be presenting is not one of "no free will", but one of "limited free will", which is one I can understand. It is a compromise between the two, saying that because we are simply "gene machines" some of our actions are based solely on instinct and internal decisions, whilst the apparent presence of consciousness and self-awareness means that some decisions are made in the conscious mind.

I am well aware that us humans, with awareness - often BELIEVE we make our decisions. But I know of no evidence that we do other than that we 'do things' or 'think things through' - which is bloody obvious and applies both WITH or WITHOUT free will.

The thing is, where is the remote evidence that we have any choice in what we 'think though'? Our thoughts are just entirely influenced by other factors and each other and the thoughts themselves - where is the evidence that they can choose what they are? None that I know of anyway! As far as I know thoughts just happen as the physics go (whether determined or indetermined, whether like rigged dice or normal UNrigged dice) - I know of no evidence to believe in anything MORE.

There is a distinction between the two, but as I've already said, I think "not free will" leads to ridiculous conclusions when you take it back in time.

Determinism implies no free will. This is what you seem to be speaking of...

But if determinism is that the future is determined like the dice are rigged....

And INdeterminism is that it's NOT like the dice are NOT rigged, they are normal UNrigged dice....

Then how does UNrigged dice have any more freedom in how they are thrown and what they land on? It simply has more possibility or evitability. How does INdeterminism give people any more freedom whatsoever? It just means there are more possible futures - I know of no evidence whatsoever that more possible futures equates to any choice in the matter whatsoever...

Where is the evidence or reason to believe whatsoever that normal UNrigged dice have any more CHOICE in the outcome than RIGGED dice? -there's simply more possibilities! Right?

Where is the evidence that any agents in an INdeterministic universe have any more CHOICE in the outcome than in a deterministic universe? - there's simply more possibilities! Right?

EvF