For the last while I have been reading/studying free will. I do not agree with Sam Harris or Danial Dennett, nor any of the religious. Epictetus comes close, but misses a few points. How would one test what I now believe? I am not sure if there is a way.
I believe we have some free will, but not much. Sam's test is not limited to the areas that we have free will over, in fact, the bit of free will we have is so over run with none free will in Sam's tests, so I believe his findings are correct. On that scale, we have no free will, yet we do have some free will.
Our free will can be modeled with one three way switch. Neutral, positive or negative reaction to any single proposition. That is not much free will.
First there is a problem with the mental switch, we have three choices, not just two. We can assent and reject, but there is a neutral no decision, delay, not make a decision, study it more, defer, postpone, refuse to consider, position. Nothing is a clear diapole switch. Epictetus gets around this by calling out only those things that we mostly control, yet he goes too far by including desires, opinions, motivations and aversions, which we may not have complete control over if the desire, opinion, motivation or aversion is persistent or strong. His filter need to be finer, but also there may be considerable variation between people. So my free will may be greater or less than yours, but I do not think it could be much less than I describe.
Many other things actually fit along a continuum from one end to the
other, the useful nine or seven point scale, in addition to the dipolar
or tripolar switch of logic.
Having said all that, I think that the free will we do have is entirely in our thoughts, and that mainly is we can assent to or reject a statement proposition, or defer judgement. Even that some people who have not overwritten the teaching of there youth may not truly have such liberty. Anything out of our thoughts is beyond our free will, but some do not accept this. Communication of that level is not free since it also depends on the body which is the third level. The second level is the generation or recall of thoughts, where appetites, desires, aversions, motivations, opinions, emotions and similar live. These may come from below conscious, be rational, or just arise from chemical or situational conditions. These come and and sometimes thrust themselves upon us. We do not therefore have true will over them, but some people have learned to control these for periods of time, to some extent, often by repeatedly rejecting these propositions. This ability seems to vary widely among people, as does the force and frequency that these arise. We can defer until the strength reduces, return to some other defined deflection of the thoughts, emotion, or deflection. Even this second level is beyond our natural free will, and therefore can be modified in intense by the body chemistry, and therefore training.
Anything that requires the third level of activation becomes much simpler to measure but will not show free will. The use of body within the tests boundaries eliminates anything that does not include the body. As free will is totally within the mind, and only within part of the mind, anything that exceeds this small space, philosophically, will exceed free will. This model of free will requires one three way output switch, no output, positive or negative to be modeled. That is not much free will. Anything more requires additional input, which may or may not have been there by free will. Opinions could be within free will, but even those may require external input to arrive in the mind as they are, and as such may not be free will.
We are indoctrinated from birth, and some of that is false; we have just accepted it, likely because, well we depend on our parents, and we believe them, at least until we become teenagers, by which time parents have exposed there fallible nature, and so it goes.
Traditions are filled with wrong information. Religions also, if not more so. When we go back to first principals, as we did in so much derivation of structural formulas in engineering, we realize that there is no god, only logic, in everything. Life takes away choices, which reduces our ability to utilize free will. Is it free will if there is no logical choice? Is it free will if our body is demanding? Is it free will if the right choice is much more difficult or impractical given the constraints and pressures? It it free choice if the right choice goes against what the body is demanding? Appetites must be satisfied according to the body. So even if we have free will, what choices do we really have? Just in our mind, that is all we can really have.
Friday, June 29, 2018
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Faith
From the evolutionary prospective, what benefits does faith provide?
Faith allows for quick teaching/learning. There is no justification required. Here it is, know this. Not great for understanding the reasons, but the primal lesson is quick to be had. When life is brutish, hard and short, those lessons may be needed before adulthood, and the parents cannot count on being around when his children need him. It was law in Greek times that the father was obligated to teach his sons. Many wrote books to there sons, life was uncertain. Faith, that what father knew was right was just required. That is the first and big value of faith. Just take what I am saying as truth, aka faith. Test if for yourself when you get time came later, but that is also an essential step.
I, an old retired person, am still learning things which are probably obvious to most people, but not to me. I grew up poor and in a isolated area, essentially physically provided for... well at a survival level. Faith that there was a better life to be had away from there was all that kept me going. I did not need to go that far, 80 miles, and there was opportunity. I grew up knowing I would be leaving. That is just how it was. Faith, not knowledge was all we had.
Now, when we get time, we each need to test what we were told, and sort out the bullshit, no longer true, and the like.
Altruism, as prescribed in the religious texts, exists only in tight communities, such as the Mennonite, Hutterite, Amish, and other religious groups. It is a within group characteristic. We likely have a bit built in biologically, but much more is learned, religion, cultural, societal. Within the modern mass societies, very little exists, but within groups, it does exist. Faith in mass society does not work, there are too many that want to separate us and our money. That is the ultimate problem.
The real problem is there are too many people. The earth can absorb the Co2 of a modren society of about 3.5 billion, we are twice that now, and pain is about to be felt in a big way. Check out the data. and when you do look at the data, not just the argument, you will see. Faith is not required except in the science, mathematics, and the data.
Faith allows for quick teaching/learning. There is no justification required. Here it is, know this. Not great for understanding the reasons, but the primal lesson is quick to be had. When life is brutish, hard and short, those lessons may be needed before adulthood, and the parents cannot count on being around when his children need him. It was law in Greek times that the father was obligated to teach his sons. Many wrote books to there sons, life was uncertain. Faith, that what father knew was right was just required. That is the first and big value of faith. Just take what I am saying as truth, aka faith. Test if for yourself when you get time came later, but that is also an essential step.
I, an old retired person, am still learning things which are probably obvious to most people, but not to me. I grew up poor and in a isolated area, essentially physically provided for... well at a survival level. Faith that there was a better life to be had away from there was all that kept me going. I did not need to go that far, 80 miles, and there was opportunity. I grew up knowing I would be leaving. That is just how it was. Faith, not knowledge was all we had.
Now, when we get time, we each need to test what we were told, and sort out the bullshit, no longer true, and the like.
Altruism, as prescribed in the religious texts, exists only in tight communities, such as the Mennonite, Hutterite, Amish, and other religious groups. It is a within group characteristic. We likely have a bit built in biologically, but much more is learned, religion, cultural, societal. Within the modern mass societies, very little exists, but within groups, it does exist. Faith in mass society does not work, there are too many that want to separate us and our money. That is the ultimate problem.
The real problem is there are too many people. The earth can absorb the Co2 of a modren society of about 3.5 billion, we are twice that now, and pain is about to be felt in a big way. Check out the data. and when you do look at the data, not just the argument, you will see. Faith is not required except in the science, mathematics, and the data.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Hormone Driven
Hormone Driven, sexually dangerous, young males
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/06/06/bill-donohue-slams-young-male-agnostic-dems-who-say-porn-is-morally-acceptable/
What does sexually drive have to do with morally correct behavior? The young single male has three choice, maybe more. Resist, self, or do. With so many of the females setting their sights on the rich, good looking, or on career, and the excess of males, what is one to do?
Once we become directed at a attractive career, or those who have the gift of gab, we a are off to better things, and the call of women may be reduced, or we became the incels. Oh well, we get older, and perhaps we find a mate, but could anyone satisfy her? She is a body of want, want money, want time, want property, and there is only so much money available, and soon she will be gone to what she sees as greener pastures, unless she has the nesting urge, and then...
We humans have always had difficulties, even when the female was trained to be subservient, and to nest. Now, with what they call freedom, more are questioning what their role should be,
and society is going to change, and change, and change until... happens.
We humans are likely coming up to an atmosphere driven partial extinction event, or a population reduction event, or a time of extreme human suffering event. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/06/06/bill-donohue-slams-young-male-agnostic-dems-who-say-porn-is-morally-acceptable/
What does sexually drive have to do with morally correct behavior? The young single male has three choice, maybe more. Resist, self, or do. With so many of the females setting their sights on the rich, good looking, or on career, and the excess of males, what is one to do?
Once we become directed at a attractive career, or those who have the gift of gab, we a are off to better things, and the call of women may be reduced, or we became the incels. Oh well, we get older, and perhaps we find a mate, but could anyone satisfy her? She is a body of want, want money, want time, want property, and there is only so much money available, and soon she will be gone to what she sees as greener pastures, unless she has the nesting urge, and then...
We humans have always had difficulties, even when the female was trained to be subservient, and to nest. Now, with what they call freedom, more are questioning what their role should be,
and society is going to change, and change, and change until... happens.
We humans are likely coming up to an atmosphere driven partial extinction event, or a population reduction event, or a time of extreme human suffering event. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
Monday, June 4, 2018
In Responce
https://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2018/06/random-thoughts-on-blogging-about-desire.html
Perhaps I am not understanding things here.
"can’t have a moral theory that says that desires are the primary object of moral evaluation without a theory of desires."
Just because your argument can be expressed does not mean that the concept has merit by any or my philosophical system, no matter how much is written about it or how well it is written.
Once we have settled on a ethical system that seems right and feels right, all new systems are tested against that system, and any found lacking are rejected. That is the process of ratcheting to the best system of the day. From that we can define a set of virtues to live by and we do not need to employ our time consuming reasoning but employ or rapid automatic portion of thinking. Away we go. Desire does not even come close to primary object of moral evaluation in my understanding of life. Life is the primary object of my moral evaluation, and from what I can see, is for most of the philosophers of life sorts.
Well, all this does not matter, for this is the internet. It is a place for expression, not facts. The truth is elusive, and we must test each statement against our previous accepted knowledge. It it does not match, just reject it, without more evidence. Cognitive dissonance is also not good. We have three choice, reject, assent, or hold in abeyance. Abeyance just takes too much memory.
There is a related issue also. Most professionals will not listen to non-professionals... people of lesser standing... well perhaps not, that point out something that may make the professional wrong. CDC will not look at data that suggests one of there proclamations are wrong, food guys with their food pyramid, the same "we are always right" attitude, big ego attitude, Monsanto and GMO, chemicals, Autism Speaking, and their funding controlled message, Autism Spectrum lumping all the autism's together into one, yet there are at least four desperate issues, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version 5 (DSM-5), and the same issues with eating disorders.
Some of the time the data is right and the organization is wrong. There is one principal that keeps those organization in ignorance, "contempt prior to investigation."
But what do I know?
Perhaps I am not understanding things here.
"can’t have a moral theory that says that desires are the primary object of moral evaluation without a theory of desires."
Just because your argument can be expressed does not mean that the concept has merit by any or my philosophical system, no matter how much is written about it or how well it is written.
Once we have settled on a ethical system that seems right and feels right, all new systems are tested against that system, and any found lacking are rejected. That is the process of ratcheting to the best system of the day. From that we can define a set of virtues to live by and we do not need to employ our time consuming reasoning but employ or rapid automatic portion of thinking. Away we go. Desire does not even come close to primary object of moral evaluation in my understanding of life. Life is the primary object of my moral evaluation, and from what I can see, is for most of the philosophers of life sorts.
Well, all this does not matter, for this is the internet. It is a place for expression, not facts. The truth is elusive, and we must test each statement against our previous accepted knowledge. It it does not match, just reject it, without more evidence. Cognitive dissonance is also not good. We have three choice, reject, assent, or hold in abeyance. Abeyance just takes too much memory.
There is a related issue also. Most professionals will not listen to non-professionals... people of lesser standing... well perhaps not, that point out something that may make the professional wrong. CDC will not look at data that suggests one of there proclamations are wrong, food guys with their food pyramid, the same "we are always right" attitude, big ego attitude, Monsanto and GMO, chemicals, Autism Speaking, and their funding controlled message, Autism Spectrum lumping all the autism's together into one, yet there are at least four desperate issues, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version 5 (DSM-5), and the same issues with eating disorders.
Some of the time the data is right and the organization is wrong. There is one principal that keeps those organization in ignorance, "contempt prior to investigation."
But what do I know?
Sunday, June 3, 2018
The Downside of Cross Pollination
The Downside of Cross Pollination
http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/06/03/god-told-soccer-star-to-ditch-the-sport-because-of-gay-pride/
Volunteer organizations always have difficulties in member retention and member participation. One of the strong reasons are attempts to impose a second message onto the group. Atheist hate prayers. Those who are clearly straight may be opposed to carrying a gay message, and just prefer to ignore the gays. Neutral is likely to be the predominant group. So groups should stick to their primary subject, and not muddy the waters.
The atheist group may not want to be strongly mixed with the gays, nor politics, anti GMO, anti vaccination, nor humanists, nor women rights, nor incels or volcels, nor book club, nor service to the community, nor food bank; because having two interestsmay will cause splintering in the root cause. Do they wish to be social group, or a topic discussions group? There is nothing that will cause resentment faster than imposing something that is not supported onto membership, nor not doing what should be part of it. It is either exposure or too much exposure.
But what do I know?
http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/06/03/god-told-soccer-star-to-ditch-the-sport-because-of-gay-pride/
Volunteer organizations always have difficulties in member retention and member participation. One of the strong reasons are attempts to impose a second message onto the group. Atheist hate prayers. Those who are clearly straight may be opposed to carrying a gay message, and just prefer to ignore the gays. Neutral is likely to be the predominant group. So groups should stick to their primary subject, and not muddy the waters.
The atheist group may not want to be strongly mixed with the gays, nor politics, anti GMO, anti vaccination, nor humanists, nor women rights, nor incels or volcels, nor book club, nor service to the community, nor food bank; because having two interests
But what do I know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)