Effect of consciousness on evolution

[volchok]

So when you said "To blame someone you're assuming that the person is the cause of the event. And we know that is not the case" - did you mean we need to believe in someone as a first cause in order to blame them? Because I don't think that's the case.

Not the first but the ultimate cause.

And if I petition to have them publically humiliated, tortured and executed, you won't hold it against me? I can't take responsibility for it.

Well, it all depends on what you mean by holding it against you. I certainly wouldn't support you. I probably wouldn't associate with you given that you are "that kind of person" but I don't think anything should be done to you besides what is needed to ensure your safety and the safety of others.

Neither does love - it's not rational. Welcome to Asperger's Syndrome heaven.

In a sense, you're right. But notice that I'm not advocating that you should hang out or associate with people you don't like just because they couldn't be anything but what they are. Life is too short for that. On top of that I am no buddhist monk. But I do think I became more compassionate then I was before.

Why?

Well, for one thing, you're lying. You may also be causing unnecessary distress and suffering to that person.

Knowing we'll be blamed for unacceptable things that are our fault can significantly influence us to ensure an acceptable outcome.

Blame is not necessary. We don't need to be dishonest about what we know. Let's say that one of your friends did something "bad" to you. You can very well tell him that if he does that again, you won't be friends with him anymore, knowing all along that he can't truly be held responsible for what he did. Just be pragmatic about it instead of being intellectually dishonest. If he changes his actions, great. If he doesn't, say goodbye.

You can even imagine a situation where both you and your friend know that free will is an illusion. Nothing changes.

If we can't blame people for doing things wrong, we can't credit them for doing things well. Does this seem like a fair statement?

Absolutely. You can be happy that someone did something well, and you might even want to promote that behavior but as far as personal responsibility goes, it obviously goes both ways. No one deserves anything, good or bad and no one can be credited for something, good or bad. But, we still need to look at people's intentions.

I thought that increasing the overall well-being was a good thing? That's consequentialism.

Who said it wasn't ? How is what I'm proposing not increasing overall well-being?

Well, in the words of a wise and incisive philosopher I have had the pleasure of talking to:
If free will is an illusion no one deserves anything.

We treating each other fairly is a decision that we make because we want to live in a world where people can thrive and be happy

[volchok]

If we are not really free to choose to hate someone then that hatred to me is like the tiger's hunger. Or the parts in a clock. It's matter moving ineluctably in tune with the laws of physics..

Well, yes. I'm afraid I can't argue otherwise.
And I do think that it is quite depressing but, do not mistake that conclusion with fatalism. It's not the same thing.

No, I would never suggest it doesn't matter what we choose. That to me would be absurd. Of course it matters that I open my eyes when I cross the street. But: Did I of my own volition choose not to one day because I of my own volition chose to commit suicide?

Yes. Free will is an illusion, will is not. Having said that, will can be reduced to matter interacting with matter. You can be reduce to that, everything can.
So, if you see will as this metaphysical thing, then no, you don't have it.

[Stoic Guardian]

I'd say Free will is exhibited in decision making, when encountering issues that previously weren't dealt with in memory.

For instance when one encounters some form of obstacle whether external (as in some enviromental obstacle, a jagged steep rock face for example) or internal (trying to think of an antithesis to the claim that we do not have free will.)

We have processes already within us that we did not (as far as one can think) choose to will, such as having the capability to think at all.

But when thinking on how to avoid, meet or overcome these challenges we often have an array of choices to choose from. What makes us choose one choice form another?

I'd say it's free will. But it is all dependent on deep thinking, i'd make the claim that philosophising is free will in action.

[volchok]

You don't know what free will is.

[Stoic Guardian]

What is it then?

[lizbethrose]

Vol, you've said that one's actions--usually 'choices'--follow a causal chain that leads to an inevitable conclusion (in this case, a choice) over which no one has any control and the circumstances of which are unknown. Forgive me, I'm paraphrasing. You say that every link of that chain is the result of factors which lead to that cause--again, outside of anyone's control. You deny determinism because that seems to only apply, to you, in a quantum world where determinism can be shown. But if "natural laws" are laws, shouldn't those laws apply at every level of 'life'--activity--in the Universe?

If people want to apply labels to philosophies and you disagree with the 'determinist' label, what label do you suggest that would best encompass your philosophy?

[iambiguous]

If we are not really free to choose to hate someone then that hatred to me is like the tiger's hunger. Or the parts in a clock. It's matter moving ineluctably in tune with the laws of physics..

Well, yes. I'm afraid I can't argue otherwise.

But if I am right then you can can change your mind if you are wrong.

And I do think that it is quite depressing but, do not mistake that conclusion with fatalism. It's not the same thing.

But it can also be comforting to believe we can't be blamed for what we do if what we have done so far hasn't got us very far. Or has got us into trouble.

And if fatalism means, "Philosophy: the doctrine that all events are subject to fate or inevitable predetermination", how are you not one if you believe what you do above?

Again, I root human autonomy in dasein. But dasein is rooted in contingency, chance and change. And we only have so much control or understanding of that.

And this was effectively depicted in the film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Indeed, below is an old post of mine from the thread, "Back to the beginning: dasein":

From the film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:

A woman in Paris was on her way to go shopping.

But she had forgotten her coat and went back to get it. And when she had gotten her coat the phone had rung and so she had stopped to answer it and talked for a couple of minutes.

And while the woman was on the phone Daisy was rehearsing for that evening’s performance at the Paris Opera House.

And while she was rehearsing the woman was off the phone had gone outside to get a taxi.

A Cab comes to a stop she moves to get it but somebody gets there first, the cab drove off and she waits for the next one.

Now this taxi driver had dropped off a fare earlier and had stopped to get a cup of coffee.

He picked up the lady who was going shopping who had missed getting the earlier cab.

The taxi had to stop for a man crossing the street who had left for work five minutes later than he normally did because he forgot to set his alarm.

While the man, late for work, was crossing the street making the cab wait Daisy, finished rehearsing, was taking a shower.

While Daisy was showering the taxi was waiting outside a boutique for the woman to pick up a package which hadn’t been wrapped yet because the girl who was supposed to wrap it had broken up with her boyfriend the night before and forgot to.

When the package was done being wrapped the woman was back in the cab but the taxi was blocked by a delivery truck.

All the while Daisy was getting dressed.

The Delivery truck pulled off and the taxi was able to go while Daisy, the first to be dressed, waited for one of her friends who had broken a shoelace.

While the taxi was stopped, waiting for a traffic light, Daisy and her friend came out of the theater.

And if only one thing had happened differently...if the shoelace hadn’t broken or the delivery truck had moved moments earlier or the package had been wrapped and ready because the girl hadn’t broken up with her boyfriend or the man had set his alarm and got up five minutes earlier or the taxi driver hadn’t stopped for a cup of coffee or the woman had remembered her coat and had gotten into an earlier cab...

Daisy and her friend would have crossed the street and the taxi would have driven by them.

But life being what it is, a series of intersecting lives and incidents out of anyone’s control, the taxi did not go by and the driver, momentarily distracted hit Daisy and her leg was crushed.

Her leg had been broken in five places and with therapy, and time, she might be able to stand, maybe even walk.

Of course Daisy's leg was no ordinary leg. It was the leg of a world renowned dancer. And now, because of these "intersecting lives and incidences out of anyone's control", her life was forever changed.

And this works the same for all of us, of course. We think we are free to go about the business of living our lives autonomously. And up to a point this is true. But how exactly is this point to be determined?

In a large sense our intertwining lives are akin to countless balls on a gigantic pool table. We zig and zag, caroming into each other in ways no one can truly grasp. Yet we can potentially create havoc in another's life simply by stepping back into our apartment to retrieve a coat.

And when people's lives are changed they meet new people, have new experiences, come into contacts with whole new ways of understanding the world.

In other words, the inextricable and oftimes precarious, helter skelter world of daseins.

Also:

From the AP wires:

The night sky may be a lot starrier than we thought. A study suggests the universe could have triple the number of stars scientists previously calculated. For those of you counting at home, the new estimate is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 300 sextillion.

And here we are on this tiny little planet in the vastness of it all trying to speculate on what it all "means".

Here is how I [often] see things:

Albert Camus speculated that meaning is existential. And by this he meant that, on the wheel of life, there is no ontological rim or teleological hub. There are only the individual spokes [daseins] joined together by whatever God or ideology or philosophical claim of "noumenal reality" that is thought up.

We come from nothing, live out our 70 odd years and then return to nothing. And that can only be as meaningful as we construe it to be.

And how many other life forms orbiting all these stars are pondering the very same mysteries?

Why not just be dumbfounded by all the things we don't even know that we don't even know yet?

And what if there is an infinite number of parallel universes in turn?

Where, with any precision, do "I" really fit into all of this?

[iambiguous]

....notice that I'm not advocating that you should hang out or associate with people you don't like just because they couldn't be anything but what they are. Life is too short for that. On top of that I am no buddhist monk. But I do think I became more compassionate then I was before.

This is the part that often bewilders me.

It seems to me you are advocating only in the sense that you are up on a cosmic stage saying and doing things that you could not have not said and done.

And when someone says, "life is too short for that", they usually mean you should choose something else to do instead. But you can only "choose" what the ineluctable matter unfolding has already chosen for you to choose.

Now, I know there are so-called "compatibilist" arguments out there that "deal" with what, to me, seems to be an insoluable paradox.

But I can't get those to "stick" either.

Without autonomy, isn't whether you are more or less compassionaite like noting whether the tiger is more or less successful at the hunt? It is simply describing what is true but without a point of view that might argue it is false.

This is why we invent Gods: to procure that crucial transcending point of view. But an omniscient God seems to be just another blow to human autonomy.

[Amorphos]

Volchok

You havent properly answered to my Viking thought experiment [in my last reply to you].

When it is obvious that the mind and its quale cannot be found in the material [as per said experiment], then its equally true that free will is not either [is a mental quality].

So lets stop talking about determinism and instead debate what being informed by that means!

We can make decisions even though some decisions are made for us as part of the virtually seamless relationship between mind and matter.

You cant just keep giving the deterministic line unless you can show it.

[volchok]

What is it then?

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the concept or what it entails if you're gonna argue that free will exists simply because we make choices.

[volchok]

Vol, you've said that one's actions--usually 'choices'--follow a causal chain that leads to an inevitable conclusion (in this case, a choice) over which no one has any control and the circumstances of which are unknown. Forgive me, I'm paraphrasing. You say that every link of that chain is the result of factors which lead to that cause--again, outside of anyone's control.

I'm guessing we're back to determinism again.
Every event is caused by previous events. That's determinism in a nutshell. You are just as much a part of the chain of events as what you would call "external forces".

You deny determinism because that seems to only apply, to you, in a quantum world where determinism can be shown. But if "natural laws" are laws, shouldn't those laws apply at every level of 'life'--activity--in the Universe?

I deny determinism?! Since when?
I think determinism is true but I have no way of proving it and ultimately it´s irrelevant if is true or not. The illusions I've been exposing here are illusions regardless of what kind of universe we live in, be it deterministic or random.

[volchok]

But if I am right then you can can change your mind if you are wrong.

You lost me, sorry. Can you elaborate what you're saying?

But it can also be comforting to believe we can't be blamed for what we do if what we have done so far hasn't got us very far. Or has got us into trouble.

is it? I think it's almost irrelevant to be honest.

And if fatalism means, "Philosophy: the doctrine that all events are subject to fate or inevitable predetermination", how are you not one if you believe what you do above?

Determinism vs Fatalism : http://www.naturalism.org/fatalism.htm# ... lism%C2%A0

[volchok]

And when someone says, "life is too short for that", they usually mean you should choose something else to do instead. But you can only "choose" what the ineluctable matter unfolding has already chosen for you to choose.

Yes, but I am part of matter as well. This is what people fail to understand. Me telling you that you shouldn't do something might be the force that leads you to not do something.. Obviously, me telling you that you shouldn't do something was also caused by something else. Furthermore, I had no choice but to tell you that life is too short.

Without autonomy, isn't whether you are more or less compassionaite like noting whether the tiger is more or less successful at the hunt? It is simply describing what is true but without a point of view that might argue it is false.

What you want is logically impossible. How could you possible be autonomous in the sense that you're independent from matter when you are matter? Unless you want to posit some sort of magical non-substantial substance like the soul.. which is, of course, also an impossibility.

[volchok]

Volchok

You havent properly answered to my Viking thought experiment [in my last reply to you].

When it is obvious that the mind and its quale cannot be found in the material [as per said experiment], then its equally true that free will is not either [is a mental quality].

So lets stop talking about determinism and instead debate what being informed by that means!

We can make decisions even though some decisions are made for us as part of the virtually seamless relationship between mind and matter.

You cant just keep giving the deterministic line unless you can show it.

Trust me, I'm not interested in debating determinism, specially given that it is absolutely fucking irrelevant when discussing free will. But many people keep bringing it up so...

And yes we can make choices. We've been over that a thousand times. Just not free choices.
I's also not really "I" that am making choices since there is no "I" but I don't want to discuss that now. People are already having a hard time understanding the implications of some basic concepts.

[Amorphos]

volchok

And yes we can make choices. We've been over that a thousand times. Just not free choices.

It’s the ‘free’ choice which is of fundamental importance, otherwise evolution works alone and consciousness makes no difference. Even if the human thought of as a machine has a free choice it is still important.

As I say the mental* realm cannot be seen in the physical, and in my experience it is that* which makes the choices it knows it is making [in other words, not the choices being made for it]. There is no reason why the mental realm cannot be thought of as non-spiritual, it may be an emergent property of some kind, but it makes choices freely. I think science has only to expand its horizons and we may get a reasonable answer.
whats so hard about there being a decision maker as a function of the brain anyway? [i dont mean a specific set of neurons or centre]

[Only_Humean]

So when you said "To blame someone you're assuming that the person is the cause of the event. And we know that is not the case" - did you mean we need to believe in someone as a first cause in order to blame them? Because I don't think that's the case.

Not the first but the ultimate cause.

The last cause? I still don't follow, I'm afraid.

Neither does love - it's not rational. Welcome to Asperger's Syndrome heaven.

In a sense, you're right. But notice that I'm not advocating that you should hang out or associate with people you don't like just because they couldn't be anything but what they are. Life is too short for that. On top of that I am no buddhist monk. But I do think I became more compassionate then I was before.

Whatever works for you

Why?

Well, for one thing, you're lying. You may also be causing unnecessary distress and suffering to that person.

I'm not lying, if I blame someone. And my point was exactly that the distress is not unnecessary, insofar as it deters harmful actions to others.

Blame is not necessary. We don't need to be dishonest about what we know. Let's say that one of your friends did something "bad" to you. You can very well tell him that if he does that again, you won't be friends with him anymore, knowing all along that he can't truly be held responsible for what he did. Just be pragmatic about it instead of being intellectually dishonest. If he changes his actions, great. If he doesn't, say goodbye.

And if he does it again and you recognise that and 'punish' him accordingly, what is the exact practical difference between that and blaming him? The word "blame" isn't a description of a metaphysical force or power, it's just a relation. You're not conjuring anything up with a word.

Absolutely. You can be happy that someone did something well, and you might even want to promote that behavior but as far as personal responsibility goes, it obviously goes both ways. No one deserves anything, good or bad and no one can be credited for something, good or bad. But, we still need to look at people's intentions.

Intentions are another subject entirely, and largely irrelevant to consequentialist ethics.

I thought that increasing the overall well-being was a good thing? That's consequentialism.

Who said it wasn't ? How is what I'm proposing not increasing overall well-being?

You said (or at least implied) that publically torturing and executing them would be amoral. I'm saying if the net deterrent effect is positive, it's moral. By consequentialist theory.

Well, in the words of a wise and incisive philosopher I have had the pleasure of talking to:
If free will is an illusion no one deserves anything.

We treating each other fairly is a decision that we make because we want to live in a world where people can thrive and be happy

But they don't deserve to!

[James S Saint]

Blame is not an issue of first nor ultimate cause, but merely of identifying that which was most response-able such as to avoid the final effect or consequence (hence, "responsible").

[Amorphos]

Only_Humean

You said (or at least implied) that publically torturing and executing them would be amoral. I'm saying if the net deterrent effect is positive, it's moral. By consequentialist theory.

Surely the moral action is to stop ‘it’ before it happens? ‘evil’ is like a tree, the perpetrators are the outer branches and leaves, the truer cause is in the branches and stem. I tend to think that the evil doers actions do not begin there, thus it is nearly always others who create the conditions for evil.
The causal and consequential line must be fully investigated at least.

[BUFFALO]

More importantly, punishment of offenders can provide an effective deterrent (in some situations) and that deterrent is part of the causal chain.

A criminal is responsible for his crime in the same way that a lightning strike is responsible for your house catching fire. Erecting a lightning rod can prevent your house from being struck by lightning. Punishing criminals can prevent others from committing that crime. Free will is not necessary for any of this to occur (and wouldn't help anyway).

[volchok]

It’s the ‘free’ choice hich is of fundamental importance, otherwise evolution works alone and consciousness makes no difference. Even if the human thought of as a machine has a free choice it is still important.

Consciousness having an effect or not on evolution is not dependent on free will if that's what you're saying.

There is no reason why the mental realm cannot be thought of as non-spiritual

There is no reason to think it is non-physical and plenty of reason to think it is.

whats so hard about there being a decision maker as a function of the brain anyway?

The brain does make decisions! Ffs. No one ever denied that.

[volchok]

The last cause? I still don't follow, I'm afraid.

Let's use everyone's favorite example. A set of dominoes. You push domino A and it hits domino B which hits domino C and so forth. Did domino B cause C to fall? Yes. Was there anything that domino B could have done to not make domino C fall? No. Was domino B´s momentum self-caused ? No. Was it caused by domino A ? Yes. Is domino A self-caused? No.

Whatever works for you

Right, manage your emotions whatever way you want to BUT, this is an important issue when creating policy and passing laws.

The word "blame" isn't a description of a metaphysical force or power, it's just a relation. You're not conjuring anything up with a word.

See the analogy I made at the beginning of this post.

Intentions are another subject entirely, and largely irrelevant to consequentialist ethics.

If free will is an illusion intentions are all that matters when it comes to criminal justice.
That's why you can have a perfectly functioning system of justice without free will. When we imprison people , do we imprison them because they really are bad or because of their intentions? Because of their intentions.

You said (or at least implied) that publically torturing and executing them would be amoral. I'm saying if the net deterrent effect is positive, it's moral. By consequentialist theory.

I should have said immoral, not amoral. And no, it wouldn't be moral given that publicly torturing and executing people also minimizes well being. Deterring behavior is not the end all/be all of maximizing well being. I'm also not a consequentalist. Nor is Harris, who's moral theory I subscribe to.

But they don't deserve to!

Dude, we've been over that. No one deserves anything, good or bad, right? So, the default position, according to that statement is that we don't have responsibilities to one another. What I'm saying is that these responsibilities that we have created are what is required to make the world the sort of place we want it to be. That is obviously why we do it. Not because someone somehow inherently deserves something.

[volchok]

A criminal is responsible for his crime in the same way that a lightning strike is responsible for your house catching fire. Erecting a lightning rod can prevent your house from being struck by lightning. Punishing criminals can prevent others from committing that crime. Free will is not necessary for any of this to occur (and wouldn't help anyway).

Indeed.

[BUFFALO]

Intentions are another subject entirely, and largely irrelevant to consequentialist ethics.

If free will is an illusion intentions are all that matters when it comes to criminal justice.
That's why you can have a perfectly functioning system of justice without free will. When we imprison people , do we imprison them because they really are bad or because of their intentions? Because of their intentions.

Don't mean to nitpick but I see a potential flaw here. Relating back to Harris' example of someone with a brain tumor, I can conceive a situation where someone might not intend to commit a crime, but something unconscious (like a brain tumor) drives him to do it. While it makes no sense to punish this person (i.e. for deterrent effect) we do need to remove him from society or otherwise limit his actions so that he doesn't hurt others.

[Stoic Guardian]

I understand this has been discussed at length before, but what is the proof(or conclusive evidence) that free will doesn't exist, I remember you posted some links to experiments that supported the idea, I als o remember being very unconvinced by them and also finding some experiments that provided evidence against it.

[iambiguous]

But if I am right then you can change your mind if you are wrong.

You lost me, sorry. Can you elaborate what you're saying?

Just a rather clumsy way of suggesting that if you do have autonomy you might reconsider things and change your mind.

But it can also be comforting to believe we can't be blamed for what we do if what we have done so far hasn't got us very far. Or has got us into trouble.

is it? I think it's almost irrelevant to be honest.

How can feeling comforted that your own dire straits were beyond your control be irrelevant to, well, feeling comforted by it? There were lots of times I wished I could believe that. Then I wouldn't have to blame myself for fucking things up.

And if fatalism means, "Philosophy: the doctrine that all events are subject to fate or inevitable predetermination", how are you not one if you believe what you do above?

Determinism vs Fatalism : http://www.naturalism.org/fatalism.htm# ... lism%C2%A0

Thanks for the link. I'll check it and get back to you. Well, anyway, if I understand it I will. These relationships become rather bewildering at times.