Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

I really don’t get this “why” and “how” question differentiation, I think its a false dichotomy. Scientific questions can be formulated in sentences beginning with “why”. I think its unhelpful to frame that as a distinction between scientific skepticism and wish-thinking religious belief. I also wouldn’t describe an all-powerful beings will, its intentions for our actions, the purpose of our creation, as “ultimate” compared to the purpose we arrive at without that being. This is all framing that is biased towards the religious viewpoint. It’s a fact that religion has concepts that the non-religious don’t always subscribe to, but that doesn’t mean that religion answers different questions or that it doesn’t try to answer the same questions science does, it clearly does attempt to answer the same questions.

Wow, That was a great interview!

Lots of back and forth, statements challenged and clarified. Just what I miss in what passes for journalism these days.

I think that the “how” vs “why” issue is important. “How” asks for a description of a process. “Why” asks for the motivation behind the process. Our tendency to ask “why” seems to be linked to our propensity to see agents everywhere. So it isn’t a false dichotomy. It is a real distinction that steers us away from assigning motives where none need exist. This isn’t “framing biased toward the religious viewpoint”. It’s just an acknowledgment of an aspect of our humanity.

I agree with much of what was said, in particular the notions that uncertainty motivates much of our irrationality and the profound liberation that comes from accepting that uncertainty. I’m certainly going read Dr. Schweitzer’s book and I look forward hearing him speak.

-Leonard

I think that the “how” vs “why” issue is important. “How” asks for a description of a process. “Why” asks for the motivation behind the process. Our tendency to ask “why” seems to be linked to our propensity to see agents everywhere. So it isn’t a false dichotomy. It is a real distinction that steers us away from assigning motives where none need exist. This isn’t “framing biased toward the religious viewpoint”. It’s just an acknowledgment of an aspect of our humanity.

Hi Leonard,

I’m with you on the need to challenge our propensity toward phantom agency, but I’m not clear as to why “why” in particular fosters that propensity. Isn’t “who” the question we really need to worry about?

cheers.

I think that the “how” vs “why” issue is important. “How” asks for a description of a process. “Why” asks for the motivation behind the process. Our tendency to ask “why” seems to be linked to our propensity to see agents everywhere. So it isn’t a false dichotomy. It is a real distinction that steers us away from assigning motives where none need exist. This isn’t “framing biased toward the religious viewpoint”. It’s just an acknowledgment of an aspect of our humanity.

Hi Leonard,

I’m with you on the need to challenge our propensity toward phantom agency, but I’m not clear as to why “why” in particular fosters that propensity. Isn’t “who” the question we really need to worry about?

cheers.

Hi folks, this may be obvious, so tell me if I’m out of context.

“Why do the Birds sing?”; “What causes the birds to sing?”
” How do the birds sing?”—This can be answered easily. Forcing air through a series of muscular contractions, and variances in beak, and tongue position.
“Why do the birds sing?”—mating purposes, communal alarm, food opportunities, etc…”
I know this is all obvious. I think it’s a little more than semantics though.  In some instances, like we have seen above, people choose to make points about others thoughts and views by concentrating on their usage of words, and then determine that persons ideology through these observations. Most of the time I think this is fruitless.
Can’t we usually take the context of someones words, and discern what they mean?
“Who” is a question, in a theological standpoint that we don’t have to worry about either. There either is a “who”(for theists) or there isn’t a “who” (for non-theists).
I don’t think “when” will ever be relevant either.

Funny though, if we ask: “why do the stars shine” or “how do the stars shine” we get the same answer. Or maybe not?
How do the stars shine? By burning up fuel, and releasing energy.
Why do the stars shine? Because we can see them with our eyes and brain.(that’s a simplification, don’t get all “Qualia” on me )
These two examples about stars can easily open up a huge can of worms, on different levels.(Focusing on the semantics, and usage issues, not necessarily the mechanics of astrophysics).

jtfburgess:

I don’t think that “why” fosters a propensity to see agents. Since “why” asks for motivation it is *caused* by that propensity.

And, yes, “who” is worse.

jtfburgess:

I don’t think that “why” fosters a propensity to see agents. Since “why” asks for motivation it is *caused* by that propensity.

And, yes, “who” is worse.

Yes “who” is worse in a causal sense. But, it really isn’t relevant because it’s a negative, or a no-negative type deal. There only is one “who”—the supposed “deity”. There isn’t an alterntive.
When I ask, “genuinely”, who took the cookies from the cookie jar, I am expectant of a varying possibilty of people. “Who” could be someone from a group of “real” people.

jtfburgess:

I don’t think that “why” fosters a propensity to see agents. Since “why” asks for motivation it is *caused* by that propensity.

And, yes, “who” is worse.

Ah, I see the distinction you’re making. But is “why” necessarily asking a question of motivation though, where motivation reflects the desires of an agent? Can why instead be a question asking one to trace natural causality as far back as relevantly possible? For believers that chain will stretch back to a deity of some kind. But for rationalists that most remote knowable link will of course be a natural occurrence.  That what lies on the far side of the remote link has yet to be discovered is exciting, and provides us with another direction for research and exploration. That seems like something we want to promote. I can see that how also asks about sequence, but it does not appeal to causal origins in the same way.

It just seems a shame to me that we should have to marginalize a word that stimulated so much of my childhood development.

Yes “who” is worse in a causal sense. But, it really isn’t relevant because it’s a negative, or a no-negative type deal. There only is one “who”—the supposed “deity”. There isn’t an alterntive.
When I ask, “genuinely”, who took the cookies from the cookie jar, I am expectant of a varying possibilty of people. “Who” could be someone from a group of “real” people.

Yeah, that makes sense. Still, I don’t think encouraging people to think more clearly about the question words they favor and what they mean by them is a fruitless exercise. It probably is futile for us to tell them *absolutely* what their question words mean, but the more we make the process of asking questions explicit and deliberate, the more precise and useful those questions will be.

Ah, I see the distinction you’re making. But is “why” necessarily asking a question of motivation though, where motivation reflects the desires of an agent? Can why instead be a question asking one to trace natural causality as far back as relevantly possible? For believers that chain will stretch back to a deity of some kind. But for rationalists that most remote knowable link will of course be a natural occurrence.  That what lies on the far side of the remote link has yet to be discovered is exciting, and provides us with another direction for research and exploration. That seems like something we want to promote. I can see that how also asks about sequence, but it does not appeal to causal origins in the same way.

It just seems a shame to me that we should have to marginalize a word that stimulated so much of my childhood development.

I couldn’t agree more with you. That is the whole purpose of why. “Why” is just another way of saying “what causes?”

Why don’t you want to go to the movies? = What causes you not to want to go to the movies?
That’s what I meant in my above post. Let’s not get to wrapped up in grammar, or usage. Syntax?(is that the right word?)
When someone is using “why” for the “wrong” reasons, all of us can easily see that.
” Why does it always happen to rain when ever I forget to say my morning prayers?”  I’m trying to say that, the whole mystery thing surrounding “why” is just incidental. It’s hard for me to word it. Like you said, why is based on causal relationships, these usually can be traced back systematically to a beginning. For every “why” question, one can ask “why” to the answer to the previous question…so on and so forth. It all leads to questions that Science doesn’t have an answer to, but religion does. Kind of a neat paradox!!

re: how vs why

Religion trods on the “how” territory constantly. Christians will gladly assert:
-the historicity of some or all of the events in the bible (Historical science)
-homosexuals’ immorality is harmful to adopted children (psychology, sociology)
-dead people can come back to life (physiology, medicine)
-two individuals can create 6 billion without evident genetic issues (genetics)
-the mind (aka the soul) is magic untouchable ectoplasm separate from the brain or body (psychology)
-people can or could live to many hundreds of years of age (biology)
-evolution is a lie (biology)
-political rights or governmental authority are bestowed only by a god not a populace (political science)
-we must appeal to religion to solve our practical problems
-any given medical technology must be sanctioned by religion, not merely the law or populace

No one seems to have explained this how vs. why stuff to the godheads. They’re perfectly content to step all over science as they see fit.

Ah, I see the distinction you’re making. But is “why” necessarily asking a question of motivation though, where motivation reflects the desires of an agent? Can why instead be a question asking one to trace natural causality as far back as relevantly possible? For believers that chain will stretch back to a deity of some kind. But for rationalists that most remote knowable link will of course be a natural occurrence.  That what lies on the far side of the remote link has yet to be discovered is exciting, and provides us with another direction for research and exploration. That seems like something we want to promote. I can see that how also asks about sequence, but it does not appeal to causal origins in the same way.

It just seems a shame to me that we should have to marginalize a word that stimulated so much of my childhood development.

I couldn’t agree more with you. That is the whole purpose of why. “Why” is just another way of saying “what causes?”

Why don’t you want to go to the movies? = What causes you not to want to go to the movies?
That’s what I meant in my above post. Let’s not get to wrapped up in grammar, or usage. Syntax?(is that the right word?)
When someone is using “why” for the “wrong” reasons, all of us can easily see that.
” Why does it always happen to rain when ever I forget to say my morning prayers?”  I’m trying to say that, the whole mystery thing surrounding “why” is just incidental. It’s hard for me to word it. Like you said, why is based on causal relationships, these usually can be traced back systematically to a beginning. For every “why” question, one can ask “why” to the answer to the previous question…so on and so forth. It all leads to questions that Science doesn’t have an answer to, but religion does. Kind of a neat paradox!!

I agree with you that why essentially is asking what causes, from the secular perspective.  But, we know that is not the religious interpretation.  They have a need for the why as purpose.  Why are we here?  Secularists says we are a convergence of chance events and incredible lengths of time.  Religionist says because we are a divine creation to do God’s will.  Both respond to the same question from entirely different perspectives.
Personally, I’ll take the rational (science) over the irrational .

... But, we know that is not the religious interpretation.  They have a need for the why as purpose.  Why are we here?  Secularists says we are a convergence of chance events and incredible lengths of time.  Religionist says because we are a divine creation to do God’s will.

And that is precisely the point. When the “why”/“how” issue is raised in the interview (about 7:15) it is clear (at least to me) that Dr. Schweitzer means “why” is an appeal to intention.

Science minded people can certainly ask “why” questions that aren’t about intention. The question is whether religious people can hear them that way.

-Leonard

I agree with you that why essentially is asking what causes, from the secular perspective.  But, we know that is not the religious interpretation.  They have a need for the why as purpose.  Why are we here?  Secularists says we are a convergence of chance events and incredible lengths of time.  Religionist says because we are a divine creation to do God’s will.  Both respond to the same question from entirely different perspectives.
Personally, I’ll take the rational (science) over the irrational .

If science answers the question “Why are we here?” with “by chance”, that is really saying there is no reason why. edit: Which is to deny there is an answer to the question. Is this a justified belief?

Stephen

I just listened to this podcast. I am a newbie here so be gentle at first, please.

It seems to me Schweitzer clearly meant “why” in an existential sense. The big questions. He concludes that science tells him there is no ultimate why, as in “Why do we exist?”. Random, a branch, an aberration on the tree of life.

“How” he meant in a scientific sense. How things work, for which there is a never ending (perhaps) regression, with one “how” leading to the next question. The realm of science.

Life has no ultimate meaning. Words, like life and all bits and bytes of information, have no absolute meaning but must always be taken in context.

His point seems to be that science and religion are different realms, not miscible. One can displace the other, such as science displacing religion. They cannot replace one another.

I am still unsure how to get around the free will issue. I know many neuroscientists and philosophers are seriously questioning if free will exists. If no free will, where goes responsibility? I am not clear how Schweitzer rejects religious free will, but embraces some other type of free will. I guess I’ll have to read the book.

David

I am still unsure how to get around the free will issue. I know many neuroscientists and philosophers are seriously questioning if free will exists. If no free will, where goes responsibility? I am not clear how Schweitzer rejects religious free will, but embraces some other type of free will. I guess I’ll have to read the book.

David

Hi David and welcome.

For the most part I find the question of free will boring and irrelevant. You just said Ultimate Meaning doesn’t exist, why search for Ultimate Responsibility? I know that the feelings I possess which I would call love arise from my genetics, neurotransmitters and so on.. does that change their meaning to me? nah. I don’t enjoy eating less because I know I’m biologically programmed to acquire sustenance. There is no ultimate meaning to love or pleasure but who cares? The proximal meaning is good enough for me. The alternative is, get off the ride early. Maybe there is no free will.. what’s that have to do with anything?

Free Will vs responsibility
I remember one of Steven Pinker’s books lightly touching this subject (sorry don’t recall which). The perspective was interesting: true free will would eliminate responsibility. If actions of people were utterly and totally free, that is unaffected by any environmental factors.. society would be impossible. Law and punishments could not deter crime because nothing could deter Free Will (if it could, then it wouldn’t be completely free). People would not repeat successful strategies in any arena because they would not be beholden to any rule system where considering successful/unsuccessful strategies was important. The fact that we can be influenced, we can intelligently limit our actions based on the environment, is what makes personal responsibility both possible. and worthwhile. At least, that is my vague recollection.

I am not suggesting that there is absolute free will, simply that all is not predetermined. That is, there is some, if limited, choice between alternatives. Maybe we are not meat puppets,and our actions are not determines completely by our interaction between the environment outside us and our internal machinery. If we gave no choice, then Hitler was predetermined to do what he did. It was just the wiring of his brain interacting with his experience, environment, etc.

Schweitzer says we as a species, are at a crossroads. Just like all other species, we use and consume the available resources of our planet to survive and survive well, reproduce, etc. This at least in great part is biologically wired. It has survival benefit and was evolutionarily favored. Humans are not special over other species, although we have certain characteristics and abilities that exist or differ in degree from other species. One of those is increased cognitive ability. We can invent technology. It may be that this will lead to the extinction of our species. We can use up the resources too fast, overpopulate, pollute, and even destroy ourselves with weapons. Certainly other species have overgrown their resources, and some may have polluted their own local environment. But I doubt that any other species has so far developed weapons that could potentially wipe out themselves and other species. If there is no free will at all, humans have no influence even over the longevity or survival of our species. All conversations about improving the living conditions of our species are meaningless. Indeed, why are we having this discussion if nothing can be changed willfully

For the most part I find the question of free will boring and irrelevant. You just said Ultimate Meaning doesn’t exist, why search for Ultimate Responsibility? I know that the feelings I possess which I would call love arise from my genetics, neurotransmitters and so on.. does that change their meaning to me? nah. I don’t enjoy eating less because I know I’m biologically programmed to acquire sustenance. There is no ultimate meaning to love or pleasure but who cares? The proximal meaning is good enough for me. The alternative is, get off the ride early. Maybe there is no free will.. what’s that have to do with anything?

We live in a world in which most people believe in contra causal free will. If they/we didn’t our feelings towards ourselves and each other would be very different to the way they are now. Therefore we would also think very differently to the way we do now and behave very differently also.

It’s what leads us to believe others deserve their bad fortune, or we deserve our good fortune, or visa versa.

Belief in contra causal free will is the most prevelant myth of all and the most influential, as far as human thoughts, feelings and behaviour are concerned.

The idea that people on mass believing in this is irrelevant or perhaps benign seems incredibly unlikely to be true.

Stephen

Hi unified theory,

I am not suggesting that there is absolute free will, simply that all is not predetermined. That is, there is some, if limited, choice between alternatives.

We have a tremendous number of options available if we have a will to act upon them. so I think I believe we are less restricted than you. 

Maybe we are not meat puppets,and our actions are not determines completely by our interaction between the environment outside us and our internal machinery.

We are our internal machinery. Anything not determined by our machinery would not be up to us and so, out of our control.

Stephen

If there is no free will at all, humans have no influence even over the longevity or survival of our species. All conversations about improving the living conditions of our species are meaningless. Indeed, why are we having this discussion if nothing can be changed willfully

This would be true if our will had no causal power. Not if we had no free will.

Stephen

I agree with you that why essentially is asking what causes, from the secular perspective.  But, we know that is not the religious interpretation.  They have a need for the why as purpose.  Why are we here?  Secularists says we are a convergence of chance events and incredible lengths of time.  Religionist says because we are a divine creation to do God’s will.  Both respond to the same question from entirely different perspectives.
Personally, I’ll take the rational (science) over the irrational .

If science answers the question “Why are we here?” with “by chance”, that is really saying there is no reason why. edit: Which is to deny there is an answer to the question. Is this a justified belief?

Stephen

I’m not sure what you are getting at, Stephen?  My point is that the methods of science, and by extension those pursuing them in any particular area, are not addressing the question why relative to any purpose driven argument beyond nature as we can observe it.  A scientific evolutionist isn’t pursuing knowledge about the history of life on earth in a quest for purpose supporting answers.  She leaves that to those people at the Discovery Institute . 
I don’t see that as denying there is an answer to the question.  It is not a method that is structured to answer that question in the first place.

Belief in contra causal free will is the most prevelant myth of all and the most influential, as far as human thoughts, feelings and behaviour are concerned.

The idea that people on mass believing in this is irrelevant or perhaps benign seems incredibly unlikely to be true.

I am not familiar with this concept.

For the most part I find the question of free will boring and irrelevant. You just said Ultimate Meaning doesn’t exist, why search for Ultimate Responsibility? I know that the feelings I possess which I would call love arise from my genetics, neurotransmitters and so on.. does that change their meaning to me? nah. I don’t enjoy eating less because I know I’m biologically programmed to acquire sustenance. There is no ultimate meaning to love or pleasure but who cares? The proximal meaning is good enough for me. The alternative is, get off the ride early. Maybe there is no free will.. what’s that have to do with anything?

We live in a world in which most people believe in contra causal free will. If they/we didn’t our feelings towards ourselves and each other would be very different to the way they are now. Therefore we would also think very differently to the way we do now and behave very differently also.

It’s what leads us to believe others deserve their bad fortune, or we deserve our good fortune, or visa versa.

Belief in contra causal free will is the most prevelant myth of all and the most influential, as far as human thoughts, feelings and behaviour are concerned.

The idea that people on mass believing in this is irrelevant or perhaps benign seems incredibly unlikely to be true.

Stephen

Oh please, not the free will argument again .  It makes my head hurt every time I try to read through one of those threads !

Oh please, not the free will argument again .  It makes my head hurt every time I try to read through one of those threads !

Ironically, you have no choice but to continue because choice is an illusion. and I have no choice but to taunt you. haw-ha! loser! no one can blame me.

Oh please, not the free will argument again .  It makes my head hurt every time I try to read through one of those threads !

Ironically, you have no choice but to continue because choice is an illusion. and I have no choice but to taunt you. haw-ha! loser! no one can blame me.

Thanks for that .  And, whether I chose to or not, it made me laugh!

I’m not sure what you are getting at, Stephen?  My point is that the methods of science, and by extension those pursuing them in any particular area, are not addressing the question why relative to any purpose driven argument beyond nature as we can observe it.  A scientific evolutionist isn’t pursuing knowledge about the history of life on earth in a quest for purpose supporting answers.  She leaves that to those people at the Discovery Institute . 
I don’t see that as denying there is an answer to the question.  It is not a method that is structured to answer that question in the first place.

I agree with you about the question of purpose.
But it’s true that to say, the answer to why we are here is because of chance, as you claimed: “Secularists says we are a convergence of chance events and incredible lengths of time” is to say there is no reason. That’s what chance means, we could be here, we could not be here but we are here, as it happens, for no reason.

I’m not at all convinced that there is justification for believing this.

Stephen

Oh please, not the free will argument again .  It makes my head hurt every time I try to read through one of those threads !

Ironically, you have no choice but to continue because choice is an illusion. and I have no choice but to taunt you. haw-ha! loser! no one can blame me.

Thanks for that .  And, whether I chose to or not, it made me laugh!

Lol of course we make choices.

The free will myth is a disaster of epic proportions!

The “argument” is similar to the argument over the trinity, obviously belief in free will incompatible with determinism is nonsense, just as the trinity is but it’s not the argument that matters, it’s the harm that people believing in it does which matters.

It’s of much greater concern than people believing in God or homeopathy or flying saucers or whatever, because the belief has much greater influence on our behaviour and is held by the vast majority of people.

Stephen

The “argument” is similar to the argument over the trinity, obviously belief in free will incompatible with determinism is nonsense, just as the trinity is but it’s not the argument that matters, it’s the harm that people believing in it does which matters.

How do you resolve free will without sacrificing determinism Stephen? Also, where can I get a good pizza in Delaware? Just curious.

The “argument” is similar to the argument over the trinity, obviously belief in free will incompatible with determinism is nonsense, just as the trinity is but it’s not the argument that matters, it’s the harm that people believing in it does which matters.

Also, where can I get a good pizza in Delaware? Just curious.

Best to make it yourself. Flour, water, salt, pepper a little yeast and a little olive oil. cheat with the tomato topping, use ketchup and tomato puree.

Roll the doh out thin. Put whatever you fancy on top but the key is to use good ingredients and use them sparingly. Too much and the base won’t cook properly.

hope that helps.

Stephen

The “argument” is similar to the argument over the trinity, obviously belief in free will incompatible with determinism is nonsense, just as the trinity is but it’s not the argument that matters, it’s the harm that people believing in it does which matters.

How do you resolve free will without sacrificing determinism Stephen?

There is nothing specific to human freedom to resolve.

The problem of what it means to say I could do numerous things if I wanted to is the same as the problem of what it means to say a golf ball could fly in various directions if hit in any one of those directions. 

Stephen

There is nothing specific to human freedom to resolve.

The problem of what it means to say I could do numerous things if I wanted to is the same as the problem of what it means to say a golf ball could fly in various directions if hit in any one of those directions. 

Someone more pedantic and philosophically bent than I might reply a golf ball in fact can’t fly in various directions. It can only fly in the direction it does fly, when hit.
Also I find your pizza argument totally unsound as it rests upon the premise that I am able to cook a thing. This is not the case. Further, the skirting of the Delaware issue by you ivory tower eggheads is suspicious.. and I think, telling.

Someone more pedantic and philosophically bent than I might reply a golf ball in fact can’t fly in various directions. It can only fly in the direction it does fly, when hit.

What this shows is that you believe that we have an ability to do otherwise that a golf ball doesn’t.

As you believe this and are surrounded by people who believe it and you assume it’s true, you are unaware of the harm it does.

It’s a bit like living in a world in which everyone has cancer but you know nothing else, so can’t see how harmful it is.

It’s not irrelevant or boring it’s a disaster.

Stephen

Someone more pedantic and philosophically bent than I might reply a golf ball in fact can’t fly in various directions. It can only fly in the direction it does fly, when hit.

What this shows is that you believe that we have an ability to do otherwise that a golf ball doesn’t.

As you believe this and are surrounded by people who believe it and you assume it’s true, you are unaware of the harm it does.

It’s a bit like living in a world in which everyone has cancer but you know nothing else, so can’t see how harmful it is.

It’s not irrelevant or boring it’s a disaster.

I have not said I believe it. I suggested a reply someone might make to your position for the purposes of exploring the issue. Such a person would affirm that in fact we have no “ability” the ball does not but that the input forces are different or more complicated (the firing of chemical bags called neurons instead of mere physical impact). I might not affirm it, at least not before pizza.

The harm element makes me curious: what the hell are you talking about?

The harm element makes me curious: what the hell are you talking about?

The fact you don’t know what I’m talking about shows you are immersed in the myth and so can’t see the harm the myth does.

The myth intensifies anger, lengthens and strengthens the desire for revenge, reduces our ability to forgive, reduces our ability to empathise, reduces our ability to be understanding. Adds an extra wholly harmful dimension to blame, guilt, shame etc.

The myth causes us to be less inclined to do anything about the causes of what we consider to be undesirable behaviour,as we think the agents have some magical ability to do otherwise and so addressing the causes is pointless.

The myth leads to the tolerance of suffering and even the desire of suffering and the will to inflict suffering on those who “deserve” it. 

In short, a disaster.

Stephen

The more I listen to Jeff, the more muddled he seems, starting with his talk of life as a “gift.” Who gave me this gift? If you say it was my parents, they had no idea who I might become—in fact they have some serious issues with the outcome of their sexual activity. They might have been making a baby, but they certainly weren’t giving life to a particular human being with all its idiosyncratic complexities, to “me.”

Which leads to “making the most of” this “gift,” “maximizing that opportunity.” One person may devote their life to sexual conquest, another to watching TV, and another to curing cancer. Who decides whether they’re making the most of life? Given that there’s no ultimate meaning of life, and that each of us “creates” our own, who’s giving out grades for life maximization?

Jeff seems to think that ability confers obligation: “...with the ability to be moral comes the obligation to make that choice.” Does this “obligation” apply to all abilities? I have the ability to be a top-notch handyman; does that mean I’m obligated to? (Don’t tell my wife.) A person with many abilities would have more obligations than she could ever fulfill. Is the ability to be moral different in some way from other abilities?

I think all the difficulties of Jeff’s thinking grow out of one root difficulty; the issue of self:

“Because my brain is me and my mind is me and that’s internal to me, I believe I’m a free agent…”

Suppose Jeff were to suffer brain damage that erased all his long-term memories but left his brain and body otherwise intact. Would he have the same self? His friends would probably not think so, since he wouldn’t remember them. His brain could still make decisions, and his body could carry them out, but the “me” that used to live there would have departed. His brain would acquire new experiences, new criteria for making decisions, and would construct a new self from those experiences.

Choice is not “a consequence of self,” it’s a consequence of being alive. Amoebas “choose” to move toward food and away from danger, not to do so brings death.

Morality and responsibility are consequences of social living, and in some societies even killing babies is OK if they are defective, the wrong sex, or from a competing social group.

The self is a consequence of the social requirement for the brain to explain the behavior of its organism, and it changes with new information.

It’s difficult to accept that our feeling of control is an artifact of social living, and that even the brain is under the control of its wiring and experience, but its wonderfully freeing once you get over the initial shock. Humility and a sense of humor help.

Here I am, striving mightily to be coherent, but what else can I do, given my abilities and history? Maybe I should create a new self…

The fact you don’t know what I’m talking about shows you are immersed in the myth and so can’t see the harm the myth does.

The myth intensifies anger, lengthens and strengthens the desire for revenge, ...

The myth leads to the tolerance of suffering and even the desire of suffering and the will to inflict suffering on those who “deserve” it. 

In short, a disaster.

Well how fortuitous for us both! I’m not in favor of disaster so you can dispel my myth and together we can begin saving the rest of the world. Now what exactly is the myth and how precisely does it directly intensify anger and so forth? I’m terribly excited, I’m loath to be saddled with myth!

Well how fortuitous for us both! I’m not in favor of disaster so you can dispel my myth and together we can begin saving the rest of the world.

Sorry, we can’t save the world, I’m simply pointing out the damage the belief does. It’s not some dry philisophical debate, it’s about a wide spread untrue belief which negatively affects behaviour.

I can’t dispel your myth, you are too far gone.

Stephen

Sorry, we can’t save the world, I’m simply pointing out the damage the belief does. It’s not some dry philisophical debate, it’s about a wide spread untrue belief which negatively affects behaviour.

I can’t dispel your myth, you are too far gone.

It seems you have a history of misrepresenting the position of others. Dougsmith said: I don’t appreciate people rejecting my views by falsely misconstruing them. referring to you in this post. You apologized but seemed not to have learned better as you have somehow misconstrued my position even while I have taken no position whatsoever. I have only asked questions and made probative remarks. The most substantive remarks I made are as follows:

Maybe there is no free will.. what’s that have to do with anything?

Since I am talking about contra-causal free will I am mirroring remarks you make elsewhere. I continue by paraphrasing a scientist without adding agreement or disagreement:

Free Will vs responsibility
I remember one of Steven Pinker’s books lightly touching this subject. The perspective was interesting: true free will would eliminate responsibility. If actions of people were utterly and totally free, that is unaffected by any environmental factors.. society would be impossible. Law and punishments could not deter crime…

Which is rather similar to Dennet’s position. In other threads you seem to fully endorse it. So what exactly is your basis for dismissing me as “too far gone”? If you are unwilling to discuss your own remarks, then why are you here?

Maybe there is no free will.. what’s that have to do with anything?

sate, too many eloquent people have written too much on this subject for me to add anything, but if you’re really interested, Tom Clark’s web site, http://www.naturalism.org/ has a page of links with abstracts of each one: http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

Tom was interviewed by DJ a couple of years ago: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/tom_clark_encountering_naturalism/

Jeff Schweitzer would have done well to visit Tom’s site before he wrote his book.

I am still unsure how to get around the free will issue. I know many neuroscientists and philosophers are seriously questioning if free will exists. If no free will, where goes responsibility? I am not clear how Schweitzer rejects religious free will, but embraces some other type of free will. I guess I’ll have to read the book.

David

Hi David and welcome.

For the most part I find the question of free will boring and irrelevant. You just said Ultimate Meaning doesn’t exist, why search for Ultimate Responsibility? I know that the feelings I possess which I would call love arise from my genetics, neurotransmitters and so on.. does that change their meaning to me? nah. I don’t enjoy eating less because I know I’m biologically programmed to acquire sustenance. There is no ultimate meaning to love or pleasure but who cares? The proximal meaning is good enough for me. The alternative is, get off the ride early. Maybe there is no free will.. what’s that have to do with anything?

Free Will vs responsibility
I remember one of Steven Pinker’s books lightly touching this subject (sorry don’t recall which). The perspective was interesting: true free will would eliminate responsibility. If actions of people were utterly and totally free, that is unaffected by any environmental factors.. society would be impossible. Law and punishments could not deter crime because nothing could deter Free Will (if it could, then it wouldn’t be completely free). People would not repeat successful strategies in any arena because they would not be beholden to any rule system where considering successful/unsuccessful strategies was important. The fact that we can be influenced, we can intelligently limit our actions based on the environment, is what makes personal responsibility both possible. and worthwhile. At least, that is my vague recollection.

I’m more or less with you on the whole free will argument.  It doesn’t make any sense when I try to follow it and it never seems to go anywhere.  As you note, whether or not it exists doesn’t seem to really matter because I have to have a practical way of interacting with my environment.  I love my kids, doesn’t matter to me whether or not that was pre-determined or because I choose to.  It’s all functionally the same to me.  Likewise, if a violent criminal is in jail I appreciate the fact that he is no longer a threat to anyone, whether or not he was pre-determined to be violent or chose to.  So, yeah, ultimate meaning or no, I’m going to try to enjoy what I can while I can!

So what exactly is your basis for dismissing me as “too far gone”? If you are unwilling to discuss your own remarks, then why are you here?

You were pulling my leg about “saving the world” and “dispelling your myth”, your other posts also seemed to be in a similar vein too and I was reciprocating (edit: light heartedly), nothing more.

I intend to write a more serious response on the free will thread, when I get time.

Stephen

Hawkfan,

It’s not whether pre-determinism is true or whether we choose. Clearly choosing is the name we give to processes like deciding whether to cook curry or make a salad. Thinking of choice as synonymous with free will or free choice is blocking your making a connection with the problem. Whether we have free will or not we certainly go through processes which we call making choices. 

  Likewise, if a violent criminal is in jail I appreciate the fact that he is no longer a threat to anyone, whether or not he was pre-determined to be violent or chose to.  So, yeah, ultimate meaning or no, I’m going to try to enjoy what I can while I can!

Perhaps this helps. Does it matter to you whether he deserves it or not?

Contrast your reaction to a violent criminal being in jail and an innocent man being kidnapped from his home and put in jail. Imagine it happening to you, how would you feel?

We all empathise with people who find themselves “wrongly” imprisoned but what about those “rightly” imprisoned?

Stephen

So what exactly is your basis for dismissing me as “too far gone”? If you are unwilling to discuss your own remarks, then why are you here?

Ok, I’ve now replied on the free will thread.

Stephen

Contrast your reaction to a violent criminal being in jail and an innocent man being kidnapped from his home and put in jail. Imagine it happening to you, how would you feel?

We all empathise with people who find themselves “wrongly” imprisoned but what about those “rightly” imprisoned?

Stephen

Nope, not buying that straw man.  No connection between an innocent man kidnapped and put in jail and someone imprisoned for committing a violent crime.  It is about being held responsible for one’s actions relative to the laws of the society in which one lives.  I see it as a safety issue, primarily.  But also as a reinforcement of the rules(laws).  I think the evidence is poor for rehabilitation.  But, I am certainly for providing the incarcerated with some skills training to at least allow them other options after the sentence is served.

Nope, not buying that straw man.  No connection between an innocent man kidnapped and put in jail and someone imprisoned for committing a violent crime.

The connection is the experience for the person it happens to is fairly similar whether they are guilty or innocent. For the person who has the experience it’s about as bad whether guilty or innocent. The reason we tend to be fairly unconcerned about this is because we believe one deserves it and one doesn’t. We don’t believe that it might have been us who was unfortunate enough to be born with a bad set of determinants and that we are fortunate that we weren’t (who knows one of us might commit a violent crime yet.)

What I’m trying to do is show how belief in free will influences how you feel about it.

It is about being held responsible for one’s actions relative to the laws of the society in which one lives.  I see it as a safety issue, primarily.  But also as a reinforcement of the rules(laws).

Yep.

I think the evidence is poor for rehabilitation.

I think that believing if you do something bad will lead to something bad happening to you is more of a deterent than believing you’ll get rehabilitated. Someone might even deliberately do something bad in order to get rehabilitated, so I think you might be right.

But, I am certainly for providing the incarcerated with some skills training to at least allow them other options after the sentence is served.

P’raps, I have no strong view on what we should do I’m simply trying to show that you would feel very differently if you didn’t intuitevely believe in contra causal free will. And so would just about everybody else, so it does matter whether we have it or not.

Stephen

Here in NYC, the author is giving a free lecture, hosted by CFI.  Maybe I’ll see some of you there.

Location info: SLC Conference Center, on July 7, at 7 p.m., 352 7th Ave (30th St), 16th floor, a couple of blocks south of Penn Station.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc/events/meet_the_author_jeff_schweitzer_on/
http://www.meetup.com/cfinyc/calendar/10548774/
http://www.meetup.com/RichiesList/calendar/10548859/

Nope, not buying that straw man.  No connection between an innocent man kidnapped and put in jail and someone imprisoned for committing a violent crime.

The connection is the experience for the person it happens to is fairly similar whether they are guilty or innocent. For the person who has the experience it’s about as bad whether guilty or innocent. The reason we tend to be fairly unconcerned about this is because we believe one deserves it and one doesn’t. We don’t believe that it might have been us who was unfortunate enough to be born with a bad set of determinants and that we are fortunate that we weren’t (who knows one of us might commit a violent crime yet.)

What I’m trying to do is show how belief in free will influences how you feel about it.

It is about being held responsible for one’s actions relative to the laws of the society in which one lives.  I see it as a safety issue, primarily.  But also as a reinforcement of the rules(laws).

Yep.

I think the evidence is poor for rehabilitation.

I think that believing if you do something bad will lead to something bad happening to you is more of a deterent than believing you’ll get rehabilitated. Someone might even deliberately do something bad in order to get rehabilitated, so I think you might be right.

But, I am certainly for providing the incarcerated with some skills training to at least allow them other options after the sentence is served.

P’raps, I have no strong view on what we should do I’m simply trying to show that you would feel very differently if you didn’t intuitevely believe in contra causal free will. And so would just about everybody else, so it does matter whether we have it or not.

Stephen

I can’t really add anything to the free will argument.  As I noted, I haven’t been able to make any sense of the many, many posts here on free will.  I’m really looking at it from a more utilitarian approach.  While I can’t state I have no personal feelings at all when I hear about someone that has committed a very brutal murder, I’m more interested in removing violent people that victimize others from the rest of society.  Barring mental illness or some other recognized incapacity, if an individual takes an action that is a violation the rules(laws) then there is defined consequence.  Show me something objective that we can measure and make predictions about, and I’d certainly be willing to re-think the free will argument.

  Show me something objective that we can measure and make predictions about, and I’d certainly be willing to re-think the free will argument.

Neuroscientists have been doing experiments on brain functions for some time now, and their general conclusion is that determinism applies as much to the brain as to the rest of the physical world. Objective measurements and predictions have been involved. No free will has been found.

As a result of their conclusions, some leading neuroscientists are involved in a study to discover how and in what ways that this change in understanding of human brain function might effect the legal system. Their proposal is that as our attitudes about the nature of human beings changes, the law will change. Changes in the legal system are certainly objective and measurable, and the prediction—rather general so far—is that incarceration will be less punitive.

Here’s a video of Michael Gazzaniga, neuroscientist, talking on the subject:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid13578632001?bclid=13679042001&bctid=11084285001

Hey all, you can now watch the videos of Schweitzer’s recent lecture for CFI in NYC here:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc/news/jeffrey_schweitzer_moral_life_in_a_random_world/

Anyone else seen him speak? Where this guy has been for the last decade or so, I don’t know, but his message and delivery is top notch. He should be lecturing at all CFI branches nationwide.  He basically tears us down as being anything special and then builds us up with that as a basis for formulating a wonderful, meaningful life that we decide to lead and fill ourselves.

Yeah, the beginning, middle, and end of this thread never touched upon the book, or Schweitzer. We’ve had some pretty good debates on the origins of morals here.

He basically tears us down as being anything special and then builds us up with that as a basis for formulating a wonderful, meaningful life that we decide to lead and fill ourselves.

I don’t personally like it very much when people try to “build me up.” I like it down here where I am; it makes more sense to me that way and I like it when things make sense. The only person I do allow to build me up is Sagan. Luckily, the effect only lasts as long as I watch his Cosmos.

In that podcast he speaks of Man in the context of not having religion, then being able to “rise” up to obtain the potential of Humanity.
Finding a “glorious”, fruitful existence amongst one another, without the shackles of irrational religion.(all my words-paraphrasing)
I just can’t help seeing the same conundrum that humanity brings naturally upon itself, with or without religion.
I think he states that religion is a biological, therefore evolutionary, offshoot of man. I believe it is.
At certain times, this biological offshoot, I’ll call X has been labeled religion. Early on, he describes X as a method for explaining the unknown. Astronomy, physics, probably biology itself too. As man comes to understand these sciences, through rational, scientific process, X doesn’t go away. It evolves, biologically right along with us.
X works, like all other components of our minds, either individually, or collectively(herd or socially).
Inserting the morality factor in here is difficult.
Maybe morality, which also stems directly from biology, social behavior, survivor instincts, is one step ahead of X, and X evolves itself accordingly.
Obviously X was the beginnings of science(mans attempt to understand things). But man got science, but the need for X was still there.
No matter what, many men were not going to let go of X. The reasons are plenty.

Let me also say that none of us will or can let go of X. It is part of us. It manifests itself in lots of ways. Religion, astrology, gambling, crystals, palm reading, fears, ideologies, maybe art?, anything which attempts to see, or understand the unknown. Maybe Science is also from X, still, today. Some people do it “right”, others cheat.
No matter how good science gets though, it won’t be able to get rid of X.

Let me also say that none of us will or can let go of X. It is part of us. It manifests itself in lots of ways. Religion, astrology, gambling, crystals, palm reading, fears, ideologies, maybe art?, anything which attempts to see, or understand the unknown. Maybe Science is also from X, still, today. Some people do it “right”, others cheat.
No matter how good science gets though, it won’t be able to get rid of X.

Have you read Hood’s SuperSence? I think he did a good job explaining why “X” exists and what it is.

Let me also say that none of us will or can let go of X. It is part of us. It manifests itself in lots of ways. Religion, astrology, gambling, crystals, palm reading, fears, ideologies, maybe art?, anything which attempts to see, or understand the unknown. Maybe Science is also from X, still, today. Some people do it “right”, others cheat.
No matter how good science gets though, it won’t be able to get rid of X.

Have you read Hood’s SuperSence? I think he did a good job explaining why “X” exists and what it is.

No, but what does he say?

Georgie, I just read the Blurb in Amazon about the book. Yeah, no-doubt, we’re hard-wired for this. Where else could it have come from, The Monolith, like in 2001?

In a nutshell, he says that we won’t be able to let go of the “X” (Hood’s SuperSence) because it holds our society together. I think I actually disagree with his conclusion: evolution doesn’t give a flying hoot about our society and if things (mutations and adaptations) turn out to do without society, or maybe form a different kind of “society,” we might perhaps lose this X/SuperSence. That said, Hood does an excellent job, in my opinion, at explaining why we have the supersence and how it is presented in most of us. I really enjoyed it.

Georgie, I just read the Blurb in Amazon about the book. Yeah, no-doubt, we’re hard-wired for this. Where else could it have come from, The Monolith, like in 2001?

Either the Monolith or the other mysterious thingy called “the culture.” 

In a nutshell, he says that we won’t be able to let go of the “X” (Hood’s SuperSence) because it holds our society together. I think I actually disagree with his conclusion: evolution doesn’t give a flying hoot about our society and if things (mutations and adaptations) turn out to do without society, or maybe form a different kind of “society,” we might perhaps lose this X/SuperSence. That said, Hood does an excellent job, in my opinion, at explaining why we have the supersence and how it is presented in most of us. I really enjoyed it.

In my opinion, I don’t know if it is THE thing which holds our society together, or just part of it. Or maybe not any part of it, it just adds flavor to our society. The thing that makes it so hard to define X is that we are talking about these things in layers, or separate parts.
In reality(upstairs, in our minds), I don’t think it is that delineated or simple.
I suppose so about your future scenarios. Certainly without “us” around X will also go away.
If another society evolved from the ashes, or from us, maybe X will go away. But speculations on the future shouldn’t have any bearing about what we know as X now, or in the past. Speculations on when, and how X started is another matter.
But on that issue, I don’t really care. I think it is waaay too far back, and so ingrained that it can’t be known.

Georgie, I just read the Blurb in Amazon about the book. Yeah, no-doubt, we’re hard-wired for this. Where else could it have come from, The Monolith, like in 2001?

Either the Monolith or the other mysterious thingy called “the culture.” 

Nooooo…X partly causes culture! Along with social behavioral programming.

Well, Hood thinks that without it we wouldn’t see those things that help to hold our society together as sacred. Kind of like when you fall in love and believe that she is the only one — a trick of our mind to get you to bed.

Well, Hood thinks that without it we wouldn’t see those things that help to hold our society together as sacred. Kind of like when you fall in love and believe that she is the only one — a trick of our mind to get you to bed.

See this is the grey area. Some of X maybe involved, but really I think our innate programming which deals with Mating rituals, decides all that stuff. Mating Ritual. It’s not fluffy, gooey phenomenom, it is real, innate, “computer” programs running.
X deals with the unknown, or the need to find “higher realities”, find another place, an unknown place.

In a paranoid, offhand yet semi-related to this podcast way, I recommend also my other favorite podcast site http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/ with one podcast being from our friend Richard Dawkins “In Defense of Darwin” and another on “Stochasticity” followed up by “Are we coins”. 

Most interesting is some enlightenment regarding the stochastic nature of living cells with the question asked, “How can anything orderly (such as ourselves) ever be derived out of such confusion”.  The answer to that one is that thus far we don’t know, but it’s certainly a “biggie”.

Yeah part of the sacredness, from religion, or superstition etc.. may help to form cultures, the cohesion of cultures. And these would stem from X. Yeah, I’m getting it now. Just as long as we know that other things also form society/culture like innate programming other than X, such as mating behavior, social behavior.
Really when it get’s right down to it, everything revolves around F**king and X. I joke, and please excuse the base level language, but it really isn’t that far from the truth.

In a paranoid, offhand yet semi-related to this podcast way, I recommend also my other favorite podcast site http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/ with one podcast being from our friend Richard Dawkins “In Defense of Darwin” and another on “Stochasticity” followed up by “Are we coins”. 

Most interesting is some enlightenment regarding the stochastic nature of living cells with the question asked, “How can anything orderly (such as ourselves) ever be derived out of such confusion”.  The answer to that one is that thus far we don’t know, but it’s certainly a “biggie”.

Gray1, I tried listening to that, it was way too kitschy for me. Randomness. I see the subject of randomness come up alot in these discussions, but I don’t see the relevance of it. Even above in this Title: Random World. What? What’s random? Everything or nothing!
I think this random thing is one of those sidetracks that X can lead people down. It often times ends up into formulations of creation, or unknowns, or probablities. X makes it hard for people to get there head around random, or chance.
It is what it is! If the chaos creates order-than so be it. I think everything is in order.
But Gray, please explain further, I could be missing something here. I think it will lead down the philosophical avenue, a side alley right off of Vagueness St.(in the other thread). How can things be a natural unit, and yet be made up of “vague” pieces. Or some such idea.

Kitschy still sells.  Besides, it is after all out of NYC.

But as to where it currently leads, the podcast confesses to not knowing such answers (while speaking for Science in general).

My personal picture of the situation would be comparable to the old problem of how many monkeys banging on typewriters for how long would be required to eventually write the complete works of Shakesphere.  Once again, that kitschy podcast I enjoy, WNYC Radio Lab, had a program on the infinite nature of the universe with an author/professor of physics saying that his/their current very qualified thinking is that not only would such a thing as this happen once, but would actually happen an infinite number of times - asuming of course an infinite universe.  Cute, kitschy and somewhat mind boggling.

From Here To There Eventually…
But actually The Hippo Stomp sums everything up perfectly!
The NYC radio started with a 7 min. build-up about some British girl sending a message balloon into the sky.
Citizens Challenge I believe was expounding on the current state of NPR, and I must admit, I’m beginning to see what he’s talking about.
I think the human perspective on infinity, and random events is just part of the trickery our minds like to play on us. Not that they aren’t existent, but do they actually mean anything?

Popularizing science might seem to denegrade it somewhat to purests, but it does serve to keep the intended audience amused and hopefully attentive.  Believe it or not, to some much people a higher level scientific or philosophical discourse can quickly seem dry.  It is possible they will actually learn something from “pap science” where before there might have been little or no continuing interest.  If it causes people to ask questions about or become more interested in the scientific/analytical process, some should also logically seek more and better avenues and associates of like mind.  Besides, even the less gifted of us like to feel a little smart once in a while. 

The question was posed in the opening hereto whether at some point science might become a religion.  I suggest that keeping an open mind is fundimental to preventing the formation of what might become an undesirable level of dogma and one way to do so is to have as broad exposure as practicable to the progress or at least thoughts going on science wise.  It used to be that those engaged in philosophy could attempt to keep up with the frontiers of science and utilize/speculate thereupon in tandem, but this gets increasingly harder as progress spreads out in opposite directions in nonlinear fashion.  So who are the priests and prophets of science?  Spreading the word is important, particularly if you wish to remain funded in some cases.  Unfortunately, many voters and elected representatives are not well schooled in this arena.  Very few understand that repeated failures can nevertheless in fact be indicative of great progress.

There will always be far more questions than answers on the horizons of science.  This is very evident with and perhaps why much attention has been given lately to trying to fill in the gap between the chaos/randomness we detect or calculate exists at the basic levels of things and the seemingly remarkable order that is seemingly easier (but perhaps deceptively so) determined at the “high” end of things.  If we can take notice of science programing as it generates the most popular interest from WNYC Radio Lab and the like, a very important zeitgeist factor might be recognized which can be taken advantage of by the very keen.  Plus we might even learn something.

Gray 1, you didn’t even catch my Steppenwolf References did you?

Gray 1, you didn’t even catch my Steppenwolf References did you?

I am a fan but I haven’t yet taken the time to review the lyrics in order to fully appreciate your posting.  That will be rectified shortly.  I keep the scrolling lyrics of “Monster” embeded on my personal blog as a tribute to true awesomeness.

Gray 1, you didn’t even catch my Steppenwolf References did you?

I am a fan but I haven’t yet taken the time to review the lyrics in order to fully appreciate your posting.  That will be rectified shortly.  I keep the scrolling lyrics of “Monster” embeded on my personal blog as a tribute to true awesomeness.

True awesomeness Indeed!

Just as the saying goes, “Nature abhors a vacuum,” and seeks to fill it, so too does the nature of the human mind seek order out of whatever the senses convey even when logic screams there’s actually nothing there.  By way of example, if you stare at a blank wall long enough you will be surprised by what you can discover.  Alternatively you can rest against a banyan tree (if you have one handy) until some gaps you still have regarding universal truth get filled. 

Whether illusion or enlightenment, such might be considered the price we pay for having developed sapience, but one side benefit to this is called “creativity” - or am I trying to make something out of nothing here?

No…I follow ya.