3 ms·

In the video a girl asks a question that he doesn't seem to understand that I thought was interesting but he didn't answer, and she got frustrated about it, but

In the video a girl asks a question that he doesn't seem to understand that I thought was interesting but he didn't answer, and she got frustrated about it, but I stopped for a second and pondered it. It was, if there are inherent limitations to cognitive capacity, does that not mean there is no free will, and therefore that morality does not exist, since morality is predicated on the idea that human beings can of their own free will do things, including things they shouldn't? When thinking about it I determined that the question is premised on this idea that with any limitation whatsoever free will does not exist. This is flawed. I cannot choose to levitate right now, but it does not mean I cannot choose to do anything. The absence of infinite options and capabilities does not negate the ability to choose to do things that I am capable of. In fact, I'd say it is the opposite, one cannot have free will with infinite capabilities because, as Chomsky put it, taking any form comes with the consequence that there will be limitation, and something without limitation would be without form, "an ameboid' as he puts it, and so such a creature could not make decisions or take any action at all.

kiba 6y ago
It was, if there are inherent limitations to cognitive capacity, does that not mean there is no free will, and therefore that morality does not exist, since morality is predicated on the idea that human beings can of their own free will do things, including things they shouldn't? Why would morality be predicated on the notion of free will? That sounds like nonsense. Bad things happening to people aren't going to be erased just because free will doesn't exist. When thinking about it I determined that the question is premised on this idea that with any limitation whatsoever free will does not exist Nobody had ever explained to me in any coherent form what free will is. We are always deterministic machines, making decisions according to the law of physics. It can't certainly be random, because it would just be random and we definitely observe people making non-random decisions.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  So if you watch the video it will provide context. Morality is predicated on free will in the sense that without free will humans cannot do good or bad things, because if our behavior is entirely deterministic, no action is truly an action and therefore cannot be good or bad. Bad things happening to people is an amoral concept, people doing bad things is within the scope of morality. It is not evil for, say, a piano to land on someone, but to deliberately drop a piano on someone is something that can be examined morally. >Nobody had ever explained to me in any coherent form what free will is. This is where watching the video to get the context comes in handy. Basically philosophers/scientists like Descartes and others made a point which I think is very compelling, that the only thing we can be certain exists, because we experience it directly, and it is arguably the only thing we experience directly, is that we have free will, and therefore to presume that it does not exist but then to investigate other things is silly. The concept is closely related to Descartes' "evil demon" thought experiment from which we get the famous though often misunderstood phrase "I think therefore I am". In the video Chomsky even makes a great joke that for someone to argue that free will doesn't exist they have to have, and therefore experience first hand, free will, unless their argument is that they have no choice to argue that point because they were driven to it deterministically.
  - red75prime 6y ago
    > it is arguably the only thing we experience directly, is that we have free will If you unpack that statement, you'll get something like "I can't know my choice until I make it" and "I determine my choice". Both statements are compatible with determinism. First, you cannot get information from the future about your choice, because it creates paradoxes in a deterministic universe. Second, the same physical state of your body can arise from different starting conditions, hence it's the state of your body, which uniquely determines your actions, not initial conditions of the universe.
  - dorfsmay 6y ago
    > Morality is predicated on free will Yes, and this is key, but it works both ways. We have free will, for example I 100% chose to make this comment, but people don't grow up outside of a context, don't make their decision without being influenced by their local culture, education, and personal history. Ever wondered why social science is able to predict political allegiance, religions, life choices and outcome, etc... based on socioeconomic groups? Check Sam Harris' lectures on free will for a counter argument. Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzj1helboAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzj1helboAE
  - dudeman13 6y ago
    >Morality is predicated on free will in the sense that without free will humans cannot do good or bad things, because if our behavior is entirely deterministic, no action is truly an action and therefore cannot be good or bad. How would non-deterministic actions be any more subject to morality than deterministic ones? Surely randomness isn't subject to morals?
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      Alright, replace "deterministic" with "not decided by us" then and your answer is in the part you quoted. What I was focusing on was not deterministic v random, it is whether the individual makes the decision to do something or not.
      - 6y ago
- hahajk 6y ago
  Haha, probably because there’s no consensus on what it is. I was about to respond and say “if we teuely are deterministic then no, there can’t be moral actions.” But it turns out like usual I’m totally unequipped to answer the question. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Incompatibilism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Incompatibilism
- tikwidd 6y ago
  Free will can't be explained any more than your sense of smell or taste can be explained. You know you have it because you know that nothing can absolutely determine your own actions. Our actions are neither deterministic nor random.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    Aren’t they? How do you know?
    - dudeman13 6y ago
      I love this reply. I can't remember hearing of a claim of unknowability that was backed up by actual arguments outside of mathematical subjects
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
visarga 6y ago
> does that not mean there is no free will, and therefore that morality does not exist Or in other words, free will is necessary for morality to exist. I beg to differ. Morality can be evaluated at population level - do the actions of an agent hurt or help the others? Punishment can be seen as simply compensating for bad influences in society. If you look at game theory you can see how behavior relates to cooperation or betrayal, how these are also related to the context, and how society needs to weed out those who betray it.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  What you're saying makes sense, but then you have to talk about words like "action", "agent", "punish". In my definition it is predicated on the idea of a person making deliberate action, yours is that an occurrence has a negative effect on people and so it's cause should be negated. Even if morality as you use it applies even without free will, the words you are using to describe the scenario imply another word, "decide". Without free will, can one be an agent without agency? Is an action an action or simply an occurrence? Can we even examine morality? We must decide first what to punish, then decide to punish. Or are these behaviors in some way predetermined as well? Was it predetermined for us to ponder whether this conversation was predetermined or not? Do you require the ability to make decisions in order to adapt to changing conditions? Without free will can we even talk about game theory? I mean, we can talk about whatever we want, but is the concept valid any longer?

kiba 6y ago

It was, if there are inherent limitations to cognitive capacity, does that not mean there is no free will, and therefore that morality does not exist, since morality is predicated on the idea that human beings can of their own free will do things, including things they shouldn't? Why would morality be predicated on the notion of free will? That sounds like nonsense. Bad things happening to people aren't going to be erased just because free will doesn't exist. When thinking about it I determined that the question is premised on this idea that with any limitation whatsoever free will does not exist Nobody had ever explained to me in any coherent form what free will is. We are always deterministic machines, making decisions according to the law of physics. It can't certainly be random, because it would just be random and we definitely observe people making non-random decisions.

betwixthewires 6y ago
So if you watch the video it will provide context. Morality is predicated on free will in the sense that without free will humans cannot do good or bad things, because if our behavior is entirely deterministic, no action is truly an action and therefore cannot be good or bad. Bad things happening to people is an amoral concept, people doing bad things is within the scope of morality. It is not evil for, say, a piano to land on someone, but to deliberately drop a piano on someone is something that can be examined morally. >Nobody had ever explained to me in any coherent form what free will is. This is where watching the video to get the context comes in handy. Basically philosophers/scientists like Descartes and others made a point which I think is very compelling, that the only thing we can be certain exists, because we experience it directly, and it is arguably the only thing we experience directly, is that we have free will, and therefore to presume that it does not exist but then to investigate other things is silly. The concept is closely related to Descartes' "evil demon" thought experiment from which we get the famous though often misunderstood phrase "I think therefore I am". In the video Chomsky even makes a great joke that for someone to argue that free will doesn't exist they have to have, and therefore experience first hand, free will, unless their argument is that they have no choice to argue that point because they were driven to it deterministically.
- red75prime 6y ago
  > it is arguably the only thing we experience directly, is that we have free will If you unpack that statement, you'll get something like "I can't know my choice until I make it" and "I determine my choice". Both statements are compatible with determinism. First, you cannot get information from the future about your choice, because it creates paradoxes in a deterministic universe. Second, the same physical state of your body can arise from different starting conditions, hence it's the state of your body, which uniquely determines your actions, not initial conditions of the universe.
- dorfsmay 6y ago
  > Morality is predicated on free will Yes, and this is key, but it works both ways. We have free will, for example I 100% chose to make this comment, but people don't grow up outside of a context, don't make their decision without being influenced by their local culture, education, and personal history. Ever wondered why social science is able to predict political allegiance, religions, life choices and outcome, etc... based on socioeconomic groups? Check Sam Harris' lectures on free will for a counter argument. Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzj1helboAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzj1helboAE
- dudeman13 6y ago
  >Morality is predicated on free will in the sense that without free will humans cannot do good or bad things, because if our behavior is entirely deterministic, no action is truly an action and therefore cannot be good or bad. How would non-deterministic actions be any more subject to morality than deterministic ones? Surely randomness isn't subject to morals?
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Alright, replace "deterministic" with "not decided by us" then and your answer is in the part you quoted. What I was focusing on was not deterministic v random, it is whether the individual makes the decision to do something or not.
    - 6y ago
hahajk 6y ago
Haha, probably because there’s no consensus on what it is. I was about to respond and say “if we teuely are deterministic then no, there can’t be moral actions.” But it turns out like usual I’m totally unequipped to answer the question. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Incompatibilism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Incompatibilism
tikwidd 6y ago
Free will can't be explained any more than your sense of smell or taste can be explained. You know you have it because you know that nothing can absolutely determine your own actions. Our actions are neither deterministic nor random.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  Aren’t they? How do you know?
  - dudeman13 6y ago
    I love this reply. I can't remember hearing of a claim of unknowability that was backed up by actual arguments outside of mathematical subjects
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

visarga 6y ago

> does that not mean there is no free will, and therefore that morality does not exist Or in other words, free will is necessary for morality to exist. I beg to differ. Morality can be evaluated at population level - do the actions of an agent hurt or help the others? Punishment can be seen as simply compensating for bad influences in society. If you look at game theory you can see how behavior relates to cooperation or betrayal, how these are also related to the context, and how society needs to weed out those who betray it.

betwixthewires 6y ago
What you're saying makes sense, but then you have to talk about words like "action", "agent", "punish". In my definition it is predicated on the idea of a person making deliberate action, yours is that an occurrence has a negative effect on people and so it's cause should be negated. Even if morality as you use it applies even without free will, the words you are using to describe the scenario imply another word, "decide". Without free will, can one be an agent without agency? Is an action an action or simply an occurrence? Can we even examine morality? We must decide first what to punish, then decide to punish. Or are these behaviors in some way predetermined as well? Was it predetermined for us to ponder whether this conversation was predetermined or not? Do you require the ability to make decisions in order to adapt to changing conditions? Without free will can we even talk about game theory? I mean, we can talk about whatever we want, but is the concept valid any longer?