“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[Michael S. Pearl]

to say this (meta)physical actuality of actualizable possibilities is a temporary denial of determinism as fact, could be misleading because it sounds like your reasoning is allowing for a break in the deterministic causal chain. I'm just concerned that the way you're explaining deliberative thinking will give compatibilists a way to sneak in free will, which doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form.

I am not putting forth a break in what is supposed to be a sequence utterly devoid of the sort of indeterminateness associated with deliberation. I am just pointing out that during deliberation even a devotee of determinism might have what could be well described as a momentary sense of determinism not being a fact. And please, please do not refer to that momentary sense as an illusion. That is a maneuver I often see. It contributes nothing that recommends determinism as fact. In any event, I am more interested in deliberation than I am in whether determinism is fact - - although I do not regard determinism as fact.

With regards to compatibilists, I am under the impression that the actuality of actualizable possibilities is something which only an historically small portion of self-deemed compatibilists would emphasize as being a key facet of compatibilism. Putting aside the fact that people can call themselves whatever they want, the could-have-done-otherwise compatibilists attribute an ability to do otherwise to a person by saying the person could have (indeed would have) done otherwise had conditions been other than as they were. See section 4.1.1 here. If that is a matter of the actuality of actualizable possibilities, then it does not seem to be the same actuality of actualizable possibilities that regards the deliberation context.

Let me ask you this: Do determinists and compatibilists differ in the way they deliberate as a result of their being (or describing themselves as) determinists or compatibilists?

 

[steve_bank]

Again it is a battle of definitions. The nature of metaphysics.

I think deterministic is too simple and broad a term to apply it to the brain.

We do have AI based in neural networks.

I could male an analogy to pseudo random number generators. Good ones are deterministic but for all practical purposes are random over intervals . The essences appear to be random and meet tests for randomness.

 

[Jarhyn]

Free Will is as far from freedoms and wills as trig is from the axioms of math, which makes it really hard to communicate these concepts effectively, since most people aren't going to be able to make the connection to the foundations.

Yes, and this is the point of analyzing the experience of human being, investigating the personal experience. Muscle memory and intellection memory strongly indicate the need to think about the relative preceding time in terms of greater durations than is typically meant when discussing states. This (let's call it) durational way of thinking recommends against considerations in terms as if the conscious and the subconscious are always clearly distinct categorizations. Not just muscle function but even thinking develops so that not every part of the process has to be a conscious focus. That does not mean that the thinking is not dependent on some previous conscious effort. What results are effectively pre-judgments, yet it is essential that developed pre-judgments be checked repeatedly to prevent them from becoming biases. And this involves thinking (including retrospection) in terms of actualizable possibilities - which thinking is at least a temporary denial of determinism as fact.

Well, it's more that when phenomena are captured and held in abstract via some looped behavior, this creates a "memory".

Much of matter loops paradoxically around itself, or at least "hangs about" in ways that imply a "memory" of some past events.

The problem comes in extracting what it is a memory "of".

The mistake I think I see most often, though, is thinking that there's not already a such independence from it, insofar as it no longer has present influence on the present, unless that standing process still exists in the present exerting influence here and now.

I am purposefully and clearly trying to differentiate for you that the discussion is about recognizing that the past is dead, and only whatever exists as artifacts in the present (or as we see them in the present) influence the present.

All those past things either stopped being as they were and released their influence of leverage, or remain as objects of the present relative to the event, and whether they are dead and gone, or still alive and well, determines whether they can be interpreted as "relevant" in a moment in time.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The process of thought is dynamic where the brain is constantly responding to external stimuli. The options are determinate in that they are often limited in scope, but the process of the means and mechanisms of thought and action remains constant.

I do not think you want to restrict stimuli to those which are external; I think you would want to allow the brain to stimulate itself with thoughts (including conscious thinking) produced by the brain. I say this because I think you probably want to avoid/deny epiphenomenalism.

It is sensible to say that options are determinate in that they are limited even given that the word options suggests more than one actually actualizable (meta)physical possibility. However, if the brain activity is always already determined, then what sense does it make to say that there is more than one possibility available for actualization by the brain? That is simply to say that I do not see how your statement clarifies or supports the determinism viewpoint.

 

[Jarhyn]

what sense does it make to say that there is more than one possibility available for actualization by the brain?

This is where software engineering principles help correct the intuition:

What sense does it make to say there is more than one possibility available for actualization by the computer as it executes the program?

Well, the program is literally a text list of those possibilities of actualization, in whole instruction form.

Regardless of whether you think it makes sense, it made at least enough sense to bring you the platform we are talking on.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Well, it's more that when phenomena are captured and held in abstract via some looped behavior, this creates a "memory".

Much of matter loops paradoxically around itself, or at least "hangs about" in ways that imply a "memory" of some past events.

The problem comes in extracting what it is a memory "of".

The mistake I think I see most often, though, is thinking that there's not already a such independence from it, insofar as it no longer has present influence on the present, unless that standing process still exists in the present exerting influence here and now.

I am purposefully and clearly trying to differentiate for you that the discussion is about recognizing that the past is dead, and only whatever exists as artifacts in the present (or as we see them in the present) influence the present.

All those past things either stopped being as they were and released their influence of leverage, or remain as objects of the present relative to the event, and whether they are dead and gone, or still alive and well, determines whether they can be interpreted as "relevant" in a moment in time.

The point about muscle memory (which point transfers to intellection memory) is that conscious focus can effect a subsequent relatively sub-conscious condition which is available for utilization outside that sub-conscious. One thing to keep in mind about intellection whether past or present is that it always involves - and is to varying extents affected by - interpretation. Call them artifacts if you wish. Their effects can still affect a present - and intentionally so. I expect this holds whether determinism is a fact of reality or not. I expect this holds whether compatibilism is a fact of reality or not.

 

[steve_bank]

There is self modifying adaptive code. The problem with it is it is difficult to define allthe constraints needed to keep it from going wrong.

The brain is self modifying. Learn a new skill and new neocons grow. New connections are made.

The Impact of Studying Brain Plasticity - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Neural plasticity, also known as neuroplasticity or brain plasticity, can be defined as the ability of the nervous system to change its activity in response to intrinsic or extrinsic stimuli by reorganizing its structure, functions, or connections.Feb 11, 2019

The discovery countered the old idea that once we are fully grown we lost brain cells.

So, as we get older when faced when the same circumstances, we are not responding with the same brain.

With exceptions of course.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

What sense does it make to say there is more than one possibility available for actualization by the computer as it executes the program?

Well, the program is literally a text list of those possibilities of actualization, in whole instruction form.

The computer program then responses are determinate as a fixed collection of alternative possibilities, but those alternatives are not all actualizable possibilities for all if inputs (whether a single value or an acceptable range of values). The input value is assessed, and possibilities are pared as not actualizable. The more proper analogy would be: Given an input, instead of there being any culling, all of those possibilities are/remain actualizable. Clearly, human thinking will often involve a trimming down of possibilities, but that paring is often done without a well defined input. Indeed, human thinking can often be conducted in terms of prospectively considering the possibility of the result being not as ideal as expected and then taking such possibilities into account before actualizing a choice. Humans tend not to like uncertainty, but it is an important consideration.

 

[Jarhyn]

What sense does it make to say there is more than one possibility available for actualization by the computer as it executes the program?

Well, the program is literally a text list of those possibilities of actualization, in whole instruction form.

The computer program then responses are determinate as a fixed collection of alternative possibilities, but those alternatives are not all actualizable possibilities for all if inputs (whether a single value or an acceptable range of values). The input value is assessed, and possibilities are pared as not actualizable. The more proper analogy would be: Given an input, instead of there being any culling, all of those possibilities are/remain actualizable. Clearly, human thinking will often involve a trimming down of possibilities, but that paring is often done without a well defined input. Indeed, human thinking can often be conducted in terms of prospectively considering the possibility of the result being not as ideal as expected and then taking such possibilities into account before actualizing a choice. Humans tend not to like uncertainty, but it is an important consideration.

Clearly they are actualizable for a certain subset of them, as you can calculate actualizability and this is a function of the compiler, to tell the programmer that they wrote "unreachable code".

The actualization itself, whether that happens, is a function of the context to which the program is presented.

It's immaterial to my point whether I take the program and exhaustively present those contexts, or whether I present just the one, to make my point that the math works out all the same.

We can say what the universe itself shall never engineer at any place, too, and observe this is different from what could be placed just-so and still make sense; there is a conversation about this surrounding neutron star physics, specifically that the mass quantity necessary for gravitationally stable neutronium is smaller than the necessary mass for formation of neutron stars, leading to the fact that unless some really weird shit happens involving a black hole ripping some neutron mass away and yeeting the remainder, it can't actually happen.

In fact we know that if we ever see it, it will probably be evidence of exactly that and we'll be able to look at the other bits of the present to figure out when exactly the event happened.

You also have to be really careful whenever you signal possible-modal language: as soon as you add -able to actualiz-, you stop looking at what is actualized and start looking at what could be actualized if, which never changes when what is actualized actually is.

 

[peacegirl]

Look at this thread.

Competitive. Sometimes hostile and abusive. Not uncommon across all site forums and topics.

Someones it gets out of hand and mods step in.

Is competition nature or nurture? If evolution is in part survival of the fittest then competition is built into our genetic code

There's nothing wrong with friendly competition but wanting to be the best can drive people to cheat and do any number of things to be rewarded.

We try to channel male youth aggression into sports. Testosterone kicks in at puberty. The urge to mate takes over.

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals. The culture we live in sets up the aggressive behavior.

People who take testosterone for body building can get violent if they overdo it. Many actual cases.

Anabolic steroids can alter someone's temperament and could lead to aggression just like a brain tumor could. Whether or not these changes in personality cause one to become murderous or dangerously violent is rare to my knowledge.

"[Historically,] researchers expected an increase in testosterone levels to inevitably lead to more aggression, and this didn't reliably occur," says Frank McAndrew, a professor of psychology at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. Indeed, the latest research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there's only a weak connection between the two. And when aggression is more narrowly defined as simple physical violence, the connection all but disappears.

Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids, Violence, and Crime: Two Cases and Literature Review - PMC

Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use has become a major worldwide substance use disorder, affecting tens of millions of individuals. Importantly, it is now increasingly recognized that some individuals develop uncharacteristically violent or ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We can not be divorced from our biology and genetics. Look at dog breeds.

You are absolutely right. We are the result of nature and nurture.

The mistake is the narrative that humans are not wild critters, and all other species are wild animals.

Humans have intellect and can be tamed. We are not wild animals.

 

[pood]

I like peacegirl’s latest post with the caveat that I do not subscribe to her author’s “solution.”

Since you know what his solution is, can you explain it to the audience what it is you disagree with? Pinpoint where he’s wrong.

Since yoiu know what his solution is, can you explain it, for the first time ever, to your audience? Pinpoint where he is right. Please note: Explain it BRIEFLY AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS, as opposed to posting up acres of word salad from his book.

No no. You said you don't agree with his solution. It is your responsibility to explain yourself. Stop shifting what is your responsibility onto me so you don't have to answer.

It has always been YOUR responsibility to explain the “discovery” and the “solution” iN YOUR OWN WORDS. You NEVER can do that, while demanding that others do it for you — breathtaking chutzpah!

Also take this crap to your own thread. steve_bank has responded there, so maybe you can get the jalopy rolling again.

 

[peacegirl]

to say this (meta)physical actuality of actualizable possibilities is a temporary denial of determinism as fact, could be misleading because it sounds like your reasoning is allowing for a break in the deterministic causal chain. I'm just concerned that the way you're explaining deliberative thinking will give compatibilists a way to sneak in free will, which doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form.

I am not putting forth a break in what is supposed to be a sequence utterly devoid of the sort of indeterminateness associated with deliberation. I am just pointing out that during deliberation even a devotee of determinism might have what could be well described as a momentary sense of determinism not being a fact.

Again, I think the confusion between seeing "determinism

And please, please do not refer to that momentary sense as an illusion. That is a maneuver I often see. It contributes nothing that recommends determinism as fact. In any event, I am more interested in deliberation than I am in whether determinism is fact - - although I do not regard determinism as fact.

With regards to compatibilists, I am under the impression that the actuality of actualizable possibilities is something which only an historically small portion of self-deemed compatibilists would emphasize as being a key facet of compatibilism. Putting aside the fact that people can call themselves whatever they want, the could-have-done-otherwise compatibilists attribute an ability to do otherwise to a person by saying the person could have (indeed would have) done otherwise had conditions been other than as they were. See section 4.1.1 here. If that is a matter of the actuality of actualizable possibilities, then it does not seem to be the same actuality of actualizable possibilities that regards the deliberation context.

Let me ask you this: Do determinists and compatibilists differ in the way they deliberate as a result of their being (or describing themselves as) determinists or compatibilists?

to say this (meta)physical actuality of actualizable possibilities is a temporary denial of determinism as fact, could be misleading because it sounds like your reasoning is allowing for a break in the deterministic causal chain. I'm just concerned that the way you're explaining deliberative thinking will give compatibilists a way to sneak in free will, which doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form.

I am not putting forth a break in what is supposed to be a sequence utterly devoid of the sort of indeterminateness associated with deliberation. I am just pointing out that during deliberation even a devotee of determinism might have what could be well described as a momentary sense of determinism not being a fact.

Is that because deliberation itself feels like we are not being controlled by the hand of determinism?

And please, please do not refer to that momentary sense as an illusion. That is a maneuver I often see. It contributes nothing that recommends determinism as fact. In any event, I am more interested in deliberation than I am in whether determinism is fact - - although I do not regard determinism as fact.

So you are a compatibilist?

With regards to compatibilists, I am under the impression that the actuality of actualizable possibilities is something which only an historically small portion of self-deemed compatibilists would emphasize as being a key facet of compatibilism. Putting aside the fact that people can call themselves whatever they want, the could-have-done-otherwise compatibilists attribute an ability to do otherwise to a person by saying the person could have (indeed would have) done otherwise had conditions been other than as they were. See section 4.1.1 here. If that is a matter of the actuality of actualizable possibilities, then it does not seem to be the same actuality of actualizable possibilities that regards the deliberation context.

That is what is so perplexing. Compatibilists are using "if the conditions been other than what they were" (or in some other world modal logic says a different choice could be made) that this represents the free will they think we have. This logic does not prove that in this world, you or I could have done differently, and that is my focus because anything other than that is just speculation. Thanks for the link. I'll read it as soon as I have a minute.

Let me ask you this: Do determinists and compatibilists differ in the way they deliberate as a result of their being (or describing themselves as) determinists or compatibilists?

No, I don't think they deliberate differently other than how they use "free will" to hold people responsible. They are no different than libertarians in that respect. The confusion is that they say they are determinists but employ the belief that a person "could have done otherwise." It's a total contradiction. I understand why soft determinism was coined and why the two different camps are so polarized. The truth is we cannot prove free will (i.e., could have done otherwise) because we cannot go back in time, undo what has already been done, to prove we could have chosen A instead of B. So, what do compatibilists do to sidestep the issue? They resort to "would have done otherwise if the conditions had been different." What determinist says anything different? From minute to minute we change our views based on different antecedents and therefore different decisions are made. The problem for me specifically is that I'm trying to show not only that man's will is not free but where this truth leads. People have suggested that a deterministic world would lead to a complete lack of freedom when I'm trying to show that it would do the exact opposite. Not only that, but [moral] responsibility would be increased, not decreased, which people fail to understand.

 

[peacegirl]

I like peacegirl’s latest post with the caveat that I do not subscribe to her author’s “solution.”

Since you know what his solution is, can you explain it to the audience what it is you disagree with? Pinpoint where he’s wrong.

Since yoiu know what his solution is, can you explain it, for the first time ever, to your audience? Pinpoint where he is right. Please note: Explain it BRIEFLY AND IN YOUR OWN WORDS, as opposed to posting up acres of word salad from his book.

No no. You said you don't agree with his solution. It is your responsibility to explain yourself. Stop shifting what is your responsibility onto me so you don't have to answer.

It has always been YOUR responsibility to explain the “discovery” and the “solution” iN YOUR OWN WORDS. You NEVER can do that, while demanding that others do it for you — breathtaking chutzpah!

Also take this crap to your own thread. steve_bank has responded there, so maybe you can get the jalopy rolling again.

I have explained and explained and explained that this knowledge cannot be condensed or reduced to a quick summary. I even spelled out the first three chapters, but I see that no one read it. I am going to ask the moderators to delete those posts. You want me to reduce a discovery involving a subject that has been going on for centuries. That's not fair Pood. It's not possible because there will only be more questions which is why he said this knowledge has to be explained in a step-by-step fashion. You are the one filled with Chutzpah. You disagree with his solution when you have no idea what his solution is, and then when I ask you to explain it, you turn on me by saying I am the one that can't explain it. What games you play and they're getting old. I have no problem going back to my thread. In fact, I would prefer it but I will answer someone here if they address me here.

 

[steve_bank]

Look at this thread.

Competitive. Sometimes hostile and abusive. Not uncommon across all site forums and topics.

Someones it gets out of hand and mods step in.

Is competition nature or nurture? If evolution is in part survival of the fittest then competition is built into our genetic code

There's nothing wrong with friendly competition but wanting to be the best can drive people to cheat and do any number of things to be rewarded.

We try to channel male youth aggression into sports. Testosterone kicks in at puberty. The urge to mate takes over.

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals. The culture we live in sets up the aggressive behavior.

People who take testosterone for body building can get violent if they overdo it. Many actual cases.

Anabolic steroids can alter someone's temperament and could lead to aggression just like a brain tumor could. Whether or not these changes in personality cause one to become murderous or dangerously violent is rare to my knowledge.

"[Historically,] researchers expected an increase in testosterone levels to inevitably lead to more aggression, and this didn't reliably occur," says Frank McAndrew, a professor of psychology at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. Indeed, the latest research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there's only a weak connection between the two. And when aggression is more narrowly defined as simple physical violence, the connection all but disappears.

Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids, Violence, and Crime: Two Cases and Literature Review - PMC

Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use has become a major worldwide substance use disorder, affecting tens of millions of individuals. Importantly, it is now increasingly recognized that some individuals develop uncharacteristically violent or ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We can not be divorced from our biology and genetics. Look at dog breeds.

You are absolutely right. We are the result of nature and nurture.

The mistake is the narrative that humans are not wild critters, and all other species are wild animals.

Humans have intellect and can be tamed. We are not wild animals.

Drifting off topic. Start a thread on moral issues section or social science.

Humans have 'intellect'? Yet another endless debate over what that means.

Peace, love , dove all you groovy freaks....as the old saying goes.

 

[peacegirl]

Look at this thread.

Competitive. Sometimes hostile and abusive. Not uncommon across all site forums and topics.

Someones it gets out of hand and mods step in.

Is competition nature or nurture? If evolution is in part survival of the fittest then competition is built into our genetic code

There's nothing wrong with friendly competition but wanting to be the best can drive people to cheat and do any number of things to be rewarded.

We try to channel male youth aggression into sports. Testosterone kicks in at puberty. The urge to mate takes over.

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals. The culture we live in sets up the aggressive behavior.

People who take testosterone for body building can get violent if they overdo it. Many actual cases.

Anabolic steroids can alter someone's temperament and could lead to aggression just like a brain tumor could. Whether or not these changes in personality cause one to become murderous or dangerously violent is rare to my knowledge.

"[Historically,] researchers expected an increase in testosterone levels to inevitably lead to more aggression, and this didn't reliably occur," says Frank McAndrew, a professor of psychology at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. Indeed, the latest research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there's only a weak connection between the two. And when aggression is more narrowly defined as simple physical violence, the connection all but disappears.

Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids, Violence, and Crime: Two Cases and Literature Review - PMC

Anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) use has become a major worldwide substance use disorder, affecting tens of millions of individuals. Importantly, it is now increasingly recognized that some individuals develop uncharacteristically violent or ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We can not be divorced from our biology and genetics. Look at dog breeds.

You are absolutely right. We are the result of nature and nurture.

The mistake is the narrative that humans are not wild critters, and all other species are wild animals.

Humans have intellect and can be tamed. We are not wild animals.

Drifting off topic. Start a thread on moral issues section or social science.

I'm not interested. Morality is a judgment by others because it deals with threats of punishment which actually gives people the advance justification to do the very thing these threats are making efforts to prevent. They are partial deterrents, but they have very little effect on people who are willing to take the risk of getting caught, which are usually the career criminals, the murderers and the rapists. I've explained this before, but I have received no interest. Do you think I'm going to start another thread? The knowledge I am presenting is not about morality per se, but rather about creating an environment that prevents the desire to do that which is wrong or prevents the desire to hurt to another either intentionally or unintentionally. I know this is a tall order which is why I cannot condense it like Pood demands.

Humans have 'intellect'? Yet another endless debate over what that means.

Peace, love , dove all you groovy freaks....as the old saying goes.

Humans have an intellectual capacity different from other animals. This reasoning ability has allowed man to do amazing things, and it will continue because man's nature is to explore and to find solutions to difficult problems. It's in our DNA.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Is that because deliberation itself feels like we are not being controlled by the hand of determinism?

Does anyone feel controlled by something other than themselves when deliberating? I guess some whom we would diagnose as cognitively diseased might feel controlled, but I am expecting that such a feeling is unusual.

So you are a compatibilist?

No. I do not regard myself as any sort of determinist. So, do I believe in libertarian free will? That, too, is not the designation I would use. But others might.

No, I don't think they deliberate differently other than how they use "free will" to hold people responsible.

I regard (moral) responsibility as a separate subject matter. What many people refer to as responsibility often comes across as a veritable obsession with justifying blameworthiness. That is not morality. That is a far too narrow approach for considerations into morality and especially moral development. There are reasons for recasting responsibility as response-ability with those reasons being focused upon the subjective condition affecting and effecting response-ability. Subjectivity is the proper context regarding response-ability for individuals interested in furthering development of their moral/ethical aspects. Clearly, that development is relatable to the development of deliberative abilities.

I'm trying to show not only that man's will is not free but where this truth leads. People have suggested that a deterministic world would lead to a complete lack of freedom when I'm trying to show that it would do the exact opposite. Not only that, but [moral] responsibility would be increased, not decreased, which people fail to understand.

The problem is that, given determinism, people will be as they will be; people will do what they do, and it is allegedly already settled how that all will be. With that as the supposed actual reality context, the words you use in your trying may well be essential to reality progressing as it will, but your words have the tinge of an expectation that they will actually interrupt, alter the determinism momentum. I am entirely in favor of (beneficial) interruption of that determinism, but that is a sort of denial of determinism, and I am not a determinist; so, you can say I am already inclined to appreciate - and think in terms of - the plasticity of reality.

 

[peacegirl]

Is that because deliberation itself feels like we are not being controlled by the hand of determinism?

Does anyone feel controlled by something other than themselves when deliberating? I guess some whom we would diagnose as cognitively diseased might feel controlled, but I am expecting that such a feeling is unusual.

So you are a compatibilist?

No. I do not regard myself as any sort of determinist. So, do I believe in libertarian free will? That, too, is not the designation I would use. But others might.

I don't know where I got the idea that you were a determinist.

No, I don't think they deliberate differently other than how they use "free will" to hold people responsible.

I regard (moral) responsibility as a separate subject matter.

For me, the question of whether or not we are morally culpable is the contention felt in this debate, for if determinism is true, and we could not have done otherwise, how can we blame and punish people for what they had no control over. But there is much more to it than this.

What many people refer to as responsibility often comes across as a veritable obsession with justifying blameworthiness.

That is the cornerstone of our justice system, for to justify blameworthiness, the courts have to believe the person could have done otherwise.

That is not morality. That is a far too narrow approach for considerations into morality and especially moral development. There are reasons for recasting responsibility as response-ability with those reasons being focused upon the subjective condition affecting and effecting response-ability. Subjectivity is the proper context regarding response-ability for individuals interested in furthering development of their moral/ethical aspects. Clearly, that development is relatable to the development of deliberative abilities.

The development of deliberative abilities as it relates to furthering the development of moral/ethical aspects seems like a worthy objective to aim for, but it won't have much of an effect on the individuals who are not interested in understanding the moral/ethical aspects of their behavior and how it may affect others. To them, whoever gets hurt in their effort to get what they want is the collateral damage left in their wake.

I'm trying to show not only that man's will is not free but where this truth leads. People have suggested that a deterministic world would lead to a complete lack of freedom when I'm trying to show that it would do the exact opposite. Not only that, but [moral] responsibility would be increased, not decreased, which people fail to understand.

The problem is that, given determinism, people will be as they will be; people will do what they do, and it is allegedly already settled how that all will be. With that as the supposed actual reality context, the words you use in your trying may well be essential to reality progressing as it will, but your words have the tinge of an expectation that they will actually interrupt, alter the determinism momentum. I am entirely in favor of (beneficial) interruption of that determinism, but that is a sort of denial of determinism, and I am not a determinist; so, you can say I am already inclined to appreciate - and think in terms of - the plasticity of reality.

There can be no interruption of determinism. The momentum may change but not determinism itself. How can it if it is an invariable law? Determinism does not mean there is no plasticity of reality. The problem, as I've said before, is with the definition (i.e., hard determinism in particular) which implies that we are meat robots being coerced, without a will of our own. This is not accurate. Remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they are reflective of reality. The confusion over definition rages on. To repeat, there can be no interruption with determinism. There is just a veering in a new direction but still within the framework of the laws that govern us.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well- concealed law, and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

 

[bilby]

The urge to mate doesn't have to lead to aggression. IOW, it's not a biological trait in humans like in other animals.

Tell me that you are not a man, without telling me that you are not a man.

(Young) men fight over women. It's stupid, and (in many modern societies) pointless. It happens anyway, even to those of us who are massively averse to violence in all other contexts.

I can count the number of fights I have been in in my 55 years of life on the fingers of one hand. But even I fought over women (girls, really) when I was a teenager. If it's not a biological trait, it certainly looks like one.

 

[steve_bank]

The sole purpose of the justice system is keeping the majority of us inside the guard rails. Risk of penalty versus reward for crime.

Most o us do not DUI because we risk higher insurance costs, and possible loss of license.

Here in Washington the state made a sweeping rule severely limiting the police ability to pursue criminal at high speeds.

The resuit, criminals knew all they had to do was speed away and police would not follow them at high speed. It eventually got modified due to both citizen and police complaints.

In the Seattle area pressure was taken off dong drugs in public on the streets and we had an epidemic of drugs on streets. People passed out and OD'd on o0ur building door step. It started with the city progressive city council's abundance of empathy. Don't criminal drug abuse. Like the hot p[pursuit rule, the city wet back to more of a deterrence policy.

During the riots the city council promoted de fund police. They destroyed the Seattle police pertinent, number of officers dropped. Again criminals took advantage. Crime went up, people compared of long response times. Offers quit and applications dropped. City council blamed SPD for not doing enough to increase officers.

Point being the do gooders feel good empathizing, but they ignore the predatory aspect of us humans.

No better example of human predation is our president Donald Trump.

 

[DBT]

As decision making is not a free will process - neural networks, memory function, the state of the system, etc - the action that is taken in any given instance does not support the compatibilists idea of free will.

It's the agency of the brain/mind/cognition, not free will, where each person, animal, whatever, thinks and acts according to their own life experience and genetic makeup, inherent abilities and so on.....

Abstract
''This review deals with the physiology of the initiation of a voluntary movement and the appreciation of whether it is voluntary or not. I argue that free will is not a driving force for movement, but a conscious awareness concerning the nature of the movement. Movement initiation and the perception of willing the movement can be separately manipulated. Movement is generated subconsciously, and the conscious sense of volition comes later, but the exact time of this event is difficult to assess because of the potentially illusory nature of introspection. Neurological disorders of volition are also reviewed. The evidence suggests that movement is initiated in the frontal lobe, particularly the mesial areas, and the sense of volition arises as the result of a corollary discharge likely involving multiple areas with reciprocal connections including those in the parietal lobe and insular cortex.''

I have already noted that "free will" is an unfortunate term. Frankly, it is a terrible term. As a linguistically legitimate place holder - an abbreviation of sorts - for a collection of considerations more properly conducted in terms of necessary conditions leading to sufficient conditions thresholds, "free will" in itself always tends toward an overly broad generalization with next to no informative usefulness. Nevertheless, deliberative thinking is done in terms which presume the (meta)physical actuality of possibilities; when such thinking is conducted, it is at least a temporary denial of determinism as fact.

The identification of "free will" activity with consciousness, with conscious awareness, is a reasonable preliminary assumption - - - but only for investigators bereft of significant self-awareness regarding their own developmental processes. And that means that such an assumption should already have been left by the wayside were there actual progress in attempts at science-izing investigations into human thinking. The same can be said of philosophical ruminations. Consider the development of muscle memory. Consider the development and refinement of what I will call intellection memory. And consider the factors, the conditions necessary for those sorts of development. The effectiveness of muscle memory and intellection memory in no way speak against the actuality of (meta)physical possibilities which themselves speak against determinism.

With regards to attempts at science-izing investigations into human brain activity, particularly when trying to extend investigation findings for philosophical as well as speculative purposes, it is critically important to remain cognizant of the fact that even the gee-whizzy imaging techniques remain uncorrelated with and unrevealing of thoughts content and thoughts development. Beyond that, it is to be kept in mind that these technologies do not reveal brain activity; instead, these technologies only reveal what we know how to detect. An EEG (which is an imaging technology) can be - and usually is - interpreted as indicating a lack of brain activity (i.e., brain death) when the EEG is flat. However, patients with flat EEGs have been known to fully recover. An EEG does not measure brain activity; it measures a type of activity which we know how to detect. The usefulness of these technologies is entirely as tools for finding disease processes in the hope that such identifications may lead to effective therapies.

Neural architecture and the abilities it enables have nothing to do with will, be it free or not. How we think is determined by neural architecture and the electrochemical activity of networks, not will.

If will plays no part in how the brain works and responds to events in the external world, why call it free will?



''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system.'' - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.