Natural Law or, Ethics for the Atheist

[tech/a]

There is no requirement that his desired end is logical or consistent with a chain of causation.

Just ask the mother or Father who has just killed one of their kids!

 

[cynic]

So it seems that the argument remains circular.
Is free will true and determinism/empirical science deficient?
Is free will false, and empirical science with its attendant logical processes sacrosanct?


I submit that the a priori allows for 'free will'.

jog on
duc

And I counter submit that, acceptance of the claimed existence of true (as opposed to illusory) free will, within the universe, is tantamount to a subscription to belief in one or more metaphysical aspects of reality.

I believe a more thorough examination of the perceived manifestations, of free will, along with their attendant relationship/s within the physical realm, will serve to illuminate my reasons for making this assertion.

 

[cynic]

But, how is/are the substitution/s of the state of affairs able to performend?
Is true(as opposed to illusory) free will, required for this to occur?

Through actions.

Man acts to substitute his current state for a state [he subjectively feels] will improve [or worsen] his current state.

He will use his ability to reason which 'means' to employ to achieve his [desired] 'end'. Going back to our discussion about the intelligence [and other attributes] of individuals, there is no requirement that his reasoning is successful etc. There is no requirement that his desired end is logical or consistent with a chain of causation. This I submit would/could be considered circumstantial evidence in the argument.

jog on
duc

These "actions" could more easily be automatic reactions, within a causally determined universe.

 

[cynic]

If free will is false, then morality is meaningless!
A moral system implies the existence of free will, which in turn implies metaphysical reality!
Knowing the above, from whence is a "secular morality" concept to derive its value?


As asserted, free will is not only possible, it is a reality.

Therefore a moral system can be asserted, as humans are subject to a moral code based on free will and the incumbent accountability for their moral actions.

As initially stated, an ethical system can be deduced without any reference to the supernatural.

jog on
duc

No!
To my understanding the existence of true (as opposed to illusory) free will, is yet to be demonstrated.
The body of empirical evidence that "free will" is very likely an illusion, pursuant to mankind's cognitive limitations impacting interpretations of complex interactions, has been building since the dawn of science.

 

[cynic]

As far as I can see, empirical science offers strong supportive evidence for the causal determinism concept, a concept which, barring allowance for metaphysical claims, can not entertain the existence of true free will. The illusion of free will, may be readily accounted by the cognitive limitations of its observers.


Empirical evidence, most definitely, that is the very definition of causality and what we have [largely] relied upon [scientific method] to advance ourselves to our current point of history.

However we also have the deductive method of the a priori.

It is the validity of the a priori 'synthetic' statement that supports the assertion that the will of man is free.

The a priori allows for the subjectivity of choice based on an ordinal as opposed to cardinal value system. The importance of the ordinal is that it allows for the non-logical, silly, impetuous action which sunders the logical causation chain.

We see this in law as well as the 'novus actus' which sunders the chain of causation in law.

jog on
duc

I assert that the seemingly silly and/or illogical, sunderings of a causative chain, are more than likely, causally determined illusions of logical departure. If the physical laws governing the universe are true and logical, then illogic cannot truly manifest absent the potential for violation to those physical laws-namely a metaphysical potentiality!

 

[ducati916]

It has been accepted that for every 'cause' there is an 'effect'.
It has also been accepted that each cause has a specific effect.

Therefore if a person reaches point 'A' [the cause] by the previous definition a specific effect must occur.

This is not the case: the person can choose from an 'infinite' range of responses or effects.
Therefore there must be free will that is unconstrained by the law of cause and effect.

If the law of cause and effect allowed any number of possible effects, we have randomness, which condition is not expressed in our universe.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

It has been accepted that for every 'cause' there is an 'effect'.
It has also been accepted that each cause has a specific effect.

Therefore if a person reaches point 'A' [the cause] by the previous definition a specific effect must occur.

This is not the case: the person can choose from an 'infinite' range of responses or effects.
Therefore there must be free will that is unconstrained by the law of cause and effect.

If the law of cause and effect allowed any number of possible effects, we have randomness, which condition is not expressed in our universe.

jog on
duc

But the choice that person is causally determined by antecedent causes making that person exactly who that person is at the point the "choice" is made. That person is always going to "choose" exactly the same way, at that point in their history, and no other! The "choice" is ever causally determined by the antecedent causes, some of which will likely also have been causally determined "choices" (or "decisions")!

 

[Gringotts Bank]

It has been accepted that for every 'cause' there is an 'effect'.
It has also been accepted that each cause has a specific effect.

Therefore if a person reaches point 'A' [the cause] by the previous definition a specific effect must occur.

This is not the case: the person can choose from an 'infinite' range of responses or effects.
Therefore there must be free will that is unconstrained by the law of cause and effect.

If the law of cause and effect allowed any number of possible effects, we have randomness, which condition is not expressed in our universe.

jog on
duc

Non_duality theory is the best way to understand this, imo.

In duality, there is free will, cause and effect, time and space, and all is a creation of the mind. With this comes karma, unfortunately. Karma is memory of actions which moved you away from Oneness - that's how I describe it anyway. Without the mind (as in deep sleep), there's no experience of anything.

In Oneness, there's the uncaused One, and the mind is understood to be what it is - a contraction of this Oneness into a separate node I call 'me' - aka. the ego. Without the mind (as in deep sleep), there is an uncaused awareness with is limitless and cannot be described because it has no attributes.

Take it for what it's worth, because I have never experienced Oneness, apart from when I was One years old!

 

[ducati916]

But the choice that person is causally determined by antecedent causes making that person exactly who that person is at the point the "choice" is made. That person is always going to "choose" exactly the same way, at that point in their history, and no other! The "choice" is ever causally determined by the antecedent causes, some of which will likely also have been causally determined "choices" (or "decisions")!

If the law of cause and effect allowed any number of possible effects, we have randomness, which condition is not expressed in our universe by anything other than thinking, reasoning beings.

It makes more sense to talk of chains of causation, where like the branches of a tree, the lines of possibility expand for outcomes based on which decision [choice] is made.

The discussion becomes complicated further by introducing a moral element, Kant's notion of duty.
The reason that this adds a complication [for determinists] is that a notion of duty can be created a priori which does not rely on a cause: it is created [or discovered] de novo, through reason.

A duty is an 'ought'.
It is not a must.

It is an action that ought to be taken to a given set of circumstances, but need not be.

Essentially where a choice [in anything exists] the unbroken chain of causation argued for by the determinist is broken. A new chain of causation then arises and will be broken at the next choice.

A causes B must be consistent. If it is not, then the law of causation does not hold and you cannot have a deterministic universe.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

If the law of cause and effect allowed any number of possible effects, we have randomness, which condition is not expressed in our universe by anything other than thinking, reasoning beings.

It makes more sense to talk of chains of causation, where like the branches of a tree, the lines of possibility expand for outcomes based on which decision [choice] is made.

The discussion becomes complicated further by introducing a moral element, Kant's notion of duty.
The reason that this adds a complication [for determinists] is that a notion of duty can be created a priori which does not rely on a cause: it is created [or discovered] de novo, through reason.

A duty is an 'ought'.
It is not a must.

It is an action that ought to be taken to a given set of circumstances, but need not be.

Essentially where a choice [in anything exists] the unbroken chain of causation argued for by the determinist is broken. A new chain of causation then arises and will be broken at the next choice.

A causes B must be consistent. If it is not, then the law of causation does not hold and you cannot have a deterministic universe.

jog on
duc

These purported breaches of the chain of causation appear to be dependant upon the existence of true feedom of choice, as opposed to an illusion of choice within the causally determined universe.

I submit that if the causal laws of the physical universe hold true at all times then any apparence of choice is either an illusion of a complex system of physical interactions, or the product of (one or more) metaphysical phenomena.

When a choice is made, what is actually happening in the physical (as opposed to metaphysical) realm?

What caused the choice to occur?
Were any thoughts involved?
If so what caused the thought/s?

 

[ducati916]

For 'determinism' to hold every cause must have a consistent, predictable effect: 2 + 2 must always = 4.
We are in agreement on this point:
"I submit that if the causal laws of the physical universe hold true at all times"

The existence of free will must mean that this [above] requirement cannot hold.

You then state:

"then any apparence of choice is either an illusion of a complex system of physical interactions, or the product of (one or more) metaphysical phenomena."

Or:

It falsifies the theory and free will is proven.

What caused the choice to occur?

If there is a 'choice', then free will is proven. However I understand your true question [objection] which is: Can a choice ever occur?

A choice means: the chain of cause and effect reaches a [temporary] end where the last cause allows for an infinite number of effects. This is essentially 2 + 2 = infinity. Which proves free will.

Can a choice ever occur.

A [hopefully] simple scenario.

An individual [normal in all material respects] has the physiological triggers that indicate hunger.

My theory: the individual can choose what food to eat or even not to eat.
Your theory: the food that he will eat is already known or any other action taken by the individual.

Before I move on, do you wish to modify the example in any way?

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

For 'determinism' to hold every cause must have a consistent, predictable effect: 2 + 2 must always = 4.
We are in agreement on this point:
"I submit that if the causal laws of the physical universe hold true at all times"

The existence of free will must mean that this [above] requirement cannot hold.

You then state:

"then any apparence of choice is either an illusion of a complex system of physical interactions, or the product of (one or more) metaphysical phenomena."

Or:

It falsifies the theory and free will is proven.

What caused the choice to occur?

If there is a 'choice', then free will is proven. However I understand your true question [objection] which is: Can a choice ever occur?

Thankyou for alerting me to my error. Before answering the question "Can a [true] choice ever occur?", the question "What caused the purported choice to occur?" needs to be addressed.

A choice means: the chain of cause and effect reaches a [temporary] end where the last cause allows for an infinite number of effects. This is essentially 2 + 2 = infinity. Which proves free will.

Can a choice ever occur.

A [hopefully] simple scenario.

An individual [normal in all material respects] has the physiological triggers that indicate hunger.

My theory: the individual can choose what food to eat or even not to eat.
Your theory: the food that he will eat is already known or any other action taken by the individual.

Before I move on, do you wish to modify the example in any way?

This seems like a reasonable example, let's see how it unfolds.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

When a choice is made, what is actually happening in the physical (as opposed to metaphysical) realm?

What caused the choice to occur?
Were any thoughts involved?
If so what caused the thought/s?


If there is a choice, the choice must be made by 'something'.

That something is the mind/intellect.

That mind/intellect must as a necessary condition be fully 100% freely/owned/possessed/controlled/utilised by the individual in question.

The mind must be capable of a priori reasoning and to be able to ascertain empirical evidence, which is to say the mind must be able to gain knowledge of its world through the body's senses and reasoning power.

If those conditions are fulfilled then the necessary and sufficient conditions exist for free will.

Again, before proceeding, is there anything that you would wish, need to add to these conditions?

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Therefore:

That mind/intellect must as a necessary condition be fully 100% freely/owned/possessed/controlled/utilised by the individual in question.

The mind is free/owned/possessed/controlled/utilised by the individual, if the mind is capable of argumentation.

This point does not in of itself demonstrate free will in the context of determinism, as determinism does not necessarily require control of the mind itself. It is however an important point that the mind is controlled etc by the individual.

Determinism is control through circumstance, or the progression of circumstance, one leading inexorably into the next.

The mind must be capable of a priori reasoning and to be able to ascertain empirical evidence, which is to say the mind must be able to gain knowledge of its world through the body's senses and reasoning power.

The mind must also have the capability of apprehension of reality so that it can learn from experience combined with the ability of introspection, so as to be able to reason.

Because the mind is free and individual, the mind is capable, within its intellectual limits to undertake the above attributes.

The laws of cause and effect will become known and understood by the mind.

To demonstrate free will the mind will need to break the chain of causation.

The law of causation is itself governed by the law of proximity. A trigger on a gun is pulled, dropping the hammer, igniting the gunpowder, firing the bullet, is a chain of causation measured in milliseconds.
Planting a crop, allowing it to grow and harvesting the crop involves a different timescale. All of the effects are [relative] proximate to the cause.

My theory: the individual can choose what food to eat or even not to eat.
Your theory: the food that he will eat is already known or any other action taken by the individual.

Our individual is hungry. It is 'caused' by a physiological need: we need nourishment in the form of food to survive. This is a strong example of a 'cause and effect' or determinism.

Another strong example of a strong physiological drive is that of 'self-preservation'.

We therefore have an example of two strong physiological drives operating in the same direction, which is to eat and survive and assuage the pangs of hunger concurrently

Our self-aware and aware mind, is cognizant of the 'cause and effect' of these two physiological drives, yet, chooses to not eat and starve to death to prove a principle.

The mind is also aware that if that choice [of not eating] is followed, death will be the result. We have at this point a juxtaposition of three causal influences. All three cannot operate concurrently. The individual's choice will determine which effect holds. The mind can overcome strong drives that point in a specific direction if it so chooses and possesses the necessary will-power.

This is a demonstration of 'free will' that proves its existence.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

Therefore:

That mind/intellect must as a necessary condition be fully 100% freely/owned/possessed/controlled/utilised by the individual in question.

The mind is free/owned/possessed/controlled/utilised by the individual, if the mind is capable of argumentation.

This point does not in of itself demonstrate free will in the context of determinism, as determinism does not necessarily require control of the mind itself. It is however an important point that the mind is controlled etc by the individual.

Determinism is control through circumstance, or the progression of circumstance, one leading inexorably into the next.

The mind must be capable of a priori reasoning and to be able to ascertain empirical evidence, which is to say the mind must be able to gain knowledge of its world through the body's senses and reasoning power.

The mind must also have the capability of apprehension of reality so that it can learn from experience combined with the ability of introspection, so as to be able to reason.

Because the mind is free and individual, the mind is capable, within its intellectual limits to undertake the above attributes.

The laws of cause and effect will become known and understood by the mind.

To demonstrate free will the mind will need to break the chain of causation.

The law of causation is itself governed by the law of proximity. A trigger on a gun is pulled, dropping the hammer, igniting the gunpowder, firing the bullet, is a chain of causation measured in milliseconds.
Planting a crop, allowing it to grow and harvesting the crop involves a different timescale. All of the effects are [relative] proximate to the cause.

My theory: the individual can choose what food to eat or even not to eat.
Your theory: the food that he will eat is already known or any other action taken by the individual.

Our individual is hungry. It is 'caused' by a physiological need: we need nourishment in the form of food to survive. This is a strong example of a 'cause and effect' or determinism.

Another strong example of a strong physiological drive is that of 'self-preservation'.

We therefore have an example of two strong physiological drives operating in the same direction, which is to eat and survive and assuage the pangs of hunger concurrently

Our self-aware and aware mind, is cognizant of the 'cause and effect' of these two physiological drives, yet, chooses to not eat and starve to death to prove a principle.

The mind is also aware that if that choice [of not eating] is followed, death will be the result. We have at this point a juxtaposition of three causal influences. All three cannot operate concurrently. The individual's choice will determine which effect holds. The mind can overcome strong drives that point in a specific direction if it so chooses and possesses the necessary will-power.

This is a demonstration of 'free will' that proves its existence.

jog on
duc

Were there no other causal influences leading to the "decision" to exercise "willpower"?

 

[ducati916]

Were there no other causal influences leading to the "decision" to exercise "willpower"?

Yes there were:

Our individual is hungry. It is 'caused' by a physiological need: we need nourishment in the form of food to survive. This is a strong example of a 'cause and effect' or determinism.

Another strong example of a strong physiological drive is that of 'self-preservation'.

We therefore have an example of two strong physiological drives operating in the same direction, which is to eat and survive and assuage the pangs of hunger concurrently

Our self-aware and aware mind, is cognizant of the 'cause and effect' of these two physiological drives, yet, chooses to not eat and starve to death to prove a principle.

The mind is also aware that if that choice [of not eating] is followed, death will be the result. We have at this point a juxtaposition of three causal influences. All three cannot operate concurrently. The individual's choice will determine which effect holds. The mind can overcome strong drives that point in a specific direction if it so chooses and possesses the necessary will-power.

This is a demonstration of 'free will' that proves its existence.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

...
Another strong example of a strong physiological drive is that of 'self-preservation'.

We therefore have an example of two strong physiological drives operating in the same direction, which is to eat and survive and assuage the pangs of hunger concurrently

Our self-aware and aware mind, is cognizant of the 'cause and effect' of these two physiological drives, yet, chooses to not eat and starve to death to prove a principle.
...

And what causes this particular entity to value a principle in such a way, as to merit that value so worthy of proof, that comfort and health cease to be primary considerations?

 

[ducati916]

And what causes this particular entity to value a principle in such a way, as to merit that value so worthy of proof, that comfort and health cease to be primary considerations?

Free will.

The individual chooses to ignore two very powerful inherent [causative] physiological drives and do something contrary to those drives.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

Free will.

The individual chooses to ignore two very powerful inherent [causative] physiological drives and do something contrary to those drives.

jog on
duc

Then it would seem that your argument for existence of a concept, is premised upon the presumption to the existence of that concept.

A somewhat circular argument, and hence, far from convincing.

 

[ducati916]

Then it would seem that your argument for existence of a concept, is premised upon the presumption to the existence of that concept.

A somewhat circular argument, and hence, far from convincing.

If we keep in mind 2 + 2 must always = 4; then
Every cause has a consistent effect.

So in my example we have at least 2 identified causes of effects which would be to eat:
(a) hunger; and
(b) self-preservation.

There will undoubtably be others.

All of these causes can occur at the same point in time. They line up like a rank of taxis. Our individual then, at this point in time has a number of choices.

This is [I believe] the crux of the matter.

In your theory, one of those causes is pre-ordained and must happen, leading to its known effect.

In my theory, the individual can choose, based on the freedom of the mind to reason and understand that a specific choice [cause] will lead to a specific effect [outcome].

Neither argument [theory] is conclusive, as we simply don't know and cannot prove either. However, on the balance of probabilities I would argue that free will pertains.

I would argue this on the principle of 'Occam's razor'.

From wikipedia:

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

jog on
duc