Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife. — Scarecow

Practicing a religion could gain you nothing, and could be seen as a waste of every moment spent practicing it.

However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, — Scarecow

It could if gods exist that reward us for reasons other than practicing any, or a particular, religion.

That's amazing! Holy cow!

I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. — Relativist

How did this situation come to be? For millennia, people were entirely fooled into thinking they had free will. I don't know when someone first came up with the concept of free will, but, since there wouldn't have been any thought that we don't have it, the idea that we do wouldn't have been floating around. A yin/yang idea. So it was a given that we are responsible for our actions, without even questioning it. And people were punished for bad actions.

Now, people think we don't have free will. But we can't not be responsible for our actions. First, because that's just not acceptable. We can't have people getting away with, literally, murder just because we know we don't have free will, and the murderer couldn't have done otherwise. Somebody has to pay! Second, because we still feel that we are responsible for our actions. You can't tell me I'm not responsible. Even if I'm not! Third, because the feeling that we're responsible, and the virtue of holding people responsible, is part of our culture, and our language.

We don't think of punishing a storm or avalanche for killing someone. Or a swarm of bees, although it seems that was their intention. We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. We just can't have it killing again. We don't feel it really had a choice, for whatever reason, and don't hate it. Maybe it was an abused animal. Maybe it was in great pain at the moment it killed. Maybe it was trained to kill (if that can be done without abuse).

But we hold humans responsible. We harbor very bad feeling for humans who do evil. In many cases, we blame the owner of the dog, even when the situation doesn't allow us to impose any legal penalty. All because we are not simply subject to our pasts and physical factors, like storms and avalanches, bees, asked dogs.

Except we are.

Genuinely - get into poker. Getting 'in the tank' is a common thing and the reason some tournaments take a week to play out. Decisions are long, arduous processes in poker. Think you'll enjoy. — AmadeusD

What a surprising response! :grin: I probably know as close to nothing about poker as is possible. I hadn't thought I was suited to it in any way. Now I wonder...

Yes, determinism doesn't necessarily prevent me from feeling pleasure or having meaning, but it also doesn't give me any say in the matter.
— QuixoticAgnostic

Does indeterminism? It wouldn't seem so to me. — flannel jesus

An extremely important point. A few scenarios come to mind.

1) My genetic makeup, and every experience I've ever had, and everything about how I feel, and whatever other factors there may be, are all physically reducible. And, at the cusp of decision, they are all weighed against each other, as physical events, and the choice is determined by how all the physical interactions play out.

2) Consciousness is, at least in part, non-physical. A soul, or panpsychism, or something else. This does not rule out determinism. Consciousness still makes choices because of those factors, even though we can't possibly consciously weigh such an incalculable number of things.

3) Choices are not based on those factors. At least not ultimately. I doubt anyone would deny the past plays at least some role. But perhaps the final instant is not determined by any physical or nonphysical weighing.

I think #3 is what fj means? In what way would we have any say in the matter if we don't make the decision based on factors from the past? Does "indetermed" mean "random"? If so, then how do we have any meaningful say in it?

I often chose randomly. I have been told I have Analysis Paralysis. (Which is very cool, and I now have a shirt that says Master of Analysis Paralysis.) I was told this because I take an inordinately long time to make decisions while playing board games. I often just have to pick an action for no reason just so I don't piss the other players off any more than I already have. But board games is fairly new. I've been unable to decide what to eat at restaurants for decades. I usually hope the waiter says one or another meal comes with noticably more food than the other(s). That's a good way to decide. Alas, there is usually not a clear winner in that regard. So I sit, unable to pick one over the other(s), until I just pick randomly, or my wife picks for me.

We don't doubt the mechanistic independence of breathing because it is obvious. We doubt the mechanistic dynamics of choosing because, built-into (evolved) that process is the placement of the Subject "I." Hence "I am deliberating," seems like there is a being at the center of the mechanistic process pulling the strings at its will. I say there is not — ENOAH

That's very well said. The question is: Why does it seem there is a being in the mechanistic process? IOW, the Hard Problem. Why do these physical processes have this seeming if they are nothing but physical processes, when these other physical processes don't? And if there is no being present, then to what does the seeming seem to be?

I agree that the process is, in one sense, programmed, but you are the program. — Relativist

Right. And ChatGPT is the program. And Deep Blue is the program.

There's also a sense in which you aren't programmed: you aren't the product of design. You weren't built in order to perform the functions you execute. — Relativist

I agree. But that's another conversation entirely.

I very much appreciate your view. I've been more than somewhat interested in taoism for most of my life. I loved Le Guin's Earthsea books and the old Kung Fu tv show as a kid. Years later, for whatever reason, I started reading the Tao Te Ching , and immediately recognized it.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I gather it goes much farther than taoism does in the direction you're speaking of. But I believe both offer paths to a life that is more content and less frantic. Which probably also helps people be physically healthier.

(Joel learned these lessons in the last season of Northern Exposure, and seemed to me to be a much better person for it.)

So I can see a great value in applying aspects of this truth, if it is, indeed, truth, to our lives. Heck, even if it isn't truth, I see the value. (I suppose that's a matter of opinion.)

The problem I have is that taking this view to the logical conclusion, of I can call it that, which you seem to be advocating, is a rejection of our individuality. The universe allows for me, and for you, to exist. Why should we not embrace and explore this? Why reject what is possible? Why try to not fully embrace that individually?

I would think this attitude would be even more logical if there is a universal consciousness. If a universal consciousness is (what's the right word) focusing itself in one place/time, why would that focused consciousness reject what it, as the universal consciousness, is trying to do? One day, I'll be dead. At which point, I'll, shall we say, melt back into the universal consciousness. What would have been accomplished by having tried to deny the individual point of acute consciousness when it was possible?

And what would have been the point if there is not a universal consciousness, and this is it?

And your choices aren't meaningless. You give meaning to the factors, and those meanings influence the choice. The person who chooses to keep the money you drop is doing so because of what money means to him. — Relativist

But you don't get to "give meaning to the factors" if it's all deterministic. Your genetic makeup, experiences, etc., give everything meaning to the group of cells referred to as Relativist. Then, when you are in a situation where different directions are taken by different people, the meaning that all those factors have determined you have determine which direction you take.

But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? I throw a ball into the air, and give it a choice: continue to rise forever, or fall back down. Who are we kidding? The ball doesn't get to choose. It does the only thing it can do.

If I drop a lot of money while walking in front of someone, we can say that the person has the choice of calling out to me to alert me that I dropped it, or quickly picking it up themself and walking in another direction. If determinism is true, and the person's genetic makeup, upbringing, other past experiences, health at the moment, and all other factors, will allow only one option, then calling it a "choice" is as meaningless as with the thrown ball. No, we can't even know what all the factors are, much less see how they all combine to produce the only outcome they can produce. But that doesn't mean it was any more possible for the outcome to have been other than it was than in the cases of the ball.

No worries. I never took anything as adversarial, or an accusation thereof.

I don't really know where we part ways. It seems you describe things as I see them. You, shall we say, put the puzzle pieces together as I do. But then you see a different picture when the puzzle is assembled.

I'm not sure what your picture is, however, so I'm not sure. Tell me. Serious question, because I just don't know what you're thinking. For you, does what I view as the Self have any value? If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you?

I would say you describe the scenario very well. :up:

Whenever the hard determinist view is brought up in online discussions there is almost always someone that says no free will or genuine moral responsibility logically entails fatalism and nihilism. If everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free then somehow life is meaningless and morality doesn’t exist. — Captain Homicide

If it really is the case that everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free, then those who believe life is meaningless and morality doesn't exist have no choice but to believe that. And nobody has any choice but to live their lives as they do in response to that.

Old riddle.
It takes three men two hours to dig a hole. How long does it take them to dig half a hole?

This doesn't resonate with me at all. I have never watched or played any sport. I dislike games and sport with something approaching a passion. — Tom Storm

Heh. I don't dislike them, but I'm no good at them, and never did any beyond Little League baseball and CYO basketball as a young teen. Enough was enough. My point was that sports have been extremely important to humanity forever. From the ancient Greeks putting a war on pause because it was time for their Olympics (I heard they did that. I don't know if it's fact, but have no trouble believing it.) to Aaron Judge getting paid $40,000,000 per year. People compete against each other. I doubt anything drives us harder than striving to win.

I do agree with the point that many men are aggressive creatures and as long as they are running around on the field like thugs chasing after a ball, they are not out on the streets rioting. That's a cartoon summary with perhaps some truth to it? — Tom Storm

Or getting in the ring/cage to fight each other, rather than beating each other up on the street and going to jail for it.

I think this is the impulse i lack. I have never had any desire to challenge myself or do any of the kinds of 'growth-based" righteous middle class rituals you read about in self-help. That doesn't mean I haven't had to face challenges and overcome obstacles, but this happens without planning. — Tom Storm

Yes, it does. But you can turn away from them. Is the reason you faced every challenge you faced, and overcome every obstacle you overcame, because you had no choice? It was absolute necessity, sometimes even life or death, that you do it each time you did? It was never because you saw a challenge, and just wanted it?

Patterner I see your point. Games are certainly more enjoyable to watch if it's a close call. It keeps us on edge, trying to guess who will win. — Truth Seeker

What about things other than games? Have you ever learned something that was difficult? That took a lot of time and effort? And, when you finally got it, felt great satisfaction and happiness? Do you feel that way with things that come easy to you? I would say the joy comes from the accomplishment at least as much as from possessing a new piece of knowledge.

Very briefly, I think the reason "we" are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy, is there is no central being "I" upon which to attach praise or blame. — ENOAH

I don't know if I'm correctly understanding your position. If I am, then I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. Every cell in my body, it is famously said, is replaced every several years. My body today, at 60, has been ... what's the word? ... renewed, replaced, overwritten, many times in this way since my birth. Also, it has grown in various ways, most obviously weight and height. Still, it is my body. There are many characteristics about it that have not changed, even as the particles that it is built of have. I've been stopped by people who recognized me, even though we hadn't seen each other in decades. People have recognized my voice over the phone after several years. My body is not not my body because it is not made up of the same particles at all points throughout my life. It is my body, and has been for 60 years.

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. Regardless of whether it is entirely physically reducible, or if panpsychism plays a role, or whatever other scenario, the physical brain is essential. It is the medium in which those processes take place. Not only is my brain not made of the same particles it was made of when I was born, but some of the processes taking placer in it no longer take place, have been modified, or are new. Still, I am me. I remember specific events, thoughts, sensory input, and emotions from early childhood. "I" have been present all along, through all the changes. This is the nature of "I".

I wasn't speaking in absolutes. no, every instant of our lives does not need to be a struggle. But I did not coin that phrase. The struggle very often makes things worthwhile. People are very often romantically drawn to the person who isn't interested. The one you want most is the one you can't have. The one you have to put in a lot of effort to get. I didn't come up with that idea either. Even as spectators, we don't get any enjoyment watching a baseball team win by 20 runs. How do we say it's bad sportsmanship when a team in that position keeps putting everything into it to increase their lead. Ali and Fraser fought some great matches because they were evenly matched.

I sometimes think humans are addicted to crisis. — Tom Storm

I think we have a need to strive. To struggle. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. We don't appreciate what we don't work for.

The problem is, it seems the easiest way to struggle is against each other. It can be competition, which is why sports is the most important thing in the world. Unfortunately, it can also mean fighting, and taking from, each other.

I think we need to find more ways to strive for, and gain satisfaction from, things that don't involve other people. Me against nature. Me against myself. Who knows?

Mind is great. But is life without mind nothing? Or is life nature's "greatness," the essence, and our mind and its constructions (including the topic of this discussion, the so called self) incidental? — ENOAH

I don't know how much greater awareness/consciousness/minds can be than ours. I assume there is plenty of room for growth. And I don't know what the least degree of complexity awareness/consciousness/minds can have and still feel greatness, or value, or joy in themselves or anything else. But without that minimal degree giving value, there is nothing. There is no value in anything without something to judge it to be of value. The incomprehensibly, indescribably huge, complex universe would be nothing without something to note the fact of existence. Maybe a fruit fly has what it takes, and feels its own existence.

Because your hypothetical human's life is being assessed from our perspective, that of a conceited ape, we cannot imagine that her life has value. — ENOAH

On the contrary. I imagine that her life has value. It is she that does not value it, or imagine, or understand these, or any other, concepts, because she does not have the capacity to do so. My consolation is that she does not suffer from her condition, not having any more capacity for suffering than she does for valuing. But I will help keep her alive.

Patterner I am glad no such person actually exists. It would be very hard for them to live. — Truth Seeker

True. But this is just a thought experiment, to see if we can come to any conclusions about the self/mind that we can be reasonably sure of. Imo, we can. At least in regards to human minds.

As they won't be able to learn any language, we are not going to know what kind of thoughts or values the hypothetical baby will develop - if any. If they make up their own unique language, we won't be able to translate it. We can try to infer emotions based on facial expressions and body language but I don't know if that would be accurate. We can try to infer values based on actions but again I don't know if that would be accurate. — Truth Seeker

I imagine there would be extremely few circumstances where we would have any confidence of our accuracy.

But language? Out of the question. If such a person ever came to think at all, they could not interact with anyone else. Wouldn't even know there was anyone else. There would be no need for language, and no need to ever contemplate such a thing.

Not necessarily because they can't communicate images and we can't communicate it to them, as they have no outside object to reference with a given word. They could make a language to label the things they see but it would be a sort of private language. — Lionino

I quite agree with about it being weak. Assuming the brain at birth is as it would be if eyes had been present, sure, there could be electrical activity in the visual areas. I can produce phosphenes by pressing on my eyes. Maybe phosphenes take place for those born blind. But what the activity they're talking about would "look" like to the person is unknown. They can't know if there are blobs of color.

Regarding the current conversation, the question is, would an infant born without any senses develop a self/mind from the visual, and presumably other, hallucinations? There would not be any reason to suspect phosphenes and whatever corresponding phenomenon might be associated with hearing would match up, as in the siren and hypothetical blob of color moving together. What thoughts, emotions, personality, or values might we expect to develop?

It couldn't be visual, auditory, tactile, or dealing with taste or smell.
— Patterner

Couldn't it? — Lionino

How could a being that never had a sense of sight have a visual hallucination? If that was possible, would we not be able to describe vision to people who were born blind? We cannot do that, even with people who are very intelligent, and have always had all their other senses. The scenario under discussion is even more difficult, since the infant never had any amount of sensory input of any kind.

We can imagine what it may be like for a newborn baby without any sensory perceptions. Even if he or she does not have any capacity to see, hear, smell, touch and taste he or she could still have proprioception. It's possible that his or her brain would hallucinate to fill the sensory gap. — Truth Seeker

What type of hallucination might be possible? It couldn't be visual, auditory, tactile, or dealing with taste or smell.

I understand. But that's not the scenario Nemo suggested. Nemo did not say "without sense perception." Nemo said "prior to sense perception."

But you don't want to even consider what might happen if someone was born with no sense perception? I don't think speculation is unheard of in philosophical settings. Lacking the ability to learn anything about anything outside of it's own physical being, and lacking even the ability to sense its own physical being, what mental state would it have when born? And what might it come to know, or emotionally feel?

The true nature of the self, to keep it brief, is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception. In other words, there is no self without sense perception of the world. — Nemo2124

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I'm thinking "self" and "mind" are the same. And I do not think either exists prior to any sense perception.

I could speculate what it may be like for such a baby to grow into an adult but that would be pure speculation - not facts. — Truth Seeker

I don't understand. You just told Nemo that you "would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values."

Being unable to perceive anything, so not being able to tell what is beneficial or harmful. Not being able to interact with anyone or anything. How do you suspect someone born into that situation would develop? Can you give any hypothetical idea of progression? Can you tell me what thoughts and/or emotions you would have? What values? What you will learn over time?

Why would there be no self without sensory perception of the world? If I am unable to touch, smell, hear, taste and see would my sense of self disappear? I doubt it. I would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values. — Truth Seeker

Ues, if you lost your senses after your self developed. But your self wouldn't develop if you didn't have the senses from the beginning.

:up:

If non-biological clumps of matter can be conscious, I have no doubt the consciousness would be different from ours. After all, ours is very different from a bat's, despite both being biological. Even if a mechanical/electronic being had identical physical capabilities as us, and even if its brain had been built identical to a human brain (if we could manage such a feat), surely, a body made of metal and plastic would feel different than a biological one. That, alone, would lead to a different consciousness.

But, whether purely physical processes can be conscious, or something like proto-consciousness is also needed, I don't see why the processes taking place in only one medium can be conscious. I would think it's the processes that count. It's a matter of knowing which specific processes are required elements. (Others will have to speculate about consciousness that is not due to purely physical processes, or with the additional property of something like proto-consciousness.)

Still, we see effective information processing emerge from neural nets in either context, — wonderer1

Is there a reason we can't see consciousness in either context? Not necessarily now, but in principle?

What prevents A.I. from having the same, so called consciousness based experiences as me, and what makes me have code based experiences, is my organic nature/structure; my brain and endocrine system etc etc (I am not a biologist). That's where "I" really "am," and I imagine, A.I. can "never" be. Not in the code or programing, no matter how sophisticated, but in the organism which feels, and is aware-ing of feeling. Like Wayfarer said, it has to be a [organic] being; but not necessarily/only to "make" it fear death; but to make it feel. — ENOAH

Are we certain that it is only when particles are arranged in ways that we call "biological" that they can feel, as a unit? We know that it is not what is going on in a given medium that is important? Rather, what is going on must go on in only this particular medium?

My bad.

Which book? Do you mean
Mind of a Bee
Mind of a Bee
Mind of a Bee
Mind of a Bee
Mind of a Bee
?

Mind of a Bee is pretty cool.

Excellent. I think we can agree to agree then. What an unusual situation! Yay! — Chet Hawkins

It seems like cause for concern... Lol

It is possible I have gotten a glimpse of your position. The human without language is good. But don't you think every human without language associated the moon with things? One might look at the moon and think of a wolf that attacked one night. Another might think of a sexual encounter that took place in a field one night. Another might think of owls hooting. On and on. Making associations might be a defining characteristic of humanity. Perhaps a living thing that doesn't make associations is, by definition, not human. Once there were living things that could make associations, they started developing language. Which further shaped the mind, which lead to the ability to make more obscure associations... I don't know the first thing about early humans or the birth and evolution of language. I'm just throwing ideas out there.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not. — Chet Hawkins

I do not think it does not. It is, indeed, a matter of degree. A spectrum. Your dogs are a good example. Even different breeds of dog, though all are the same species, able to mate and produce fertile offspring, can vary noticably in their degree of awareness.

But the area of the spectrum a tree is on does not come with the capacity to be amazed by card tricks. That is not suggesting their awareness is zero. It is suggesting a matter of degree in a specific area. If your dogs are far beyond other dogs, is it not possible that other dogs are likewise far beyond trees? Le Guin mentions "the wisdom in a tree's root." A phrase I am very fond of. With regard to a tree's life, and needs, and being, a tree's root is certainly far wiser than we are. But we are far wiser than trees are in other ways.

:up: