Determinism & Moral Responsibility

[HashKeth]

I like the idea that you proposed in this video about the negation of morality in a deterministic universe which eventually falls into the hands of god as first cause. Even though we cannot take responsibility for the actions we take since we are pre-determined to do so, society must still take actions for the "crimes" we have done. Else, if we let criminals go scott free, there will be more crimes on the streets.

[sputnikowns]

Ugh.

1) Is God really immune from determinism?

2) Yeah, if God abides by determinism, God is responsible, if He/She/It existed. I'm an atheist. If I am psychologically determined, why should I be held accountable for my bad deeds? I still don't understand.

[negigirl05]

i agree with your view and i think u explained it very well, except i think ur example of the person with the bomb forcing others to kill doesnt show how morality and determinism work together if anything it refutes. ur saying the person who is being forced cannot be blamed for killing, its the forcing agent that is being blamed therefore in a deterministic world we cannot be blamed for our actions the events before us are to blame

[Gnomefro]

Actions in a deterministic universe are a product of the agent performing the action and the environmental stimuli around him.

It makes sense to hold an agent responsible for an action if the action seems to primarily originate from the agent itself. Say an agent ate your baby simply because it was hungry. It is likely that such behavior will be repeated and other agents need to protect themselves from such anti-social people. So they murder the baby-eater for the good of everyone.

[Gnomefro]

Such examples show that morality is arbitrary rules that organize society in a reasonable way, as well as protect ones the safety of more socially minded agents.

Blame is something you assign to agents acting in anti-social manners. There's no need to require them to not have a history to be able to decide that they are a danger to everyone around them and that they need to be dealt with.

It's perfectly fine to draw the line for causality at a reasonable point, such as a baby eater.

[akaskyscraper]

excellent insight. damn keep it up.

[ericmcbride]

We cannot be held responsible for our actions period.

However, we do not eat our young and slay our family because, in programming, we are usually compelled away from these actions.

But there is no morality, there is simply reasoning and evolutionarily determined programming. Reasoning is of course produced by memory and discourse.

[johnnyp76]

the only way to argue against determinism is to argue the pont for duality. is conciousness and the mind answerable to science? can the workings of the mind be predictable? neuroscience is the frontier (along with quantum theory) to proving determinism to be true or not. there is no morality in the animal world. the difference between us and them is the power to reason and the ability to communicate that reason. we need to research the mind to put this puppy to bed. fatalism - true & depressing.

[sputnikowns]

@johnnyp76

Dualism is garbage.

Check out Qualiasoup's 'substance dualism' video.

[Domzdream]

Friggin awesome vid. Philosophically well put. I'm watching it again...

[Clutchology]

Watch sickliberal's response. He does a good job highlighting a major flaw in this video.

[SaintVengeance]

Interesting... as a determinist myself, you introduced me to a few different perspectives. Good vid.

[DxsPro]

nice video for a young guy.. i am a fan of determinism, basically variables at one moment will lead or influence the following variable. Therefore everything is predetermined. But if you are against this, then it must be random. Then why are things in the physical world not randomly occurring regardless of influence. Ie why dont things just appear randomly, because of psychical laws, and the brain is physical matter, the world is. (well from our perspective)

[JohnWittle]

I love your accent.

[Clutchology]

I will do that. Thank you.

[Clutchology]

Anyway, fuddydoo, the debate was most intruiging and I congratulate you on a rational response.

However, I have just realised that we have gone completely off the topic of this video and I would like to return to it so that others can comment.

Thank you for taking the time to respond and I hope you continue to do so in the future, but I think we can both agree to disagree on this issue of consciousness (which I really should finish my research before I debate on it).

[fuddyfoo]

"However, I have just realised that we have gone completely off the topic"

Thank you. I should probably have read this first.

One final note. Research phenomenology; it is the best source of data on consciousness.

Thank you for your politeness in the discussion and hopefully we'll have some on-topic discussions sometime!

[Clutchology]

We can observe higher consciousness amoung even human ranks. We can observe it with animals, and in some cases human history. I have not yet been shown how we can study the soul and the effects that it has on us. As far as I can tell the soul has no effect, leaving it open to be cut by Ockham's Razor without even delving into the philosophy behind it.

[fuddyfoo]

"We can observe higher consciousness"

We observe behavior. We attribute that behavior to brain activity. This is true whether consciousness exists or not; so consciousness is an add-on without evidence. Using Occam's razor, we would discount consciousness

[Clutchology]

"We observe behavior. We attribute that behavior to brain activity. This is true whether consciousness exists or not"

Consciousness is largely unnecessary, I agree. However, without consciousness I see no self-awareness. So the Razor would not cut consciousness to enable us to have self-awareness. However, I do not see the purpose or effect of a soul, so cutting it would make no noticable difference to me.

[fuddyfoo]

Self-awareness only requires consciousness if you define it as a conscious thing. But from an objective perspective, there is no reason to do so.

You can play chess against a computer and it can can be said to be "self aware" because it doesn't try to move your pieces. It's not self aware in a conscious sense, it's just programmed. So I could say evolution programmed the parameters of self.

[Clutchology]

But the computer has no concept of "I". That is what differentiates it from being with consciousness.

However, you make a brilliant point about consciousness being a result of evolution. Many people (Jaynes most famously) have argued this and provided evidence for their claims. It's a taboo subject, although I dont know why. They should at least be taken into consideration.

[fuddyfoo]

"But the computer has no concept of "I"."

That's the point- that a thing does not have to have a conscious concept of itself in order to refer to itself. It just needs to operate in parameters which enable the distinction.

In other words, the brain observes its own exercise of control over the body and distinguishes what it has control over from what it does not have control over. "I" consists of everything under direct control.

[Clutchology]

"It's the same with spirit, but you have to pray to get that knowledge. After that it's automatic (doesn't come from a line of reasoning, it's innate)"

Then why did I pray for most of my short life, felt I had no soul, and eventually give up on the concept?

With intrinsic and innate knowledge we have to be VERY weary of stepping into solipsism. Something such as consciousness we can observe the effects of externally, even if we struggle with the epistomology of it.

[fuddyfoo]

"Something such as consciousness we can observe the effects of externally"

How? Behavior? But wouldn't behavior be accounted for by determinancy in your model rather than by consciousness?

If someone is crying, how do we know it's not the result of cold causative interactions rather than a response to a subjective experience of "pain"?

[Clutchology]

"How? Behavior? But wouldn't behavior be accounted for by determinancy in your model rather than by consciousness?"

No, language. Behaviour in the sense of being able to recognise yourself in the mirror, but we most generally observe consciousness through language.

[fuddyfoo]

"No, language"

Language is just association between brain patterns and written or verbal behavior. Thought is pattern association experimentation in the brain. Language enables sharing of those experiments. ie- I say "monkey eats banana" and each word associates with a different pattern in your brain. Your brain associates the patterns together as a result of hearing me say it. It's just behavior.

[Clutchology]

That is true, however it does nothing to refute my point. My point was that through language we can observe consciousness. The fact that I can use personal pronouns to disassociate my self from others shows the effects of my consciousness. Have you ever studied a narcissist, who uses an ego statement in almost every sentence? This is because they have much higher self-consciousness than other human beings.

[fuddyfoo]

"through language we can observe consciousness"

You imply that conscious experience is necessary for language. However there is no evidence for that. Language is a behavior. The cause of that behavior is attributed to brain activity. There is no reason to throw consciousness into the mix.

"I can use personal pronouns to disassociate my self from others"

But again, that's just a behavior attributable to the brain. Consciousness is not necessary to explain it.

[Clutchology]

I plan to do alot more videos on the subject which should explain it better than I have done.

The problem I have with the concept of a spirit is I see no need for one, and I also struggle to see the logic around it. You could argue that consciousness is ethereal, but consciousness and spirit are two different concepts. It is one of those unprovable concepts because it transcends anything which we could use to determine whether it existed or not.

However, that is a different discussion.

[fuddyfoo]

"It is one of those unprovable concepts"

consciousness itself is unprovable. Is consciousness required to explain any observation or behavior? no.

we know consciousness exists because we know it. It's automatic. It's the same with spirit, but you have to pray to get that knowledge. After that it's automatic (doesn't come from a line of reasoning, it's innate)

[Clutchology]

Consciousness plays a surprisingly small part in our lives. I am currently looking at it as a metaphor-generated model of the world, and seeing where that takes me.

[Clutchology]

It's as if whenever we make a choice we make the choice based on our personality. I think most people would accept that as rational.

What psychological determinism argues is that the external factors and experiences that influence and dictate our personality are out of our control. This determined personality will play a major role in producing your future experiences which determine the development of the personality, it's a two way system from then.

[fuddyfoo]

"the external factors and experiences that influence and dictate our personality are out of our control"

The missing factor is preference. I think that's something we have control over. I think consciousness itself chooses between two things-equally appealing in different ways- enlightenment and seduction. Light and darkness. Good and evil. External factors may determine how the choice presents itself, but the choice is ours fundamentally- as we understand it

[Clutchology]

"External factors may determine how the choice presents itself, but the choice is ours fundamentally- as we understand it"

This is where we differ. I believe that our preferences are also influenced and conditioned by our psychology/biology etc. I believe external factors will play a part in the conditioning of preference because the two share an influencial relationship. To me there is always a why, and preference is no exception.

[fuddyfoo]

"there is always a why, and preference is no exception"

There is always a why, but the answer I believe is not one answerable in the secular model of reality.

I think consciousness is at the root of the question. We can't have preference without consciousness. for instance, without conscious preference of taste, we would only choose to eat foods that are healthy for us. But taste is not explained by particles moving in the brain

[Clutchology]

Actually I believe taste preference CAN be explained through chemical deficiencies, the make up of the genome, bodily needs etc etc. We can actually see animals develop taste preferences, and many animals do not have consciousness. Even new born children, who have not fully developed self-consciousness, hold taste preferences.

[fuddyfoo]

"We can actually see animals develop taste preferences"

We can see a change in behavior pattern, but we don't see the animal experiencing taste

"many animals do not have consciousness"

There's no way to tell that.

"Even new born children, who have not fully developed self-consciousness"

Consciousness is subjective experience. Knowledge is not necessary

[Clutchology]

"There's no way to tell that."

Epistomologically you cannot prove that even you have consciousness. Who is to say it is not an illusion?

"Consciousness is subjective experience. Knowledge is not necessary."

I see where you are going, so I will stop you short. This is the effects of solipsism. Here is the problem, if every experience is subjective then there can be no absolute truths, which contradicts what the theist holds about god and the soul.

[fuddyfoo]

"Epistomologically you cannot prove that even you have consciousness"

Yes, in fact I said that earlier.

"Here is the problem, if every experience is subjective then there can be no absolute truths"

We were discussing whether we can observe consciousness in others. As I pointed out, we only observe behavior in others; we don't observe their conscious experiences.

[Clutchology]

I wont comment on consciousness because I'm currently doing my research into it right now, so anything I would say would be basic.

Yes, I did mean from a behaviouralistic standpoint. Another way of putting psychological determinism that might be easier to understand is personality determinism. It argues that our personality is 'free' to make decisions (hence subjectivity), however our personality is forced into one option by its conditioning so to speak.

[fuddyfoo]

"I'm currently doing my research into it right now"

As you study consciousness, try to get an objective definition of it. I don't think one exists.

I advise you to approach consciousness as though you were not conscious but a strictly rational observer. Most of what people say about it is nonsensical from that standpoint

[Clutchology]

You have to understand that psychological determinism is not strictly a materialistic theory. Sciences such as neurology can support it as we know that by changing brain chemicals we can induce emotions. However the theory is not confined to such circumstances, thus why it is called a 'soft' deterministic theory, or a compatibalist theory.

[fuddyfoo]

"by changing brain chemicals we can induce emotions"

According to my view, each of us is a spirit temporarily bound to a mortal body. The spirit ordinarily has access to higher forms of existence, feelings and knowledge but is currently limited to what the physical body and brain allow it to access.

continued

[fuddyfoo]

So according to my view, chemicals can effect brain function which in turn effects what can be accessed by the spirit. Similar to roads determining where a car can go but not where it does go

I believe consciousness to be inconsistent with a secular model of existence, one reason for which is the fact that subjective experience makes its existence known

[Clutchology]

Consciousness is unobservable empirically, but it is observable from a cause and effect standpoint. I was in strong support of the theory before I even discovered the concept of neurology. Psychological determinism does not rely on brain chemicals to hold true. It relies on the psychology of each specific person. I know people who hold the concept of a soul and still support the theory.

[fuddyfoo]

Perhaps I misunderstood psychological determinism. If so I apologize. I always look for reasons to discuss consciousness.

If you could explain what you meant by this, it would help:

"Consciousness is unobservable empirically, but it is observable from a cause and effect standpoint"

Do you mean the observation of behavior, ie affect?

[Clutchology]

As a student of psychology myself I would have to humbly disagree with you. The psychology and psychiatric industry relies on the very concept of psychological determinism holding true to survive.

However, theists have to maintain the concept of absolute liberalism because it is the only way that their morality can be upheld.

[fuddyfoo]

Determinism relies on assumptions. We can only observe particle interactions, but that does not mean particle interactions are all that exist.

Take consciousness. From the outside it looks like particle interactions-- complex but not any more significant than other particle interactions. From the inside however, it is a subjective experience. Who is to say that the subjective experience itself does not play a deterministic role?

[fuddyfoo]

continued It is only assumed that each particle movement derived from previous particle movements. What if particle movement can be caused by consciousness?

We don't know what particles are, what energy is, what consciousness is.

[fuddyfoo]

The fact that we talk about consciousness proves that consciousness--the actual subjective experience-- has a deterministic role in our behavior.

Otherwise, the brain would behave as though consciousness didn't exist. The fact that the brain behaves differently shows that the subjective experience actually interacts with the particle patterns of thought.

[fuddyfoo]

psychological determinism has no rational basis