"And the answer is because of the biology over which you had no control,
interacting with the environment over which you had no control, stretching from one second ago
to the moment you were an fertilized egg. And when you look at how that stuff works,
there's not a crack anywhere in there in which you can insert sort of the everyday intuitive notion of free will."
and if you inject any random noise into the process (indeterminism)
the effects of that random noise
cannot be credited to your personal "moral intuition" because they are random (quantum or whatever you want to call it)
- - i'm approaching this from a broad application of the word "objective" - - as it relates to "objective news reports" and "objective morality" (the "view from nowhere") - - - if you narrow the definition of "objective" to mean simply "an object and an accurate description of objects and the relationships between objects" - - then in that sense, PART OF "science" is certainly "accurately describing objects" - - but the "scientific conclusions" usually move beyond simply "accurately describing objects" and instead inform things like "government policy" and "recommendations for individual behavior"
also
if you narrow the word "science" down to simply "a method of documenting empirically verifiable observations" - - it could be said that in the narrow "objective = objects" sense, these two are compatible - - but in the broader, more common understanding most people have of "science" meaning "scientific institutions" and "scientific conclusions" aka "trust the science" and the broader more common understanding of "objective" meaning "unbiased" "identical to all possible observers" "immutable and incontrovertible" then they are NOT compatible
Even so, the occasional quantum fluctuation would not so much grant free will as it would make our decisions somewhat random, a condition that I think proponents of free will would not particularly care for.
> Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
Some species of monkeys have been known to spontaneously abort when the troop is taken over by different male leaders. Angel sharks often abort when they are captured.
> 'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
> 'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.
agreed
but it is a category error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of fact" (QUANTA)
and it is an even more egregious error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of value" (QUALIA)
> Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.
time is not merely "perceived differently"
speed and gravity slow down time QUANTIFIABLY
a clock at sea-level runs slower than a clock at 40,000 feet
a clock at 40,000 feet runs slower than a clock in orbit
> Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.
we agree on this point
why you are "doing the maths" is motivated by QUALIA
the specific "doing the maths" is sample biased
and the CONCLUSIONS (not the sums) you draw from "doing the maths" is also pure QUALIA
i'm not suggesting "if you have two oranges and someone takes one orange from you then you don't have one orange left"
that's QUANTA (but not technically "objective")
how you feel about the oranges and how you feel about the person taking one of the oranges is QUALIA
how you feel about things is the only thing that matters
perhaps i'm allergic to oranges and i'm unable to remove the oranges myself for some reason and i'm happy someone removed one of them and i hope they will remove the other one soon
perhaps i'm desperately hungry and i am enraged that someone took one of my oranges and will surely plot revenge
perhaps i didn't even notice that i had acquired two oranges, perhaps along with some number of other items, and thus "losing" one of them has no impact on my state-of-mind
scientific data may be considered "objective" (QUANTA) perhaps, but it is still SAMPLE-BIASED and the result of MOTIVATED-REASONING
there is no such thing as data that is "free-from-bias"
but
even if
we allow the data itself to qualify as "objective" (by twisting the definition a bit)
THE "SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS" are never "objective"
the IMPLICATIONS of a "scientific study" are pure human speculation, colored by QUALIA (which is inarguably subjective)
> where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims.[3][4]
> All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.
> Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc.
not exactly
Brahman is the source
all "other" gods are aspects of Brahman
like the characters you encounter inside your dreams
that if YOU can create seemingly independent creatures in your dreams
then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that god can do the same thing
in-fact
Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.
it is said that the big bang was the beginning of Brahman's dream
"Things can exist even if there is no evidence for them, so evidence is irrelevant to this debate."
yep
Best.Korea seems to be doing a pretty good job of proving debateart was "ruined" long before "ChatGPT" ever showed up
"And the answer is because of the biology over which you had no control,
interacting with the environment over which you had no control, stretching from one second ago
to the moment you were an fertilized egg. And when you look at how that stuff works,
there's not a crack anywhere in there in which you can insert sort of the everyday intuitive notion of free will."
and if you inject any random noise into the process (indeterminism)
the effects of that random noise
cannot be credited to your personal "moral intuition" because they are random (quantum or whatever you want to call it)
by definition
not an "act of will"
Premise 1: Free Will is not compatible with Determinism
Premise 2: Free Will is not compatible with NON-determinism
Premise 3: Free Will is not compatible with indeterminism
Conclusion: Therefore, Free Will is simply an emotion, it's an inner sense of "autonomy" you feel when you don't realize how you are being coerced
"Tell them human effort doesn’t matter,"
NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THAT
the only claim here is that human action is -not- UNMOTIVATED
i'm not suggesting you change the definition
i'm simply pointing out that "having a feeling" is not evidence that someone has broken free from the universal chain of cause-and-effect
"free from previous causes and events"
does not explain the feeling people get
when someone like sidewalker says "it is self-evidence because we experience it"
"free-will" is a feeling you get when you make a decision
"free-will" is simply an emotion
"free-will" is just as "real" as "love" or "hate" or "embarrassment"
fundamentally dissimilar substances cannot interact or even detect one another
very few claims are provably true
very few claims are provably false
everything else is functionally indistinguishable from opinion
- - i'm approaching this from a broad application of the word "objective" - - as it relates to "objective news reports" and "objective morality" (the "view from nowhere") - - - if you narrow the definition of "objective" to mean simply "an object and an accurate description of objects and the relationships between objects" - - then in that sense, PART OF "science" is certainly "accurately describing objects" - - but the "scientific conclusions" usually move beyond simply "accurately describing objects" and instead inform things like "government policy" and "recommendations for individual behavior"
also
if you narrow the word "science" down to simply "a method of documenting empirically verifiable observations" - - it could be said that in the narrow "objective = objects" sense, these two are compatible - - but in the broader, more common understanding most people have of "science" meaning "scientific institutions" and "scientific conclusions" aka "trust the science" and the broader more common understanding of "objective" meaning "unbiased" "identical to all possible observers" "immutable and incontrovertible" then they are NOT compatible
Even so, the occasional quantum fluctuation would not so much grant free will as it would make our decisions somewhat random, a condition that I think proponents of free will would not particularly care for.
impressive
great work
dubito ergo cogito ergo sum
you'll notice it's a conditional statement
(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = omniscient omnipotent creator
YOU CAN ONLY BE AN AGNOSTIC IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT THE HELL A GOD IS SUPPOSED TO BE
REAL-TRUE-FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY
"green energy" has failed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels more than 1 percentage point, despite a 2 trillion dollar investment
we are now in a "nuclear only" world
https://youtu.be/tZN7UDAQYeo
rule #1 - never agree to 100% burden-of-proof
> Do other species have abortions? Just asking, not picking sides.
Some species of monkeys have been known to spontaneously abort when the troop is taken over by different male leaders. Angel sharks often abort when they are captured.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective
> When people describe an intelligent god they generally mean a self aware conscious creator.
let's say you're right, then what ?
how do you get from that to the completely UNRELATED "god's commandments" ?
what is your personally preferred definition of "intelligence" ?
> 'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
> 'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.
agreed
but it is a category error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of fact" (QUANTA)
and it is an even more egregious error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of value" (QUALIA)
> Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.
time is not merely "perceived differently"
speed and gravity slow down time QUANTIFIABLY
a clock at sea-level runs slower than a clock at 40,000 feet
a clock at 40,000 feet runs slower than a clock in orbit
> Time is subjective but objective at the same time, is it not?
einstein made it exceedingly clear that time is ALWAYS relative to the observer
there is no "universal clock"
for example,
you learn about physics and all the mass and velocity and geometry
why ?
to become famous ?
to make money ?
to make your family proud ?
or do you perhaps want to use that knowledge to BUILD SOMETHING ?
perhaps you want to build a missile system
or more likely, part of a missile system
why ?
why do you want to contribute to the construction of weapons-of-mass-destruction ?
is it because you are afraid of something ?
AXIOLOGY = QUALIA
are you familiar with HUME'S GUILLOTINE ?
> Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.
we agree on this point
why you are "doing the maths" is motivated by QUALIA
the specific "doing the maths" is sample biased
and the CONCLUSIONS (not the sums) you draw from "doing the maths" is also pure QUALIA
everything humans consider "important" is QUALIA
i'm not suggesting "if you have two oranges and someone takes one orange from you then you don't have one orange left"
that's QUANTA (but not technically "objective")
how you feel about the oranges and how you feel about the person taking one of the oranges is QUALIA
how you feel about things is the only thing that matters
perhaps i'm allergic to oranges and i'm unable to remove the oranges myself for some reason and i'm happy someone removed one of them and i hope they will remove the other one soon
perhaps i'm desperately hungry and i am enraged that someone took one of my oranges and will surely plot revenge
perhaps i didn't even notice that i had acquired two oranges, perhaps along with some number of other items, and thus "losing" one of them has no impact on my state-of-mind
scientific data may be considered "objective" (QUANTA) perhaps, but it is still SAMPLE-BIASED and the result of MOTIVATED-REASONING
there is no such thing as data that is "free-from-bias"
but
even if
we allow the data itself to qualify as "objective" (by twisting the definition a bit)
THE "SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS" are never "objective"
the IMPLICATIONS of a "scientific study" are pure human speculation, colored by QUALIA (which is inarguably subjective)
> matter objectively exists
there are two categories
QUANTA (AND) QUALIA
QUANTA is empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (or what you might call "material reality") = emotionally meaningless
QUALIA is personal, experiential, qualitative, GNOSTIC, unfalsifiable, qualitative = emotionally meaningful
everything humans consider "important" is QUALIA
AXIOLOGY = QUALIA
> In this discussion god simply means a creator.
so, functionally indistinguishable from "the big bang"
how does this inform your idea of "objective morality" ?
please share your personally preferred definition of "god"
> No one can put an estimate on God existing or not existing.
the only thing you have to know is the definition of "god" and the definition of "exist"
> Do you know all the variables when it comes to morality?
the only thing you have to know is the definition of "objective" and the definition of "subjective"
morality is exactly like language (shaped by geography, time, and culture)
which language do you believe is the "objectively correct" language ?
> Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.
please explain
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective
perhaps something more like this,
https://youtu.be/IlaNKKHzNKQ
placing all prisoners in hospital beds tends to cut down on riots
https://youtu.be/_flYlbBpSok
if you don't believe in human-rights for all humans, you don't believe in human-rights
what a mess
https://youtu.be/Wh3t49NsWBA
> where you have to do certain things and you get paradise and if you do not then you get hell
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Hinduism)
> All the million of Gods in Hinduism are worshipped. Worshipped to the point of that they created the person worshipping. This is not right, Hinduism is another matter, a polytheistic religion makes no sense. There can only be 1 creator.
there is only one creator in hinduism
and that creator is Brahman
> Hinduism is another matter. Brahman is a God but there are millions of other Gods as well, for different purposes, much like the roman or Greek Gods etc.
not exactly
Brahman is the source
all "other" gods are aspects of Brahman
like the characters you encounter inside your dreams
i'm simply pointing out
that if YOU can create seemingly independent creatures in your dreams
then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine that god can do the same thing
in-fact
Brahman is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence.
it is said that the big bang was the beginning of Brahman's dream
and our universe is Brahman's dream
here's an example of separate without being separate
when you dream
do you encounter other people and or animals in your dream ?
do you consider those people and animals you encounter in your dreams to be your puppets ?
or do you perceive them to be independently-minded creatures ?