Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Ok got it. So the question is does it exist? Yes I think it does. It is based on the notion of what could eventually turn out bad for the whole. It is almost like common sense. We can't see it or point to it, but people still need to be reminded of how important it is to have it.
Ok got it. So the question is does it exist? Yes I think it does. It is based on the notion of what could eventually turn out bad for the whole. It is almost like common sense. We can't see it or point to it, but people still need to be reminded of how important it is to have it.
There's no reason to invoke objective morality as a means by which to explain the undesirable nature of something (ie, things turning out bad for the whole). We have to ask: "What makes that which is subjectively undesirable objectively bad?" Unless there is some type of entity which exists externally and independent from the mind as goodness itself, there is simply no reason to believe in objective morals.
Would moral laws exist without a mind to realize them? If so, objective morality exists; however, I have yet to have encountered any good argument to support that the universe possesses some type of inherent metaphysical moral law; rather, it appears that morality is a subjectively created concept -- the mere product of evolution and sociocultural influences.
Objective morality is Buddha nature. Why, how? No one knows.
Realized Buddhists masters know.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
That article speaks to probability and not determinism from what I get out of it and the facts are still not fully clear so it doesn't debunk free will.
From the article (underlining mine);
Some researchers have literally gone deeper into the brain. One of those is Itzhak Fried, a neuroscientist and surgeon at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel. He studied individuals with electrodes implanted in their brains as part of a surgical procedure to treat epilepsy4. Recording from single neurons in this way gives scientists a much more precise picture of brain activity than fMRI or EEG. Fried's experiments showed that there was activity in individual neurons of particular brain areas about a second and a half before the subject made a conscious decision to press a button. With about 700 milliseconds to go, the researchers could predict the timing of that decision with more than 80% accuracy. "At some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness," says Fried. The conscious will might be added on to a decision at a later stage, he suggests.
What this shows is that decision making is instinctual and so it is no surprise that some decisions are made in the subconscious. These could be changed or followed once reaching the conscious level. That would explain why there isn't a 100% accuracy level in an experiment where one or the other button is pressed.
At any rate, if free will didn't exist, it would imply a set program and a fate driven universe, not the other way around so I'm not sure how this helps the idea that there is no objective morality. The future would be set and we would be nothing more than a program designed to run through a set sequence of events.
As for the mind/brain duality, I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what mind is. I would argue that the universe is intelligence and mind driven (please hear me out before rolling your eyes). Everything is information and cause and effect is information being shared. We as life forms have developed brains and bodies that make the sharing of information very easy and have become intelligent. Being intelligent is not to create intelligence but to make sense of it and be able to manipulate it.
When I say the universe is intelligence, I don't mean it is intelligent. When I say it is all mind, I do not mean it is aware of itself... Except of course through us which is brain linking to mind forming a temporary "me".
Mind is intelligence and brain is intelligent. They need each other to distinguish between anything but it is all just information becoming aware.
I think a newborn recoiling at violence before it has a chance to form or follow opinion would speak the most towards an inherent and universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
I can't really argue with "maybe you just forgot." Anything is possible, after all. All I can say is that it personally seems to me that dreamless sleep lacks any conscious awareness of space, time, matter, internal/external stimuli, etc. All of this suggests (to me, at least) that the mind's existence is wholly dependent on the physical brain.
During a colonoscopy they give you a drug that makes you fall asleep. All through the colonoscopy you wake up and see a screen of your colon. Again and again you ask 'is that my colon' and then fall asleep again. At the end you wake up with no memory. This is called a twilight sleep.
One thing to point out is that there is no evidence against a rebirth and nobody knows.
If you posit rebirth then the burden of proof is on you. If you posit oblivion then the burden of proof is on you. If you are agnostic there is no burden of proof.
Another take on conditional morality is that there is no essence of evil. Acts are good or evil as relative to the situation. So if I am angry killing is more evil than maiming is more evil than abusive speech is more evil than arguing is more evil than taking a deep breath is more evil than lovingly listening. There is no essence of goodness in lovingly listening and there is no essence of evil in killing. They are just relative acts that in a cause and effect manner produce different karmic results. That's a conditional view point which is easy to spot because it deals with relative and with karma. Karma is always a conditional view such as 'the sun rises in the east'.
That article speaks to probability and not determinism from what I get out of it and the facts are still not fully clear so it doesn't debunk free will.
From the article (underlining mine);
Some researchers have literally gone deeper into the brain. One of those is Itzhak Fried, a neuroscientist and surgeon at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel. He studied individuals with electrodes implanted in their brains as part of a surgical procedure to treat epilepsy4. Recording from single neurons in this way gives scientists a much more precise picture of brain activity than fMRI or EEG. Fried's experiments showed that there was activity in individual neurons of particular brain areas about a second and a half before the subject made a conscious decision to press a button. With about 700 milliseconds to go, the researchers could predict the timing of that decision with more than 80% accuracy. "At some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness," says Fried. The conscious will might be added on to a decision at a later stage, he suggests.
What this shows is that decision making is instinctual and so it is no surprise that some decisions are made in the subconscious. These could be changed or followed once reaching the conscious level. That would explain why there isn't a 100% accuracy level in an experiment where one or the other button is pressed.
At any rate, if free will didn't exist, it would imply a set program and a fate driven universe, not the other way around so I'm not sure how this helps the idea that there is no objective morality. The future would be set and we would be nothing more than a program designed to run through a set sequence of events.
As for the mind/brain duality, I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what mind is. I would argue that the universe is intelligence and mind driven (please hear me out before rolling your eyes). Everything is information and cause and effect is information being shared. We as life forms have developed brains and bodies that make the sharing of information very easy and have become intelligent. Being intelligent is not to create intelligence but to make sense of it and be able to manipulate it.
When I say the universe is intelligence, I don't mean it is intelligent. When I say it is all mind, I do not mean it is aware of itself... Except of course through us which is brain linking to mind forming a temporary "me".
Mind is intelligence and brain is intelligent. They need each other to distinguish between anything but it is all just information becoming aware.
I think a newborn recoiling at violence before it has a chance to form or follow opinion would speak the most towards an inherent and universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
“This truth is not an affair of the intellect, but a living presence that lays a demand for its fulfilment on the totality of our being. The quest for it having begun, we can never give it up; or rather, it never gives us up.”
Lama Rigdzin Shikpo, Trusting the Heart of Buddhism Book One
Penrose has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose proposes the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he calls correct quantum gravity). Penrose uses a variant of Turing's halting theorem to demonstrate that a system can be deterministic without being algorithmic. (E.g., imagine a system with only two states, ON and OFF. If the system's state is ON if a given Turing machine halts, and OFF if the Turing machine does not halt, then the system's state is completely determined by the Turing machine, however there is no algorithmic way to determine whether the Turing machine stops.)
Penrose believes that such deterministic yet non-algorithmic processes may come into play in the quantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. He argues that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministic system. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer. This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem prevent an algorithmically based system of logic from reproducing such traits of human intelligence as mathematical insight. These claims were originally espoused by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College,
That article speaks to probability and not determinism from what I get out of it and the facts are still not fully clear so it doesn't debunk free will.
From the article (underlining mine);
Some researchers have literally gone deeper into the brain. One of those is Itzhak Fried, a neuroscientist and surgeon at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel. He studied individuals with electrodes implanted in their brains as part of a surgical procedure to treat epilepsy4. Recording from single neurons in this way gives scientists a much more precise picture of brain activity than fMRI or EEG. Fried's experiments showed that there was activity in individual neurons of particular brain areas about a second and a half before the subject made a conscious decision to press a button. With about 700 milliseconds to go, the researchers could predict the timing of that decision with more than 80% accuracy. "At some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness," says Fried. The conscious will might be added on to a decision at a later stage, he suggests.
What this shows is that decision making is instinctual and so it is no surprise that some decisions are made in the subconscious. These could be changed or followed once reaching the conscious level. That would explain why there isn't a 100% accuracy level in an experiment where one or the other button is pressed.
At any rate, if free will didn't exist, it would imply a set program and a fate driven universe, not the other way around so I'm not sure how this helps the idea that there is no objective morality. The future would be set and we would be nothing more than a program designed to run through a set sequence of events.
As for the mind/brain duality, I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what mind is. I would argue that the universe is intelligence and mind driven (please hear me out before rolling your eyes). Everything is information and cause and effect is information being shared. We as life forms have developed brains and bodies that make the sharing of information very easy and have become intelligent. Being intelligent is not to create intelligence but to make sense of it and be able to manipulate it.
When I say the universe is intelligence, I don't mean it is intelligent. When I say it is all mind, I do not mean it is aware of itself... Except of course through us which is brain linking to mind forming a temporary "me".
Mind is intelligence and brain is intelligent. They need each other to distinguish between anything but it is all just information becoming aware.
I think a newborn recoiling at violence before it has a chance to form or follow opinion would speak the most towards an inherent and universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
I agree that the studies themselves aren't enough to totally undermine the concept of free will. My reasons for rejecting the existence of free will are both scientific and philosophical. Sam Harris' book Free Will presents my stance on the matter rather well; I highly recommend it, as it's quite short and easy to read, yet packed with useful information. Harris also mentions the studies we're discussing and addresses the criticisms you've raised.
Sorry I couldn't provide a more comprehensive reply, but I'm beginning to run out of steam on this thread.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2013
Ok but if a it is proven we have no free will, it is proven there is a fate driven creation/creator.
That's why I don't understand the position or how the world it would help show a lack of objective morality because it actually implies the opposite.
Ok but if a it is proven we have no free will, it is proven there is a fate driven creation/creator.
That's why I don't understand the position or how the world it would help show a lack of objective morality because it actually implies the opposite.
Determinism doesn't require a creator, it simply requires cause and effect. Imagine if you were born with my genetics, my parents, my sociocultural environment, and my life circumstances. Can you honestly say that if such a thing were to happen, you wouldn't have made the exact same choices throughout life as I have?
What we are, what we become, and what we do is the combined result of our genetics, upbringing, external influences, and environment. There's no free will about it.
You could reverse time back to the date I was born, clone the universe 1000 times, and in every universe I would behave, act, and think the same way. Why? Because the brain and genetics I inherited caused me to respond to the events of my upbringing, external influences, and environment in a certain, unchangable way.
In every hypothetical cloned universe, on October 5th, 2013, 4:10 AM (standard mountain time), I will log on to newbuddhist to defend determinism, just as I am doing right now. Why? Because the causes in the universe ultimately lead to those effects.
Do the thought experiment on yourself. Reverse time back to the date you were born and clone the universe 1000 times. Do you really see yourself turning out differently in any of the cloned universes? If not, then did you really ever have a chance to be or do something else?
...Imagine if you were born with my genetics, my parents, my sociocultural environment, and my life circumstances. Can you honestly say that if such a thing were to happen, you wouldn't have made the exact same choices throughout life as I have?
What we are, what we become, and what we do is the combined result of our genetics, upbringing, external influences, and environment. There's no free will about it...
That's just not true.
There have been many examples of identical twins who have led drastically different lives despite remarkably similar genetics, identical parents, identical sociocultural environments while being raised.
Within families, growing children who had basically equal opportunities made widely different choices. I went to college and earned 4 college degrees. My sister quit high school 3 months before graduation. I selected my field of work, torn between being a geologist or a teacher. CHOICE. I selected my universities. CHOICE. I selected where I ultimately lived. CHOICE. Etc. My mother got married and worked her entire life into her seventies. Her sister got married and was a stay-at-home mom.
We have tons of choices in life, and without choices there would be no karma.
...Imagine if you were born with my genetics, my parents, my sociocultural environment, and my life circumstances. Can you honestly say that if such a thing were to happen, you wouldn't have made the exact same choices throughout life as I have?
What we are, what we become, and what we do is the combined result of our genetics, upbringing, external influences, and environment. There's no free will about it...
That's just not true.
There have been many examples of identical twins who have led drastically different lives despite remarkably similar genetics, identical parents, identical sociocultural environments while being raised.
Within families, growing children who had basically equal opportunities made widely different choices. I went to college and earned 4 college degrees. My sister quit high school 3 months before graduation. I selected my field of work, torn between being a geologist or a teacher. CHOICE. I selected my universities. CHOICE. I selected where I ultimately lived. CHOICE. Etc. My mother got married and worked her entire life into her seventies. Her sister got married and was a stay-at-home mom.
We have tons of choices in life, and without choices there would be no karma.
I don't think you've understood me fully. Simply because two identical twins have the same genetics does not mean their brains respond the same to certain events, just because they have the same parents does not mean they had the same upbringing, just because they had the same environment does not mean they experienced the same aspects and conditions within that environment, etc.
I imagine your sister had a very different life than you. Different things happened to her, different things influenced her, different things were taught to her, and so on and so forth. To counter with "well my sister and I turned out differently even though we were raised in similar, albeit ultimately non-identical conditions and situations" is to miss the point.
Again, consider the thought experiment I provided. Was there ever a chance for you to turn out any different or make different decisions?
If you duplicated the universe 1000 times at the time of your birth, and in just one of those universes you turned out differently, that would effectively demonstrate that who you are and what you've done isn't entirely determined by external events and influences; however, if in every universe you did make the the same decisions, it would strongly suggest otherwise.
It seems bizarre to me a discussion of dualistic (!!!) metaphysical notions of "subjective vs. objective" and "freewill vs. determinism" taking place on a Buddhist forum. I'm not saying it is wrong, but it certainly seems out of place.
Should it really come as a surprise that none of this has been "solved," by centuries of western philosophy mired in dualism? As a practitioner of Buddhism, it would be far better to sit down and practice practice practice than getting tied up in metaphysical knots of our own making, created by the delusion that our grammar accurately describes reality. It's a dead end street, and such "knowledge" doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering (indeed, it only furthers it). Thankfully, the Buddha knew better.
Was there ever a chance for you to turn out any different or make different decisions?
When someone doesn't agree with you, it's very convenient to say, "I don't think you've understood me fully."
There were dozens of critical junctions in my life when I could have easily made a different decision, all of which would have led to a drastically different life. A few:
I had a degree in computer science. Was offered a job at a local corporation. At the very last minute decided no, I will go back for a degree in education.
Changed majors in college from history to geology.
Again, sort of at the last minute, turned down a job with the NYS version of the EPA and continued on in my minor of education.
Final job hunting was a very coincidental thing. Where I ended up was not a planned move...coincidence to some extent.
Then to move school systems after 7 years almost a whim.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It seems bizarre to me a discussion of dualistic (!!!) metaphysical notions of "subjective vs. objective" and "freewill vs. determinism" taking place on a Buddhist forum. I'm not saying it is wrong, but it certainly seems out of place.
Should it really come as a surprise that none of this has been "solved," by centuries of western philosophy mired in dualism? As a practitioner of Buddhism, it would be far better to sit down and practice practice practice than getting tied up in metaphysical knots of our own making, created by the delusion that our grammar accurately describes reality. It's a dead end street, and such "knowledge" doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering (indeed, it only furthers it). Thankfully, the Buddha knew better.
Knowledge doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering? I guess we should close down all the hospitals then.
If Buddha thought knowledge was so useless, why oh why did he teach?
When someone doesn't agree with you, it's very convenient to say, "I don't think you've understood me fully."
@Vinlyn, respectfully, the reason I say it seems you haven't understood my argument fully is because (quite frankly) you haven't. Your counter-argument gives testimony to that fact.
You used identical twins and their potential to turn out differently despite having similar lives as a means by which to counter my assertions, but you're off base. When I say "the same upbringing, environment, sociocultural influences, etc," I mean completely identical, not simply similar (as in the case of twins). That's why I use the cloned universe thought experiment, not the cloned-yet-slightly-different universe thought experiment.
Therefore, although saying "I don't think you've understood me" may at times be used as a convenient way to dodge legitimate counter-arguments, the reason I say it is because your counter arguments actually do misrepresent my position.
There were dozens of critical junctions in my life when I could have easily made a different decision, all of which would have led to a drastically different life. A few:
I had a degree in computer science. Was offered a job at a local corporation. At the very last minute decided no, I will go back for a degree in education.
Changed majors in college from history to geology.
Again, sort of at the last minute, turned down a job with the NYS version of the EPA and continued on in my minor of education.
Final job hunting was a very coincidental thing. Where I ended up was not a planned move...coincidence to some extent.
Then to move school systems after 7 years almost a whim.
In other words, choices in and of themselves exist. I don't dispute that. The question is whether or not your response to those choices was determined by external influences that were out of your control.
Again, if you reversed time back to the date of your birth and cloned the universe 1000 times, would every "you" in each of those universes make the same decisions? If so, then it's obvious that everything you are is ultimately pre-determined by influences outside of your control.
Some people I've discussed this with have tried countering with "Yes, but the reason I'd make the same decisions in all the cloned universes is because that's who I am; making those decisions is in my nature."
To that I simply ask "And was it you who decided your personality or nature? Or was that something that was also shaped by external influences that were ultimately out of your control?" Both I and most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Ok but if a it is proven we have no free will, it is proven there is a fate driven creation/creator.
That's why I don't understand the position or how the world it would help show a lack of objective morality because it actually implies the opposite.
Determinism doesn't require a creator, it simply requires cause and effect. Imagine if you were born with my genetics, my parents, my sociocultural environment, and my life circumstances. Can you honestly say that if such a thing were to happen, you wouldn't have made the exact same choices throughout life as I have?
It does mean precisely that. It needs more than cause and effect because it suggests a first cause.
The uncertainty principle leads me to believe that there are many factors that go into our development. One being randomness. Drop a marble onto a completely flat and hard surface more than once from the exact same point and it will bounce differently every time.
What we are, what we become, and what we do is the combined result of our genetics, upbringing, external influences, and environment. There's no free will about it.
If this is true then you are talking about a fate driven universe where the future is all mapped out. This seems obvious.
You could reverse time back to the date I was born, clone the universe 1000 times, and in every universe I would behave, act, and think the same way. Why? Because the brain and genetics I inherited caused me to respond to the events of my upbringing, external influences, and environment in a certain, unchangable way.
This is impossible knowledge to claim and I still doubt it. All we know is we are here now. There is nothing to suggest it has all been done before so let's focus on the first time it all happened.
Riddle me this;
If this is the first time the universe unfolded in this way then how is the future determined without free will or a creator?
Knowledge doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering? I guess we should close down all the hospitals then.
If Buddha thought knowledge was so useless, why oh why did he teach?
Don't be disingenuous. In the context of metaphysical dualisms, discursive knowledge only runs in circles. The Buddha didn't address such matters. Dukkha is runs more deeply than JUST medical illnesses. Nor did the Buddha dispense medical advice. But he did say things that would suggest that building hospitals is the compassionate thing to do.
When someone doesn't agree with you, it's very convenient to say, "I don't think you've understood me fully."
@Vinlyn, respectfully, the reason I say it seems you haven't understood my argument fully is because (quite frankly) you haven't. Your counter-argument gives testimony to that fact.
You used identical twins and their potential to turn out differently despite having similar lives as a means by which to counter my assertions, but you're off base. When I say "the same upbringing, environment, sociocultural influences, etc," I mean completely identical, not simply similar (as in the case of twins). That's why I use the cloned universe thought experiment, not the cloned-yet-slightly-different universe thought experiment.
Therefore, although saying "I don't think you've understood me" may at times be used as a convenient way to dodge legitimate counter-arguments, the reason I say it is because your counter arguments actually do misrepresent my position.
There were dozens of critical junctions in my life when I could have easily made a different decision, all of which would have led to a drastically different life. A few:
I had a degree in computer science. Was offered a job at a local corporation. At the very last minute decided no, I will go back for a degree in education.
Changed majors in college from history to geology.
Again, sort of at the last minute, turned down a job with the NYS version of the EPA and continued on in my minor of education.
Final job hunting was a very coincidental thing. Where I ended up was not a planned move...coincidence to some extent.
Then to move school systems after 7 years almost a whim.
In other words, choices in and of themselves exist. I don't dispute that. The question is whether or not your response to those choices was determined by external influences that were out of your control.
Again, if you reversed time back to the date of your birth and cloned the universe 1000 times, would every "you" in each of those universes make the same decisions? If so, then it's obvious that everything you are is ultimately pre-determined by influences outside of your control.
Some people I've discussed this with have tried countering with "Yes, but the reason I'd make the same decisions in all the cloned universes is because that's who I am; making those decisions is in my nature."
To that I simply ask "And was it you who decided your personality or nature? Or was that something that was also shaped by external influences that were ultimately out of your control?" Both I and most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion.
I leave you free with the choice to drone on with countless/endless posts constantly responding to anyone who disagrees with you. But meanwhile, there are millions of people everyday who make not the easy choice -- which you suggest -- but the choice that goes against their logic as an individual.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Knowledge doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering? I guess we should close down all the hospitals then.
If Buddha thought knowledge was so useless, why oh why did he teach?
Don't be disingenuous. In the context of metaphysical dualisms, discursive knowledge only runs in circles. The Buddha didn't address such matters. Dukkha is runs more deeply than JUST medical illnesses. Nor did the Buddha dispense medical advice. But he did say things that would suggest that building hospitals is the compassionate thing to do.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. Just because you see no benefit doesn't mean it isn't there. There are other conversations if you aren't interested in this one.
This could be just another hang-up you need to let go of.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. Just because you see no benefit doesn't mean it isn't there. There are other conversations if you aren't interested in this one.
This could be just another hang-up you need to let go of.
You're welcome.
I was interested enough in this conversation to offer an alternative point of view which doesn't rely on the metaphysical duality of "objectivity" vs. "subjectivity"-- which is the very sort of false dichotomy that Buddhism typically avoids, and for good reason. A few others have also suggested the same thing here, not just me.
If, as Buddhism suggests, everything is dependent upon everything else, and there's no reified self which is independent and permanent, then the dualistic notions of objectivity and/or subjectivity don't make much sense.
--Not that that has ever stopped anyone from trying...
When someone doesn't agree with you, it's very convenient to say, "I don't think you've understood me fully."
@Vinlyn, respectfully, the reason I say it seems you haven't understood my argument fully is because (quite frankly) you haven't. Your counter-argument gives testimony to that fact.
You used identical twins and their potential to turn out differently despite having similar lives as a means by which to counter my assertions, but you're off base. When I say "the same upbringing, environment, sociocultural influences, etc," I mean completely identical, not simply similar (as in the case of twins). That's why I use the cloned universe thought experiment, not the cloned-yet-slightly-different universe thought experiment.
Therefore, although saying "I don't think you've understood me" may at times be used as a convenient way to dodge legitimate counter-arguments, the reason I say it is because your counter arguments actually do misrepresent my position.
There were dozens of critical junctions in my life when I could have easily made a different decision, all of which would have led to a drastically different life. A few:
I had a degree in computer science. Was offered a job at a local corporation. At the very last minute decided no, I will go back for a degree in education.
Changed majors in college from history to geology.
Again, sort of at the last minute, turned down a job with the NYS version of the EPA and continued on in my minor of education.
Final job hunting was a very coincidental thing. Where I ended up was not a planned move...coincidence to some extent.
Then to move school systems after 7 years almost a whim.
In other words, choices in and of themselves exist. I don't dispute that. The question is whether or not your response to those choices was determined by external influences that were out of your control.
Again, if you reversed time back to the date of your birth and cloned the universe 1000 times, would every "you" in each of those universes make the same decisions? If so, then it's obvious that everything you are is ultimately pre-determined by influences outside of your control.
Some people I've discussed this with have tried countering with "Yes, but the reason I'd make the same decisions in all the cloned universes is because that's who I am; making those decisions is in my nature."
To that I simply ask "And was it you who decided your personality or nature? Or was that something that was also shaped by external influences that were ultimately out of your control?" Both I and most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion.
I leave you free with the choice to drone on with countless/endless posts constantly responding to anyone who disagrees with you. But meanwhile, there are millions of people everyday who make not the easy choice -- which you suggest -- but the choice that goes against their logic as an individual.
I think I'll continue to reply to people I disagree with, seeing as how discussing philosophy is something I enjoy (why is that? I don't know. I don't get to choose whether or not I enjoy philosophy.)
I think I'll continue to reply to people I disagree with, seeing as how discussing philosophy is something I enjoy (why is that? I don't know. I don't get to choose whether or not I enjoy philosophy.)
Thank you for proving my point. You just wrote that you are choosing to continue to reply to people you disagree with.
Or are you telling me that it was an uncontrollable compulsion for you to respond to me?
I think I'll continue to reply to people I disagree with, seeing as how discussing philosophy is something I enjoy (why is that? I don't know. I don't get to choose whether or not I enjoy philosophy.)
Thank you for proving my point. You just wrote that you are choosing to continue to reply to people you disagree with.
Or are you telling me that it was an uncontrollable compulsion for you to respond to me?
Again, I'm not asserting that choices do not exist or that decisions are not made (they obviously are). What I'm saying is that the decisions we make are ultimately determined by conditions, both past and present, which are out of our control. That decisions are made is irrelevant.
My choice (yes, choice) to respond to you was indeed my own. But why did I make that choice? Well, that's just the way my brain works. But why does my brain work that way? Well, some of it is due to genetics, some my upbringing, some my sociocultural influences, and so on an so forth. Are those things within the domain of my conscious control? Of course not. Therefore, the root causes of my decision were things I have/had no free will over.
I would also encourage you to consider the neuroscience studies I've referenced, as for me they raise the question: "Did I make a conscious decision to reply to Vinlyn? Or did my brain make a decision which only reached my conscious awareness afterward?"
I think I'll continue to reply to people I disagree with, seeing as how discussing philosophy is something I enjoy (why is that? I don't know. I don't get to choose whether or not I enjoy philosophy.)
Thank you for proving my point. You just wrote that you are choosing to continue to reply to people you disagree with.
Or are you telling me that it was an uncontrollable compulsion for you to respond to me?
Again, I'm not asserting that choices do not exist or that decisions are not made (they obviously are). What I'm saying is that the decisions we make are ultimately determined by conditions, both past and present, which are out of our control. That decisions are made is irrelevant.
My choice (yes, choice) to respond to you was indeed my own. But why did I make that choice? Well, that's just the way my brain works. But why does my brain work that way? Well, some of it is due to genetics, some my upbringing, some my sociocultural influences, and so on an so forth. Are those things within the domain of my conscious control? Of course not. Therefore, the root causes of my decision were things I have/had no free will over.
I would also encourage you to consider the neuroscience studies I've referenced, as for me they raise the question: "Did I make a conscious decision to reply to Vinlyn? Or did my brain make a decision which only reached my conscious awareness afterward?"
I think you're obsessing about this.
Naturally decisions are affected by various factors. I mean "duh". Decisions don't just formulate in our minds for no reason at all. We do something. There's a result. Next time we do something similar based on previous experiences. What's so complex about that? It's called learning. I like a song by artist x so I buy the album. I like the album, so the next time artist x releases an album I buy it. BUT, THAT TIME I MAY NOT LIKE THE ALBUM AGAIN, so I have learned a lesson and decide not to buy the next one.
I think you like thinking you're not in control. It gives you an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions.
I think I'll continue to reply to people I disagree with, seeing as how discussing philosophy is something I enjoy (why is that? I don't know. I don't get to choose whether or not I enjoy philosophy.)
Thank you for proving my point. You just wrote that you are choosing to continue to reply to people you disagree with.
Or are you telling me that it was an uncontrollable compulsion for you to respond to me?
Again, I'm not asserting that choices do not exist or that decisions are not made (they obviously are). What I'm saying is that the decisions we make are ultimately determined by conditions, both past and present, which are out of our control. That decisions are made is irrelevant.
My choice (yes, choice) to respond to you was indeed my own. But why did I make that choice? Well, that's just the way my brain works. But why does my brain work that way? Well, some of it is due to genetics, some my upbringing, some my sociocultural influences, and so on an so forth. Are those things within the domain of my conscious control? Of course not. Therefore, the root causes of my decision were things I have/had no free will over.
I would also encourage you to consider the neuroscience studies I've referenced, as for me they raise the question: "Did I make a conscious decision to reply to Vinlyn? Or did my brain make a decision which only reached my conscious awareness afterward?"
I think you're obsessing about this.
Naturally decisions are affected by various factors. I mean "duh". Decisions don't just formulate in our minds for no reason at all. We do something. There's a result. Next time we do something similar based on previous experiences. What's so complex about that? It's called learning. I like a song by artist x so I buy the album. I like the album, so the next time artist x releases an album I buy it. BUT, THAT TIME I MAY NOT LIKE THE ALBUM AGAIN, so I have learned a lesson and decide not to buy the next one.
I think you like thinking you're not in control. It gives you an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions.
I think your last statement is a bit unsubstantiated and harsh. I imagine if I was someone who believed in free will I might take great offense and turn what has been a hitherto simple philosophical discussion into a personal argument; however, having come to a personal realization that free will does not exist, I recognize that your decision to insult me is ultimately rooted in pre-existing conditions that were out of your control. As such, I don't feel a need to get unnecessarily angry or offended, or retaliate by insulting you back.
To put it short, you're wrong. The real reason I believe in determinism is because it makes logical sense to me, and the reason I prefer it that way is because it makes me much more forgiving, understanding, kind, and merciful, as well as much less judgmental, which ultimately brings a lot of peace to my life.
The fact that something makes sense to you (or to me) doesn't mean that it's correct.
And I disagree with your implication above that determinism is right because, "most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion". First, I'm not sure that most psychologists agree with it as you present it. Second, the fact that most psychologists agree on any one principle doesn't make it so. Different schools of psychology have waxed and waned over time. The lobotomy movement gained an impressive following among psychiatrists and psychologists at one time, too.
And my post had nothing to do with insulting you. It is my belief that those who attribute everything to determinism are often seeking to excuse their actions. And that fits in so well with the old world-Asian view of karma...that if I am poor or born handicapped or develop leprosy or ______________, it's all the result of karma from this or a past life, and I have no power over any of it. And in reality, much of life is that old saying that if you always do what you always did, then you will always get what you always got. And yet it is not uncommon at all for people to turn their lives around.
It's all right for you to believe in determinism. It's not all right for you to come across as -- therefore, I am right. There's a whole world out there of people debating the topic, and it's not at all one-sided as you want to portray.
And, BTW, playing the victim doesn't strengthen your position.
From training the mind I think it shows that the mind cannot be 'pinned down' to moving parts.
Examine the nature of unborn awareness
Look at your basic mind, just simple awareness which is not divided into sections, the thinking process that exists within you. Just look at that, see that. Examining does not mean analyzing. It is just viewing things as they are in the ordinary sense.
The reason our mind is known as unborn awareness is that we have no idea of its history. We have no idea where this mind, our crazy mind, began in the beginning. It usually flickers on and off, off and on, all the time. Sometimes it is hybernating; sometimes it is all over the place. Look at your mind. That is part of ultimate bodhicitta training or discipline. Our mind fluctuates constantly, back and forth, forth and back. Look at that, just look at that.
You could get caught up in the fascination of regarding all dharmas as dreams and perpetuate unnecessary visions and fantasies of all kinds. Therefore it is very important to get this next slogan, "Examine the nature of uborn awareness." When you look beyond the perceptual level alone, when you look at your own mind (which you cannot actually do, but you pretend to do), you find that there is nothing there. You begin to realize that there is nothing to hold onto. Mind is unborn, But at the same time, it is awareness, because you still perceive things. There is awareness and clarity. Therefore, you should contemplate that by seeing who is actually perceiving dharmas as dreams.
If you look further and further, at your mind's root, its base, you will find that it has no color and no shape. Your mind is , basically speaking, somewhat blank. There is nothign to it. We are beginning to cultivate a kind a kind of shunyata possibility; although in this case that possibility; although in this case that possibility is quite primative, in the sense of simplicity and workability. When we look at the root, when we try to find out why we see things, why we hear sounds, why we feel, and why we smell -- if we look beyond that and beyond that -- we find a kind of blankness.
That blankness is connected with mindfulness. To begin with, you are mindful of some thing: you are mindful of yourself, you are mindful of your atmosphere, and you are mindful of your breath. But if you look at why you are mindful, beyond what you are mindful of, you begin to find that there is no root. Everything begins to dissolve. That is the idea of examining the nature of unborn awareness.
The fact that something makes sense to you (or to me) doesn't mean that it's correct.
I never suggested anything to that effect. I simply said the reason I personally accept determinism is because it's what makes the most sense to me (which is because it seems to fit in best with in the information, facts, and evidence I've encountered).
And I disagree with your implication above that determinism is right because, "most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion". First, I'm not sure that most psychologists agree with it as you present it. Second, the fact that most psychologists agree on any one principle doesn't make it so. Different schools of psychology have waxed and waned over time. The lobotomy movement gained an impressive following among psychiatrists and psychologists at one time, too.
Of course the mere fact that most psychologists believe a person's personality is ultimately shaped by uncontrollable influences doesn't make determinism true; I'm simply showing that my position is in line with contemporary psychology. Take that for what you will.
And my post had nothing to do with insulting you. It is my belief that those who attribute everything to determinism are often seeking to excuse their actions. And that fits in so well with the old world-Asian view of karma...that if I am poor or born handicapped or develop leprosy or ______________, it's all the result of karma from this or a past life, and I have no power over any of it. And in reality, much of life is that old saying that if you always do what you always did, then you will always get what you always got. And yet it is not uncommon at all for people to turn their lives around.
To accuse someone of believing something just so they can dodge responsibility and accountability is to defame their character, insult their virtue, and question their motives. It's offensive -- that much should be obvious.
It's all right for you to believe in determinism. It's not all right for you to come across as -- therefore, I am right. There's a whole world out there of people debating the topic, and it's not at all one-sided as you want to portray.
I don't mean to come off as trying to act infallible or anything. I used to prefix everything I said with "In my opinion, according to my understanding, it personally seems to me, etc" and it just got tiresome. For the record, I realize that I could be very wrong and that everything I say is just my opinion. I'm very open to the possibility that someone might come around and change my mind (it happens all the time).
And, BTW, playing the victim doesn't strengthen your position.
I'm not playing the victim. What you said was insulting. I simply used your (unintentional?) insult as an opportunity to counter your unsubstantiated accusation and show the real reason I prefer determinism: it makes me much more forgiving and understanding, and that brings me peace.
@Bodhivaka, does it help you have compassion for terrible crimes and criminals? That could be useful.
Yes, very much.
I used to be pro-death penalty and was absolutely disgusted by people who committed heinous crimes. Now I see everyone (including criminals) as people that need to be loved and helped. I now oppose the death penalty and prefer justice systems which work to rehabilitate criminals through education, counseling, the development of life skills, etc, rather than just locking them up and treating them like monsters (which I see as impractical).
Accepting determinism has drastically increased my compassion, understanding, kindness, forgiveness, and mercy towards all human beings.
Sam Harris also makes this point in his book Free Will.
Did I insult you? No. It wasn't me. It was determinism. :bawl:
Exactly; which, as I explained, is precisely why I didn't really mind the insult or take it personally. The only reason I brought it up was to set the record straight.
Comments
Would moral laws exist without a mind to realize them? If so, objective morality exists; however, I have yet to have encountered any good argument to support that the universe possesses some type of inherent metaphysical moral law; rather, it appears that morality is a subjectively created concept -- the mere product of evolution and sociocultural influences.
From the article (underlining mine); What this shows is that decision making is instinctual and so it is no surprise that some decisions are made in the subconscious. These could be changed or followed once reaching the conscious level. That would explain why there isn't a 100% accuracy level in an experiment where one or the other button is pressed.
At any rate, if free will didn't exist, it would imply a set program and a fate driven universe, not the other way around so I'm not sure how this helps the idea that there is no objective morality. The future would be set and we would be nothing more than a program designed to run through a set sequence of events.
As for the mind/brain duality, I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what mind is. I would argue that the universe is intelligence and mind driven (please hear me out before rolling your eyes). Everything is information and cause and effect is information being shared. We as life forms have developed brains and bodies that make the sharing of information very easy and have become intelligent. Being intelligent is not to create intelligence but to make sense of it and be able to manipulate it.
When I say the universe is intelligence, I don't mean it is intelligent. When I say it is all mind, I do not mean it is aware of itself... Except of course through us which is brain linking to mind forming a temporary "me".
Mind is intelligence and brain is intelligent. They need each other to distinguish between anything but it is all just information becoming aware.
I think a newborn recoiling at violence before it has a chance to form or follow opinion would speak the most towards an inherent and universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
During a colonoscopy they give you a drug that makes you fall asleep. All through the colonoscopy you wake up and see a screen of your colon. Again and again you ask 'is that my colon' and then fall asleep again. At the end you wake up with no memory. This is called a twilight sleep.
@Jeffrey said: If you posit rebirth then the burden of proof is on you.
If you posit oblivion then the burden of proof is on you.
If you are agnostic there is no burden of proof.
At any rate, if free will didn't exist, it would imply a set program and a fate driven universe, not the other way around so I'm not sure how this helps the idea that there is no objective morality. The future would be set and we would be nothing more than a program designed to run through a set sequence of events.
As for the mind/brain duality, I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what mind is. I would argue that the universe is intelligence and mind driven (please hear me out before rolling your eyes). Everything is information and cause and effect is information being shared. We as life forms have developed brains and bodies that make the sharing of information very easy and have become intelligent. Being intelligent is not to create intelligence but to make sense of it and be able to manipulate it.
When I say the universe is intelligence, I don't mean it is intelligent. When I say it is all mind, I do not mean it is aware of itself... Except of course through us which is brain linking to mind forming a temporary "me".
Mind is intelligence and brain is intelligent. They need each other to distinguish between anything but it is all just information becoming aware.
I think a newborn recoiling at violence before it has a chance to form or follow opinion would speak the most towards an inherent and universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
“This truth is not an affair of the intellect, but a living presence that lays a demand for its fulfilment on the totality of our being. The quest for it having begun, we can never give it up; or rather, it never gives us up.”
Lama Rigdzin Shikpo, Trusting the Heart of Buddhism Book One
edit Note Lama Rigdzin Shikpo was formerly a physicist. He wants to talk to Roger Penrose about his ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose Oxford.
At any rate, if free will didn't exist, it would imply a set program and a fate driven universe, not the other way around so I'm not sure how this helps the idea that there is no objective morality. The future would be set and we would be nothing more than a program designed to run through a set sequence of events.
As for the mind/brain duality, I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what mind is. I would argue that the universe is intelligence and mind driven (please hear me out before rolling your eyes). Everything is information and cause and effect is information being shared. We as life forms have developed brains and bodies that make the sharing of information very easy and have become intelligent. Being intelligent is not to create intelligence but to make sense of it and be able to manipulate it.
When I say the universe is intelligence, I don't mean it is intelligent. When I say it is all mind, I do not mean it is aware of itself... Except of course through us which is brain linking to mind forming a temporary "me".
Mind is intelligence and brain is intelligent. They need each other to distinguish between anything but it is all just information becoming aware.
I think a newborn recoiling at violence before it has a chance to form or follow opinion would speak the most towards an inherent and universal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
I agree that the studies themselves aren't enough to totally undermine the concept of free will. My reasons for rejecting the existence of free will are both scientific and philosophical. Sam Harris' book Free Will presents my stance on the matter rather well; I highly recommend it, as it's quite short and easy to read, yet packed with useful information. Harris also mentions the studies we're discussing and addresses the criticisms you've raised.
Sorry I couldn't provide a more comprehensive reply, but I'm beginning to run out of steam on this thread.
That's why I don't understand the position or how the world it would help show a lack of objective morality because it actually implies the opposite.
What we are, what we become, and what we do is the combined result of our genetics, upbringing, external influences, and environment. There's no free will about it.
You could reverse time back to the date I was born, clone the universe 1000 times, and in every universe I would behave, act, and think the same way. Why? Because the brain and genetics I inherited caused me to respond to the events of my upbringing, external influences, and environment in a certain, unchangable way.
In every hypothetical cloned universe, on October 5th, 2013, 4:10 AM (standard mountain time), I will log on to newbuddhist to defend determinism, just as I am doing right now. Why? Because the causes in the universe ultimately lead to those effects.
Do the thought experiment on yourself. Reverse time back to the date you were born and clone the universe 1000 times. Do you really see yourself turning out differently in any of the cloned universes? If not, then did you really ever have a chance to be or do something else?
There have been many examples of identical twins who have led drastically different lives despite remarkably similar genetics, identical parents, identical sociocultural environments while being raised.
Within families, growing children who had basically equal opportunities made widely different choices. I went to college and earned 4 college degrees. My sister quit high school 3 months before graduation. I selected my field of work, torn between being a geologist or a teacher. CHOICE. I selected my universities. CHOICE. I selected where I ultimately lived. CHOICE. Etc. My mother got married and worked her entire life into her seventies. Her sister got married and was a stay-at-home mom.
We have tons of choices in life, and without choices there would be no karma.
I imagine your sister had a very different life than you. Different things happened to her, different things influenced her, different things were taught to her, and so on and so forth. To counter with "well my sister and I turned out differently even though we were raised in similar, albeit ultimately non-identical conditions and situations" is to miss the point.
Again, consider the thought experiment I provided. Was there ever a chance for you to turn out any different or make different decisions?
If you duplicated the universe 1000 times at the time of your birth, and in just one of those universes you turned out differently, that would effectively demonstrate that who you are and what you've done isn't entirely determined by external events and influences; however, if in every universe you did make the the same decisions, it would strongly suggest otherwise.
Should it really come as a surprise that none of this has been "solved," by centuries of western philosophy mired in dualism? As a practitioner of Buddhism, it would be far better to sit down and practice practice practice than getting tied up in metaphysical knots of our own making, created by the delusion that our grammar accurately describes reality. It's a dead end street, and such "knowledge" doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering (indeed, it only furthers it). Thankfully, the Buddha knew better.
There were dozens of critical junctions in my life when I could have easily made a different decision, all of which would have led to a drastically different life. A few:
I had a degree in computer science. Was offered a job at a local corporation. At the very last minute decided no, I will go back for a degree in education.
Changed majors in college from history to geology.
Again, sort of at the last minute, turned down a job with the NYS version of the EPA and continued on in my minor of education.
Final job hunting was a very coincidental thing. Where I ended up was not a planned move...coincidence to some extent.
Then to move school systems after 7 years almost a whim.
If Buddha thought knowledge was so useless, why oh why did he teach?
You used identical twins and their potential to turn out differently despite having similar lives as a means by which to counter my assertions, but you're off base. When I say "the same upbringing, environment, sociocultural influences, etc," I mean completely identical, not simply similar (as in the case of twins). That's why I use the cloned universe thought experiment, not the cloned-yet-slightly-different universe thought experiment.
Therefore, although saying "I don't think you've understood me" may at times be used as a convenient way to dodge legitimate counter-arguments, the reason I say it is because your counter arguments actually do misrepresent my position. In other words, choices in and of themselves exist. I don't dispute that. The question is whether or not your response to those choices was determined by external influences that were out of your control.
Again, if you reversed time back to the date of your birth and cloned the universe 1000 times, would every "you" in each of those universes make the same decisions? If so, then it's obvious that everything you are is ultimately pre-determined by influences outside of your control.
Some people I've discussed this with have tried countering with "Yes, but the reason I'd make the same decisions in all the cloned universes is because that's who I am; making those decisions is in my nature."
To that I simply ask "And was it you who decided your personality or nature? Or was that something that was also shaped by external influences that were ultimately out of your control?" Both I and most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion.
The uncertainty principle leads me to believe that there are many factors that go into our development. One being randomness. Drop a marble onto a completely flat and hard surface more than once from the exact same point and it will bounce differently every time. If this is true then you are talking about a fate driven universe where the future is all mapped out. This seems obvious. This is impossible knowledge to claim and I still doubt it. All we know is we are here now. There is nothing to suggest it has all been done before so let's focus on the first time it all happened.
Riddle me this;
If this is the first time the universe unfolded in this way then how is the future determined without free will or a creator?
You used identical twins and their potential to turn out differently despite having similar lives as a means by which to counter my assertions, but you're off base. When I say "the same upbringing, environment, sociocultural influences, etc," I mean completely identical, not simply similar (as in the case of twins). That's why I use the cloned universe thought experiment, not the cloned-yet-slightly-different universe thought experiment.
Therefore, although saying "I don't think you've understood me" may at times be used as a convenient way to dodge legitimate counter-arguments, the reason I say it is because your counter arguments actually do misrepresent my position. In other words, choices in and of themselves exist. I don't dispute that. The question is whether or not your response to those choices was determined by external influences that were out of your control.
Again, if you reversed time back to the date of your birth and cloned the universe 1000 times, would every "you" in each of those universes make the same decisions? If so, then it's obvious that everything you are is ultimately pre-determined by influences outside of your control.
Some people I've discussed this with have tried countering with "Yes, but the reason I'd make the same decisions in all the cloned universes is because that's who I am; making those decisions is in my nature."
To that I simply ask "And was it you who decided your personality or nature? Or was that something that was also shaped by external influences that were ultimately out of your control?" Both I and most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion.
I leave you free with the choice to drone on with countless/endless posts constantly responding to anyone who disagrees with you. But meanwhile, there are millions of people everyday who make not the easy choice -- which you suggest -- but the choice that goes against their logic as an individual.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. Just because you see no benefit doesn't mean it isn't there. There are other conversations if you aren't interested in this one.
This could be just another hang-up you need to let go of.
You're welcome.
If, as Buddhism suggests, everything is dependent upon everything else, and there's no reified self which is independent and permanent, then the dualistic notions of objectivity and/or subjectivity don't make much sense.
--Not that that has ever stopped anyone from trying...
Again, if you reversed time back to the date of your birth and cloned the universe 1000 times, would every "you" in each of those universes make the same decisions? If so, then it's obvious that everything you are is ultimately pre-determined by influences outside of your control.
Some people I've discussed this with have tried countering with "Yes, but the reason I'd make the same decisions in all the cloned universes is because that's who I am; making those decisions is in my nature."
To that I simply ask "And was it you who decided your personality or nature? Or was that something that was also shaped by external influences that were ultimately out of your control?" Both I and most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion.
I leave you free with the choice to drone on with countless/endless posts constantly responding to anyone who disagrees with you. But meanwhile, there are millions of people everyday who make not the easy choice -- which you suggest -- but the choice that goes against their logic as an individual.
I think I'll continue to reply to people I disagree with, seeing as how discussing philosophy is something I enjoy (why is that? I don't know. I don't get to choose whether or not I enjoy philosophy.)
Or are you telling me that it was an uncontrollable compulsion for you to respond to me?
My choice (yes, choice) to respond to you was indeed my own. But why did I make that choice? Well, that's just the way my brain works. But why does my brain work that way? Well, some of it is due to genetics, some my upbringing, some my sociocultural influences, and so on an so forth. Are those things within the domain of my conscious control? Of course not. Therefore, the root causes of my decision were things I have/had no free will over.
I would also encourage you to consider the neuroscience studies I've referenced, as for me they raise the question: "Did I make a conscious decision to reply to Vinlyn? Or did my brain make a decision which only reached my conscious awareness afterward?"
Naturally decisions are affected by various factors. I mean "duh". Decisions don't just formulate in our minds for no reason at all. We do something. There's a result. Next time we do something similar based on previous experiences. What's so complex about that? It's called learning. I like a song by artist x so I buy the album. I like the album, so the next time artist x releases an album I buy it. BUT, THAT TIME I MAY NOT LIKE THE ALBUM AGAIN, so I have learned a lesson and decide not to buy the next one.
I think you like thinking you're not in control. It gives you an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions.
To put it short, you're wrong. The real reason I believe in determinism is because it makes logical sense to me, and the reason I prefer it that way is because it makes me much more forgiving, understanding, kind, and merciful, as well as much less judgmental, which ultimately brings a lot of peace to my life.
And I disagree with your implication above that determinism is right because, "most psychologists tend to agree with the latter notion". First, I'm not sure that most psychologists agree with it as you present it. Second, the fact that most psychologists agree on any one principle doesn't make it so. Different schools of psychology have waxed and waned over time. The lobotomy movement gained an impressive following among psychiatrists and psychologists at one time, too.
And my post had nothing to do with insulting you. It is my belief that those who attribute everything to determinism are often seeking to excuse their actions. And that fits in so well with the old world-Asian view of karma...that if I am poor or born handicapped or develop leprosy or ______________, it's all the result of karma from this or a past life, and I have no power over any of it. And in reality, much of life is that old saying that if you always do what you always did, then you will always get what you always got. And yet it is not uncommon at all for people to turn their lives around.
It's all right for you to believe in determinism. It's not all right for you to come across as -- therefore, I am right. There's a whole world out there of people debating the topic, and it's not at all one-sided as you want to portray.
And, BTW, playing the victim doesn't strengthen your position.
I used to be pro-death penalty and was absolutely disgusted by people who committed heinous crimes. Now I see everyone (including criminals) as people that need to be loved and helped. I now oppose the death penalty and prefer justice systems which work to rehabilitate criminals through education, counseling, the development of life skills, etc, rather than just locking them up and treating them like monsters (which I see as impractical).
Accepting determinism has drastically increased my compassion, understanding, kindness, forgiveness, and mercy towards all human beings.
Sam Harris also makes this point in his book Free Will.
I had to post this