An interesting quote (morals, Darwin, soul, choices, choice)

[Magurk]

"Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist. . . .we have no ultimate meaning in life."

Provine, W.


I find this very reasonable. I mean you see peoeples attitudes affected by their surrondings and habbitat.... What do you think??

[NothingIsNot]

I agree with the fact that we have no free will, only apparent free will. There is no "real" purpose to life because it is not necessary to live the life you are actually living, but it still has a point, a reason if you will.

[Fluffy]

I think this is true up to a point. Until very recently I would have agreed with it completely but now there are areas in which I find I have to query.

1) The first part of the quotation is made up of a very logical arguement. To follow this on with such an unjustified statement which renounces all moral and ethical absolutes and removes the possibility of a meaning to life seems out of place.
2) The thinking which goes into the arguement behind our lack of free will is a solid one except when looked at on the quantum level. If chaos is apparent at one level then this will flow into the other levels giving free will some leeway.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Magurk

"Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist. . . .we have no ultimate meaning in life."

Provine, W.


I find this very reasonable. I mean you see peoeples attitudes affected by their surrondings and habbitat.... What do you think??

I take it that Mr provine is the following:-1980 How I became a Darwinian, Pages 413-423 in The Evolutionary Synthesis (E Mayr and W Provine, Eds) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
I make that 4 sentences(if you count the ......... as a separator) I disagree with all four.
I also think Mr Provine could do with a drink or two. He SOUNDS so miserable.

[Tawn]

Its a rather miserable look at life. Whilst its all true it seems to discount the fact that we cannot percieve that we have no real free will.. we think we are acting freely - but so long as it seems like that - whats the problem?
No ultimate meaning.. yes again this is true, but nothing really has true meaning.. however that doesnt mean we cannot create meaning for ourselves. It does not prevent us creating morals and ethics to follow.

[EnhancedSpirit]

Originally Posted by Magurk

"Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist. . . .we have no ultimate meaning in life."

Provine, W.


I find this very reasonable. I mean you see peoeples attitudes affected by their surrondings and habbitat.... What do you think??

Peoples attitudes is the core of free will. It's not about what happens to you, it's about how you react. Two people can live in the same surroundings and habitat, and live identical circumstances, and have completely different 'attitudes' about what they are going through.

One person might 'choose' to feel humbled, and find strength in showing compassion for others, and giving even when they don't have for themselves. The other person might 'choose' to feel victimized, and find strength in anger, and lashing out, and taking what he doesn't have from others.

The attitude each person chooses at any moment, sets up what is going to happen in their future. The person who gave, will most likely have a better life ahead than the person who stole. This is the smallest element of freewill. Every choice you make, emotionally, sets off a chain of events. The things that happen to you are a direct result of your free will. To deny such, is simply refusing to take responsibility for your own actions.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If chaos is apparent at one level then this will flow into the other levels giving free will some leeway.

How does chaos "flow into the other levels", why would this give "free will some leeway" and what, if anything, might that mean? I would recommend reading this rather interesting and well written polemic. As for those enamoured by chaos theory, the [theoretical] inability to determine something does not make it undetermined.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

How does chaos "flow into the other levels", why would this give "free will some leeway" and what, if anything, might that mean? I would recommend reading this rather interesting and well written polemic. As for those enamoured by chaos theory, the [theoretical] inability to determine something does not make it undetermined.

Thanks for the link, Deut - it looks very interesting!

[Fluffy]

How does chaos "flow into the other levels", why would this give "free will some leeway" and what, if anything, might that mean? I would recommend reading this rather interesting and well written polemic. As for those enamoured by chaos theory, the [theoretical] inability to determine something does not make it undetermined.

Thanks for the article Deut I found it very interesting indeed. By "flow into the other levels" I meant that if something cannot be predicted on a very small scale then this will have a knock on effect on larger scales since larger things are made up of smaller things. Therefore, the more possible combinations on the quantum level, the larger scope of freedom a human will have.

Now I agree that this is not free will in the sense that it is normally implied. But I feel it would be incorrect to call this an abscence of free will since it will allow variation of human choice under identical scenarios even if that variation is not down to the human.

If what this article said is true, that there is no such random variation on the quantum level, then this arguement would not hold. Also I realise the conclusion goes some way to countering this arguement by showing that "Human free will decisions are self-determined decisions, and self-determined decisions are not indeterminate decisions" but I'm afraid I do not understand how they reached this. Furthermore they try to argue that human will is free because of our immaterial intellect because this is free from material causality. My question to this is WHY is our intellect free of material causality when it is material tissues that cause it to exist?

[SarahBeara]

Originally Posted by Magurk

"Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist. . . .we have no ultimate meaning in life."

Provine, W.


I find this very reasonable. I mean you see peoeples attitudes affected by their surrondings and habbitat.... What do you think??

Wow, that's depressing