While it is appropriate to hold everyone personally accountable for his own actions, let's bear in mind that our individual world-views are a product of our environment. Whether or not it fits some legal definition of "hate speech", when people talk in degrading ways about minorities or ethnic groups, it contributes to the spread of bigotry toward those groups. Speech can do even worse than spreading bigotry: it can normalize mistreatment. After the 2018 Pittsburgh Synagogue killings, I found some white nationalists saying "what's the big deal? Killing is a crime, but at least there's a few less Jews around". That may or may not constitute criminal hate speech; it doesn't tell people to kill Jews, but it expresses and spreads a horrible attitude - a world view that killing Jews isn't all that bad. It would be a good thing to draw a line somewhere that limits the extent to which people can make such public comments. I don't know where the line is best drawn, but I support having the line.

Rather than having the abstract discussion that seems to taking place so far, I recommend that everyone peruse what bigots are saying on the White Nationalist Stormfront forum. It can get pretty chilling.

But motion would be at least logically prior to time. Maybe we aren't evolved enough to understand these questions, but motion being prior to time is the topic I would like to discuss, if anyone's interested. — Gregory

Motion prior to time seems logically impossible. Motion entails change of position over time. In the absence of time, it logically impossible for there to be motion.

Aristotelian-Thomist arguments make a bit of sense in terms of classical (non quantum) physics: all motion in the universe is a product of thermodynamics. However when you bring Quantum Mechanics into the discussion, the argument runs into trouble. There are cosmological hypotheses that offer explanations for the high energy/low entropy state of the early universe without the need for a "prime mover" to make it go.

Certainly all are speculative, since they make assumptions that go beyond established physics - but they at least serve to falsify the argument from ignorance entailed by the Aristotelian-Thomist paradigm.

I hear a lot of Trump supporters praising Trump for "firing back" with insults and degrading statements, while complaining only about the low behavior when it's directed at Trump. Here's how you avoid being hypocritical: call out inappropriate behavior regardless of who's engaging in it.

I think firing back is completely appropriate, and wholly deserved. — NOS4A2

Indeed! Any firing back on that moronic guy in the oval office is richly deserved! Thanks for giving us carte blanche to say what we think of the pussy-grabbing jerk. I'm an agnostic, but I sincerely hope there's a hell he can rot in when he dies.

...
Man that felt good to express my feelings so openly! But I hope it's obvious how unproductive it is to engage in trash talk. It just inflames the side you're trashing, likely resulting in more of the same. Trump appeals to his base (like you) this way, but it is inflamatory -causing fighting back, and escalating the bad feelings on all sides.

Trump has been ridiculed since the beginning, caricatured in popular culture, burned in effigy, murdered in music videos and photo shoots; his looks, his body, his voice, his hair, his hands, his mannerisms have all been mocked and ridiculed incessantly; his family, his career, his legacy, put to the violent grindstone of popular opinion.

But he is still there firing back. — NOS4A2

I hear a lot of Trump supporters praising Trump for "firing back" with insults and degrading statements, while complaining only about the low behavior when it's directed at Trump. Here's how you avoid being hypocritical: call out inappropriate behavior regardless of who's engaging in it.

Denmark's PM called the proposal to by Greenland absurd. Trump's response:

"I thought that the prime minister’s statement, that it was 'absurd,' that it was 'an absurd idea,' it was nasty, I thought it was an inappropriate statement," Trump told reporters before departing the White House for a speech to a veterans group in Kentucky. "

Even if you (somehow) disagree about it being absurd, it should be no surprise that the PM would consider it so. Calling her "nasty" is yet another low in the Trump presidency.

A necessary condition for doing any science is choosing/determining which evidence to believe and how much weight to give it. How do you do that without free will? Because without free will, you're simply compelled to believe that a particular piece of evidence supports a hypothesis. It might, it might not. — RogueAI

I assume you mean "how do you do science without libertarian free will". The answer: with compatibilist free will. Compatibilists account for free will in a manner consistent with determinism. Some people feel that's not free enough because they don't like the idea that what they did was, in principle, determined.

1. The ability to make choices is a necessary condition for the evaluation of evidence.
2. Evaluating evidence is a necessary condition for science.
3. Without free will there is no ability to make choices.
4. Without the ability to make choices, evaluation of evidence is impossible.
5. If evaluation of evidence is impossible, science is impossible.
6. There is no free will.
7. Therefore, science is impossible. — RogueAI

Don't you believe you actually make choices? It seems absurd to deny this. The act of making choices and evaluating evidence could be described algorithmically, so it's consistent with determinism.

Reflect on a choice you made at some point in the past. Why did you make THAT choice instead of an alternative one? Clearly you had reasons for making the choice that you did. Is it possible that you could have landed on all those reasons and made a different choice? You arrived at those reasons after deliberating on your options, anticipating what would happen with each. The strength of various desires entered in. Maybe you overlooked some things, or failed to anticipate something. But given the series of thoughts and feelings that led to constructing the reasons for your decision, how could you have made a different one? With hindsight, you may have come to wish you'd made a different choice, but this hindsight constitutes knowledge you didn't have at the time, or an amount of self-control that you lacked at the time. If indeed no other option could have been selected after that exact deliberation, then your decision was determined by that deliberation.

.

I suggest that choices are determined irrespective of whether or not libertarian free will exists. Reflect on any past choice, and think about why you made it. If those are really the reason for the decision, then you could not have possibly made a different decision given the fact that those reasons were present.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I wouldn't call something a choice if it's determined. — Terrapin Station

What do you call those things you do every day, in which you make a selection from among multiple options? Obviously you are making a choice. Sure, the factors that go into making those choices are determined, but you still go through the process and make the selection based on factors within you. What would indeterminism add to the process that constitutes an improvement?

I wasn’t arguing it wasn’t. Not that I said “no it is not a choice”. Not “no it is not my choice”. The “choice” was made by me certainly but I don’t think it was much of a choice to begin with, that’s what I meant — khaled

When a choice presents itself, you make it. You say it wasn't "much of a choice", but what you would consider as more of a choice? How would indeterminism change the process or make it more of a choice? You agree that adding some randomness to it wouldn't be an improvement - it would be worse.

My issue is that it wouldn't be better. If determinism was false, we'd still have options before us and we'd still make choices based on our background knowledge, desires, etc. These would still constrain our imagination, and we wouldn't be any smarter, so it wouldn't be any better in any way.

It is at this point we should recognise that our freedom to choose or choose from is determined initially by our awareness of information. — Possibility

See my above reply to khaled.

I believe I could have controlled that influence and chosen a different city. — Possibility

Of course you could, had it occurred to you to take more time or to use Google. But it hadn't occurred to you. Given exactly the same sequence of thoughts (and identical backgound knowledge, desires, etc), you would have had exactly the same answer. This is true even if Libertarian Free Will were true. If there's a reason for a choice, then that choice is determined. If the choice was made for no reason - that is not an act of will

Depends on what you mean by choice. If you just mean “did you pick this option” then obviously yes. But if you mean “did you pick this option because of some capacity you have that doesn’t have the properties of either random or deterministic choice” then No. It wasn’t a choice, it was a random quantum interaction somewhere in my brain that picked this option among many. At least from what we’ve discussed so far, the world is split into random and deterministic interactions. I don’t see room for “free” interactions. — khaled

Set aside the issue of whether or not the world is deterministic, and think introspectively about choices you have made. Don't you sometimes ponder and weigh your options, consider the consequences and risks, and ultimately choose what you consider the best, or most desirable, option? I'm arguing that this is what makes it your choice: every factor that led to the decision was within you, part of you. It was driven by your beliefs, your background knowledge, your desires, your idiosyncracies. These are part of what makes you YOU. Determinism doesn't remove YOU from the causal chain.

If you have a child that misbehaves, will you refrain from disciplining the child because you know he didn't really have a choice? I'm just asking everyone to get real. When philosophizing leads you to conclusions that are contrary to common sense, it means you need to rethink your philosophizing - because maybe you're overlooking something. I think I've shown what that is.

I would also challenge someone to define what “free will” is in a way that doesn’t just boil down to “random will” — khaled

Didn't you choose to write those particular words? Were you not free to write something different?

I certainly chose to respond in the way I did. In my estimation, that makes it a freely willed decision. What makes it a freely willed decision is that I made it; I wrote what I wanted to write.

I think Terrapin is saying:
1. the will is determined or the will is free (premise)
2. the will is not determined (because of QM?)
3. Therefore the will is free

I agree that the conclusion follows from the premises, but it is not what is meant by the term "free will." If Shroedinger's cat survives the box, it's not because of free will. What I think is overlooked is the meaning of "the will" - which is that functional component of the mind that makes decisions..

I argue the same is the case for websites like Ashley Madison. They too cause conflicts in society, broken families, which lead to long term poverty, problems with children and so on. Furthermore, they also encourage and applaud deceiving "Life is short. Have an affair". They make a virtue out of the social sin of oppressing and deceiving others. Thus such an organisation deserves not only to be outlawed - but treated exactly like ISIS - with all their associates and members tracked down and brought in front of the law to be judged for promoting and engaging in illegal activity (in this case, the illegal activity would be anti-social behaviour and fraud). But to allow them to continue to function - and not only this - but to make money out of such an activity - that is the most monstrous absurdity. — Agustino

Your ISIS analogy fails because it facilitates crimes, whereas affairs are not crimes. Do you have any data support your claim that clandestine affairs cause more broken homes? It's conceivable that the homes get broken by the discovery of the affair, which would imply these sites are doing a service by making it easier to do them secretly.

About 10 years ago, a married aquaintence of mine had an affair through Ashley Madison (or something similar). He resorted to this because his 20 year marriage was celibate. He was devoted to his wife, so he didn't want to divorce her or hurt her - but he really didn't want to live without sex for the rest of his life. His affair was short-lived, and I'm pretty sure his wife never found out about it. I lost touch, but based on his facebook status - he still seems to be married to her. In a sense, Ashley-Madison saved his marriage.

QM has virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence. — PoeticUniverse

That's only approximately true.

Here's the QFT view of things.

Matter is composed of particles. The set of known particles comprise the standard model of particle physics.

Particles are not anything like free floating ball bearings (as the imagination might lead us to think). Rather, they are disturbances in quantum fields. There is a quantum fields associated with each elementary particle (e.g. there is an up-quark field, a Higgs-field, etc). There is exactly one of each type of field, and each exists throughout space. These quantum fields are considered the fundamental components of existence.

Obviously, particles interact with one another. But since particles are actually quantized disturbances in fields, these can be considered interactions between quantum fields. But quantum fields also interact with one another in non-quantized ways. Such interactions are treated mathematically as "virtual particles."

So when it is said that virtual particles pop in and out of existence, it's actually just referring to interactions between fields that occur because the fields are waves and therefore fluctuate.

Matt Strassler has a great article describing virtual particles here.

Call me optimistic but it's either Biden making concessions to Sanders/Warren or bust for him. The other contenders are focused squarely on scoring points by making Biden look bad. — Wallows

I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Republicans vote in the Democratic primaries out of being sick of the orange one. I'd expect Biden to be the Democrat they would choose.

Why are so many people so quick to jump to a conspiracy theory? More than likely, Epstein simply committed suicide (and BTW, it's been reported that the suicide watch had stopped). What did the guy have to live for? It kinda seems the rational thing to do.

he’s been in public eye for 50 years and has never been known as racist. — halo

ROFL! Right, and he's always been a faithful, loving husband, too.

Your argument seems to be that democratic candidates should embrace Republican talking points and accept elements of their policy proposals. — Maw

No: I'm not saying to embrace their talking points, in saying they shouldn't play into them. In particular, consider Medicare For All. IMO it has near zero chance of passing, but even if it could - it's too big, and too soon. We absolutely need a public option- that should be campaigned for. If successful, it will eventually crowd out the private options. IMO this is smart policy, and smarter politically.

I'm not saying Republican proposals should be embraced, but I definitely reject "no compromise" attitudes, whether it's from the "tea party" Republicans or a progressive mirror image. Even if Dems win the Presidency and the Senate, they won't be able to pass anything significant without compromising with Republicans because of the 60 votes needed for cloture.

I agree with what you said, but there's another big issue. Few actually consider themselves racists, but many have thought to themselves "they should go back where they're from" (as an example). Trump appeals to these suppressed tendencies, and emboldens them to say it out loud. Since they "know" they aren't racist, it is obviously leftist propaganda to label it such.

My theory doesn't apply to everyone and it doesn't require anyone to be completely rational, but I don't see how you can deny that self-interest is one motivator. It's more of a challenge to obtain the vote of someone who perceives a candidate's policies will be contrary to his own best interests.

This whole discussion about centrist or left policies totally misses the obvious point that nobody cares about them in respect to elections. — Benkei

They care about policies indirectly: they care about themselves, so they are attracted to policies they perceive will benefit themselves. That means that "liberal" policies that help others don't attract voters (other than a core group of liberals like me), and will actually repel voters because of the perceived cost in taxes or deficits (or even opportunity cost - spending on someone else means you aren't spending for me)

Regarding "speaking truth" - I assume you're referring to subjective truth. Trump appeals to subjective truths all the time: the subjective "truths" of racists.

Anti-Trump fervor among that group will bring votes for any Democrat. We need to get back the working class, who used to be the core of the party. They care less about progressive ideals; they care about their own lives. That was Trump's appeal.

This is basically Biden's strategy. And, it didn't work in 2016, so why would it now? — Wallows

Biden is not Hillary. Lots of people hated Hillary, but everyone likes Joe. Joe is much more popular among blue collar voters than Hillary. There's also mucho lessons learned from the 2016 campaign - in particular, take nothing for granted.

And seriously, do you really think those issues I mentioned could pass? Is it worth taking a chance on them?
— Relativist

When Trump ran on building a wall and demonizing immigrants did anyone ask this? — Maw

I'll clarify my point. Those progressive policies will never be implemented no matter who is elected but people will vote against a candidate espousing them. This is like voting for Nader in 2000, which resulted in W being elected. Re:Trump, some people probably voted against him for his xenophobic positions, but obviously it didn't dissuade enough people. The "socialist" bugaboo may very well turn off swing voters- and that is exactly the strategy the Republicans are already using.

Most polls show that Medicare For All enjoys majority approval. — Maw

It will never get the needed 60 votes in the Senate, and some independents will be afraid to support a "socialist" candidate.

No Democratic candidate is supporting an open border policy so I have no idea why you mention that.

What candidate is talking about stemming illegal immigration? If they do NOT, their position will be defined by Republicans as being for open borders. (Free health care for the folks at the border? When many Americans lack health care? )

Reparations is more of a tertiary proposal rather than a focal one, but it's nevertheless has a split approval rating among Democrats, and notably has increased in popularity since 2014, even among Republicans.

A candidate supporting it it will lose more votes than he gains. This is irrespective of whether it ought to be considered.

This is so fucking funny because the Democrats nominated Clinton who was a centrist and she nevertheless lost, — Maw

Clinton was also....Clinton. who suffered from years of demonization. Lots of people voted against her, or didn't vote. Consider how low Trump's margin of victory was in key states - remove the anti-Hillary factor and you get a win.

And seriously, do you really think those issues I mentioned could pass? Is it worth taking a chance on them?

Here's the problematic issues: Medicare for all, open borders, and reparations. They cannot pass anyway, so steer away from candidates who promise these - they scare some people away.

I do not know what the best strategy is to defeat Trump, but I don't think ignoring what he says is the answer. Drawing attention to them may embolden some section of his followers but surely there are others who are upset by them, and, in addition, there are others who are undecided that may be sickened by what is happening and decide that they must vote for someone who opposes him. — Fooloso4

Have we learned anything new about Trump since being elected? Does anything he's done as President reveal anything about his character that wasn't already well known?

On top of that, we have a good economy, and a lot of people (bizarrely) think that Presidents control the economy.

So here's how to ensure Trump will be reelected: let him (and the Republicans), frame the debate in terms of protecting the country from socialism/communism. Show that the Republicans are right to assert Democrats want open borders, want to do away with private health insurance, want to raise individual's taxes, and are ready to start writing those reparations checks.

If you don't want Trump reelected, push for a centrist Democrat that will appeal to the working class and will not fit the Republican's caricature.

Why do you think philosophy majors are so enamored with socialism? — Wallows

I'd look at this from the opposite perspective: why are students in other majors less enamored with socialism? They value money and material things, and therefore they choose majors that will lead to well-paying jobs.

OK, but then I'll also make a closing statement.

It is logically impossible to make a decision that is an act of "unrestricted will". Every decision is a result of a set of factors (memories, beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally conditioned dispositions, learnings, desires, impulses, etc) that are in place at the time of the decision. Given those factors, there is zero chance an alternative decision could have been made in those exact circumstances. This isn't simply because determinism is true, it's because these factors are all inclusive - there are no other factors that could result in a different decision.

To illustrate, let's assume libertarian free will exists and John has a decision to make at time t1. At t1, Johan has a specific set of memories, beliefs, etc, and he makes decision X. If it is indeed possible to for John to make a decision other than X, why is he making it? The stated set of factors includes everything within John that can influence the decision, so if he could actually make a different decision, it would not be because of any of those fixed, internal factors. In that case, what can an "unrestricted" decision entail? Is it a freedom to ignore one's prior beliefs (etc)? No, because that entails an internal urge to ignore those beliefs (etc) - still internal. At t1, that urge is either present or it isn't - and whichever it is, it's a fixed fact. So I contend that alternative decisions are never possible (irrespective of determinism). Therefore the concept of an unrestricted freely willed decision is incoherent, a logical impossibility.

We can still apply the term "free will" to decisions with the understanding that "free will" entails accountability, and the fact that an alternative decision could have been made - if the person had only had some additional belief. If this doesn't seem free enough, bear in mind that it's as free as is logically possible to be.

Given the subject, shouldn't this be merged with the all-inclusive Donald Trump thread? :wink:

We should draw a distinction between telling an untruth and telling a lie.

When you tell the friend there is a cat, you have lied despite it actually being true. When you mistakenly believe the temperature is 35 degrees (it's actually 34 degrees) and you tell someone this, you have told an untruth but have not lied.

I think accountability rests on a completely different mechanism. It is not on freedom of will that it rests on; but it rests on the persona who is caused by his internal and external motivating factors to commit an accountable act. — god must be atheist

We probably agree with this: If a person is forced into performing a crime he is not responsible or accountable. If he was not forced into performing that act, he is responsible and accountable.

Where we differ is that I would label the latter case an act of free will, and you would not. I'm curious: what would free will look like if it existed? Let's say you make decision that is the product of your genetic and environmental dispositions, your beliefs, your impulses, the external conditions (temperature, humidity,...) how you felt, etc. The choice is consistent with determinism because all those factors have been caused. Now describe what must hypothetically be added or replaced to turn this decision into an act of free will -by your definition of free will.

.

It's nearly three o'clock in the night at my location. I'm turning in. Good night. — god must be atheist

Yikes! It's only an hour earlier here. I guess we both got carried away. Fun conversation.

This was a rhetorical question which I proceeded to answer. Please read my entire post that contained that. The post answers the rhetorical question, including the causation of encouraging good behaviour and creating accountability. — god must be atheist

I would like you to understand that free will is actually consistent with determinism - you too hastily dismissed that. It's as free as it needs to be to hold people accountable (regardless of whether we're talking morality or the law).

I'll add a comment on this:

If they get caught and convicted and sentenced, then it sends a message to many, many other people: do not break the law because you get into big trouble. — god must be atheist

I agree - and therefore we should embrace this process EVEN THOUGH whatever occurs was inevitable. What we do, as a society (in terms of the laws it passes, the enforcement, etc) - are integral to what will occur. Despite the fact that the future is inevitable, we are ignorant of the future and we are part of the process that determines what that future will be.

So my main two points are:
1) the will is sufficiently free to hold people accountable;
2) we are not powerless - we make the future. It's irrelevant that the future that we make is inevitable because what we do (or don't do) will still have contributed to that future.

How can we nail them to their misdeeds if they don't have a free will? — god must be atheist

That's my point: they DO have free will - no one is making them do the wrong thing. Sure, that they would choose to do wrong is a product of outside forces, but encouraging good behavior is also an outside force - so we should engage in it.

And the main issue that I am trying to drive in, is that your will is CAUSED by your inner world, but it is CAUSED and these causes are themselves caused in turn. Since a cause can have only one effect, or a conglomeration of causes can only have one effect, it follows that the effect is restricted.That is my point. The effect is not free. And the causes that cause that effect are not free, either, they are restricted, by the causes that caused them in turn. — god must be atheist

I agree with this, but it ignores moral accountability.

Engaging in bad acts (murder, stealing...) is (and should be) discouraged by holding people accountable for their actions. They are responsible because they COULD have refrained from committing the act - and they WOULD have done so if they better understood the consequences (both the punishment, and the internal feelings of shame and guilt). I want to encourage good behavior, and if my desires are realized - then there will be more good behavior. It will have been inevitable, but my contribution (and that of others who are like minded) will have been important contributors to making this happen.

x

Things of different complexity still obey determinism. It makes no difference how complex one mechanism is and how simple another one is. They both obey the cause-effect chain to be not broken by some supernatural intervention. — god must be atheist

Agreed.

Would you deny any one of the intervening steps of causation as a true step of cause and effect between the Big Bang and your eating Corn Flakes for breakfast? In other words, do you maintain that some of the events in the chain of events between the Big Bang and your eating breakfast was NOT caused? — god must be atheist

Of course not.

If your breakfast choice was not predictable by the time of the Big Bang, then there had to be an event that was not caused. Because as long as all causes had effects, and all events had causes, then the choice of your eating breakfast had a direct line of cause-effect chain to the big bang.

It was predictable, but that doesn't change the fact that the choice was a product of my internal processing - and I ate what I wanted. If you eat what you want, why would you not consider that your own free choice? Sure, your wants were caused, but they're still YOUR wants.