But if consciousness is simply a product of the physical brain, there is no separation--our consciousness is part of "the external world" just like everything else, and so we have no free will. This is something I've been struggling with ever since I started studying Taoism a few years back. There was about a year where I was very satisfied with things and the Taoist philosophy brought me so much peace, but eventually I could no longer ignore the dissonance between my newfound philosophy and my previously-held beliefs about the nature of consciousness. — JustSomeGuy

There is no real definitive answer as to what consciousness exactly is and whether the mind is material or non-physical and even if there is a dualism or not, free-will can still be exercised either way i.e., agent-causal libertarianism. While randomness is an issue, if we picture the world from a Kantian lens, are we perceiving something physical (noumenal) or is experience only in our mind (phenomenal)? While accessibility to the external world is reliant on the phenomenal, the latter is really about how we process information between the two as we regulate and filter this information. So, how we perceive the world is caused by this interaction - this 'determinism' so to speak - without which it would be impossible for our minds to understand the noumenal world or pure information. What you need to remember is that we organise this information conceptually, through spatial and temporal concepts. The problem here is that if we order information that way, does that mean that the external world has no time or space? Do we create causality in the brain, an arrow of time only to make sense of all this information?

Kant never really went that far, but his point was that we have reason or the ability to reason and this enables us to exercise a type of manoeuvrability of these perceptions, to challenge them, to filter them willingly rather than the number of schema in our brain that does it for us. So, while the brain determines much of what we understand of the external world, there is still one small part in that where there is autonomy in our ability to alter our perceptions of the external world. This is the 'free-will' that I am discussing; free-will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, but rather free-will is a natural extension of determinism.

So, you are struggling just like the OP because you assume a free-will Vs. determinism scenario. There is no Vs between them.

I truly love Taoist philosophy and wish I could embrace it fully, but my lack of belief in free will won't allow me. Can you offer any sort of help with this issue? — JustSomeGuy

I have never embraced any belief fully, because I trust myself enough to take what I find in anything as part of my study of the world. Nothing is ever entirely right and so to follow something completely is to limit your capacity, which only breeds weakness. I only believe in God - a non-anthropomorphic, non-dogmatic, non-religious - as an unknowable reality, and my own moral trajectory, to perfect virtue as a practice in order to enable it primacy over my understanding of the external world that I experience. All you need to embrace is a willingness to better yourself, basically.

This has nothing to do with consequentialism.
The Farmer is not damning anything. No one is justifying an action because of its consequences.

This has nothing to do with consequentialism.
The Farmer is not damning anything. No one is justifying an action because of its consequences. — charleton

Each time a something happens (consequence), people are congratulating or consoling the farmer as the case may be. This is consequentialism, no?

The farmer, on the other hand, is indifferent to the people because he knows consequences are immaterial to morality.

Consequentialism Is more to do with "the end justifies the means". No one here is saying that.

This has more to do with fate, against determinism. It's a text against the idea of "luck". From the farmer's point of view, all the things that happen are of of his influence and so nothing he has done has anything to do with them.
Those remarking on these happening as assuming by their comments that 'fate' has had a hand in the fortunes of the farmer; that there is some sort of karmic balance which favours or disadvantages the farmer, accordingly. The farmer knows better. He knows that things will unfold regardless of his needs or interests.

Thanks for pointing out what the story is about. However, one takeaway, relevant to consequentialism, is effects/consequences of actions/events are unpredictable.

And I suppose, from the difficulty of discerning even one's own motivation, one might arrive at virtue ethics, where the cultivation of good habit is the best bet, but the bet still concerns consequences. — unenlightened

(Pardon me, busy with other stuff I'm slow at picking up on threads that are interesting)

I don't think virtue ethics relates in this way to 'consequences'. The rare escapees from Nazi concentration camps precipitated dreadful consequences in vengeance reprisals, but they were still right to escape. Or so I see it. Or, for example, hopeless unconditional love is more virtuous than despondent realism. As I see it. From the Aristotelian and indeed the MacIntyre view, virtue and vice and the other options are embedded in a good polity. Sometimes the good polity can only be in one's head, and among one's imagined moral colleagues, still, the right thing to do at the right time for the right reasons may be to love - or escape - or make some pointless heroic gesture.

There is no escaping determinism except through consciousness (transcendence) — TimeLine

What sometimes bewilders me about this view of determinism is that 'the causal web', the way that determinism is supposed to actually work, is largely unknown. I have broad theories but little detailed idea how things came to be thus and so, and I only have intelligent guesses about the likely consequences of various courses of action. In such situations what is it to 'escape' a determinism whose workings are pretty much a mystery to me? It seems like an imaginary exercise by people with a hubristic belief in their own rationality.

I'm not quarrelling with where your later words explain you end up, seeking a balance etc.; I just don't seem to find in myself an understanding of this intermediate step. But I often feel I must be missing something, as other people seem to find it so obvious :)

But if consciousness is simply a product of the physical brain, there is no separation--our consciousness is part of "the external world" just like everything else, and so we have no free will. This is something I've been struggling with ever since I started studying Taoism a few years back. — JustSomeGuy

No need to struggle. Consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain, and you do have Choice. Since you have a choice, just drop the notion. In so doing you will notice you do have Choice (you are not determined to believe you are determined) and you can happily continue your studies in Daoism free of this notion.

The rare escapees from Nazi concentration camps precipitated dreadful consequences in vengeance reprisals, but they were still right to escape. Or so I see it. — mcdoodle

I agree with your conclusion, but dispute your premise. Vengeance reprisals are not the consequence of resistance, that is to accept the warped logic of the tyrant.

But one can still ask what makes the virtue of resistance to tyranny a virtue in the first place. Is it not that virtuous acts, a good polity is what has positive consequences in general and overall?

we have reason or the ability to reason and this enables us to exercise a type of manoeuvrability of these perceptions, to challenge them, to filter them willingly rather than the number of schema in our brain that does it for us. So, while the brain determines much of what we understand of the external world, there is still one small part in that where there is autonomy in our ability to alter our perceptions of the external world. This is the 'free-will' that I am discussing; free-will and determinism are not mutually exclusive, but rather free-will is a natural extension of determinism. — TimeLine

I don't see how this is self-evident. First off, what exactly is "reason"? Our brains just process information in a certain way based on many factors--some that we understand, but likely more that we don't. Your ability to reason is not the same as mine because our brains are different, thanks to things like our DNA, our environment in which our brains developed, even our nutrition, and many other factors.

I don't see how our aptitude for "thinking" more deeply than other creatures necessarily implies a free will. It just means our information processors are more/differently developed than theirs.

I have never embraced any belief fully, because I trust myself enough to take what I find in anything as part of my study of the world. Nothing is ever entirely right and so to follow something completely is to limit your capacity, which only breeds weakness. — TimeLine

I absolutely agree with this, I just chose my words poorly. I simply want to be able to fully appreciate the wisdom contained within Taoism, not follow it dogmatically or anything like that.

No need to struggle. Consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain, and you do have Choice. Since you have a choice, just drop the notion. In so doing you will notice you do have Choice (you are not determined to believe you are determined) and you can happily continue your studies in Daoism free of this notion. — Rich

This isn't solving the problem, though, it's just ignoring it. If determinism is true, if I do not have free will, then whether I "choose" to believe in free will or not, either way that "choice" was determined and was not truly a choice.

It seems to me that free will requires "me" to be an outside agent, separate from the rest of the physical world, because the rest of the physical world is entirely deterministic. When an event occurs, it occurs as a result of every single other event which preceded it, and it is the only possible event that could have happened because of that. When I make a "choice", it occurs as a result of every single thing that has happened to me in my life, and with everything being the same there's no possible way I could have made any other choice but the one I make. At least that seems to me to be the case.

because the rest of the physical world is entirely deterministic — JustSomeGuy

You choose to believe this then believe it until your life gets so boring and meaningless you decide to believe otherwise. It's your mind that is playing the Deterministic game, no other. However, just remember, there is not one scintilla of evidence that anything is determined. It is all just a fabricated story, not even supported by physics.

You choose to believe this then believe it until your life gets so boring and meaningless you decide to believe otherwise. — Rich

So the only reason to believe in free will is because you get tired of not believing in it?

However, just remember, there is not one scintilla of evidence that anything is determined. It is all a fabricated still story, not even supported by physics. — Rich

Will you share with me the evidence that nothing is determined, then? The only way to change a mind about something is to be presented with new information. The information I have accumulated in regards to this topic forces me to believe in determinism, but I would absolutely welcome new information that challenges and changes my belief.

I make choices all the time. Throughout my day and throughout my life. You figure I'm going to buy into the myth that everything I do is determined just because it was in vogue a few centuries ago. It was some wild fantasy which never had any evidence to support it.

There is only one theory that speaks to the physical world, and it is Quantum Physics, and it is probabilistic. I don't know what information you gathered, but it is nothing but stories. Determinism has zero evidentiary support.

I don't mean to be dismissive but you really seem to simply be in denial and have no actual argument, evidence, or reason to believe in free will other than that you just want to. Quantum Physics doesn't support free will at all, it supports randomness. I genuinely would like to know if you have some actual support for free will, but I'm starting to lose hope that you do.

Quantum Physics supports probabilistic behavior and totally destroys Determinism. So exactly what is left? The mystical Laws of Nature. I am not a religious oriented fellow who believes everything is fated by the all-powerful Laws of Nature.

Believe what you want, but there is zero evidence for Determinism and Quantum Physics says it ain't so. Go ahead, and continue struggling if you want. When your tired of Determinism just move on to a more sensible philosophy of the universe. The Daoist had lots of insights worth studying and actually meaningful to leading ones life.

Quantum Physics doesn't destroy determinism. QP isn't a straightforward subject with clear implications, there are many interpretations of QP. Some interpretations may lead to a lack of determinism, but many don't. The best QP can do is tell us that there is randomness in the universe. Randomness does not imply free will. A lack of determinism in any form does not prove free will--the inability to predict the future does not imply the ability to change it.

Go ahead, and continue struggling if you want. — Rich

The only thing I'm struggling with is trying to reason with you. You still haven't actually said anything of significance. But that's fine, you are entitled to your beliefs. I'll stop questioning you since we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

but many don't. — JustSomeGuy

Really? There is only one interpretation, which is totally fantastical , the Infinitely Growing Infinite Number of Universe Interpretion, that would be deterministic if one could leap out of our Universe, but still keeps this universe probabilistic as must every other interpretation. There is no deterministic interpretation of QM. There can't be because the Schrodinger Equation is probabilistic.

Determinism is pure faith. Nothing more. There is zero evidence to support it and hundred years of physics that says it ain't so. Choice is observed by everyone, everyday in their lives. One is free to choose what they believe. You just said so in your message. No one really believed in Determinism. It's just a game.

There is only one interpretation, which is totally fantastical , the Infinitely Growing Infinite Number of Universe Interpretion, that would be deterministic if one could leap out of our Universe, but still keeps this universe probabilistic as must every other interpretation. — Rich

Are you referring to the Many Worlds Interpretation? In addition to that there is also the de Broglie-Bohm Interpretation, so there are at least two prominent theories which leave determinism intact. I'm not an expert on the subject so there may be more I am unaware of.
But as I said already, even a lack of determinism does not equate to free will. If that is your only line of reasoning, I'm sorry but it's invalid.

Choice is observed by everyone, everyday in their lives. — Rich

This is not an argument. A world ruled by determinism would appear to have choice.

A simple example: I am sitting in my house on a winter night, when suddenly I hear the furnace turn on. I did not turn the furnace on, the furnace chose to turn on at that moment. Of course, this choice wasn't the result of free will. It was caused by the programming of the computer that controls the furnace, as well as the current temperature conditions. There are certain specifications in the computer ("brain") of the furnace, so that in certain conditions it will make certain choices (turn on/turn off). This is obviously a simplification, but we have every reason to believe that this is exactly the same way our own brains operate, only on a much more complex level. They are "programmed" a certain way based on factors we don't fully understand, so that in certain situations they will make certain choices.

Are you referring to the Many Worlds Interpretation? In addition to that there is also the de Broglie-Bohm Interpretation, so there are at least two prominent theories which leave determinism intact. — JustSomeGuy

As I said, the so-called Many World's Interpretation (my description is accurate, because it is entirely fantastical in what it is suggesting) is probabilistic in this Universe (as it would be in each of the infinite number of universes that it posits). The Bohm Interpretation is real, causal but non-deterministic. He says so in his own book. It has to be because it is equivalent to the Schrodinger Equation and contains the probabilistic variable. It is impossible for any Interpretation of QM to support determinism in the Universe we live in.

We are not computers. If you really believe that everything is an illusion, then your appropriate position in any discussion is that particles are determining everything you are thinking, you can't help it, it's all meaningless, and its the Laws of Nature that are creating the illusion that we are discussing and thinking. Why particles would want to start creating illusions of discussion is beyond me, but it's not myth it's the Determinist's myth, so I let them deal with trying to explain discussions in a universe of bouncing particles.

As I said, no one on this forum really believes their discussions are illusions but they like pretending they do. Rather interesting.

If you really believe that everything is an illusion, then your appropriate position in any discussion is that particles are determining everything you are thinking, you can't help it, it's all meaningless, and its the Laws of Nature that are creating the illusion that we are discussing and thinking. Why particles would want to start creating illusions of discussion is beyond me, but it's not myth it's the Determinist's myth, so I let them deal with trying to explain discussions in a universe of bouncing particles.

As I said, no one on this forum really believes their discussions are illusions but they like pretending they do. Rather interesting. — Rich

This is essentially a straw man; neither I nor anyone else (in regards to this topic) claims that anything is an illusion. Given what we know about our brains and the universe, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the choices we make are a result of many preceding causal factors as opposed to some outside unseen force controlling our brains. You call determinism fantastical, and yet your belief is the one which requires an immaterial entity which resides in and is connected to and controlling our brain functions from another plane of existence. You cannot have free will in the closed system of the universe, it would have to come from outside.

You seem to know a decent amount about Quantum Theory, but for some reason you throw all logic out the window when you speak about determinism and free will. You still have yet to give a single argument in favor of your position, instead restating the same phrases and unsupported claims over and over. Give me your actual argument for free will.

This is essentially a straw man; neither I nor anyone else (in regards to this topic) claims that anything is an illusion. — JustSomeGuy

So you think there really is a mind?

Given what we know about our brains and the universe — JustSomeGuy

What is the"we" and "our"? You mean the bouncing particles don't you? The brain isn't doing anything, right?

it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the choices we make are a result of many preceding causal factors as opposed to some outside unseen force controlling our brains. — JustSomeGuy

The brain isn't doing anything under Determinism. It's all determined by some bouncing particles governed by the mystical and undefined Laws of Nature. No particle holds any privileged position. Everything related to thinking it's just an illusion. Determinism is actually quite a hoot when it is all thought through.

There is no free will. Just a mind making choices in action. That is all real and observable. Very simple. Exactly what the Daoists observed.

The argument in my favor is exactly where I started. There is zero evidence for Determinism. No bouncing particle is making us believe in it. One chooses to believe in it despite all contrary evidence.

The brain isn't doing anything under Determinism. It's all determined by some bouncing particles governed by the mystical and undefined Laws of Nature. — Rich

You really don't seem to understand what determinism actually means.

As for everything else you've said, despite my best efforts it really seems as though it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about this with you, and I'm tired, so I'll have to end it here. At least for now.

First off, what exactly is "reason"? — JustSomeGuy

This is a biggie. Kant divided reason into two - pure and practical - and he distinguished pure reason from understanding, the latter is sensual experience or sense-data and the information we get from actual experience. In addition, we are divided by two types of consciousness; consciousness of our own empirical inner state and so psychological (a unity of self - that you are) as well as what he referred to as transcendental apperception. Pure reason does not partake in this sensual experience but rather it allows us the capacity to think about concepts that are beyond the physical - such as thinking about God, the universe, what might happen to you tomorrow etc. Further still, there is practical reason that enables as to think of moral issues - a type of moral consciousness - where we consider things as being either right or wrong. We are capable of regulating pure reason by using practical reason - to judge our judgements according to right or wrong - so it is somewhat cyclic so to speak. If we think about ghosts, for instance, practical reason should tell us that there is no moral rightness about it and so it is in the domain of the nonsensical or unreasonable.

Descartes stated that we contain properties that are material - i.e. the brain, the body etc - or what he called corporeal or extended substances, as well as thinking substances that give us this consciousness, the capacity to think hence the cogito. Kant thought that thinking substance was codswallop, because there is no unity in this; does having multiple personality disorder mean that the person is actually two or three separate forms of consciousness? There is no longer any meaning in our identity, nothing that separates us in order to actually be conscious of an 'I'. Thus returning back to reason where possibilities need to be restricted to be aligned with experience that is likely and where the transcendental unity of apperception is the very restriction of what is or is not possible. We need to draw the line and say that there is a spatial reality that we experience through Kantian intuition, otherwise it is not actually a real experience. So you actually exist and this existence is meaningful because you become aware of your identity as a part of this spatial world full of objects. You are a part of that 'determinism' but aware that you are.

Our brains just process information in a certain way based on many factors--some that we understand, but likely more that we don't. Your ability to reason is not the same as mine because our brains are different, thanks to things like our DNA, our environment in which our brains developed, even our nutrition, and many other factors. — JustSomeGuy

I absolutely agree, but I see this capacity as somewhat epistemic and what I mean by that is that there needs to be the right conditions for free will to be fully functional. A baby does not have the capacity to act freely because they do not yet have the cognitive capacity; it may exist in their brain like a switch or a device that is dormant as it waits for the right conditions to be activated. The problem here is that when and if this is activated, when a person reaches a certain level of cognitive maturity, they are still capable of irrational or unreasonable judgements and why we become responsible - hence pure and practical reason - to filter out the nonsense and indeed this is where things get complicated. It is also the reason why humanity is destructive.

I personally believe that some people are exempt from this responsibility, such as persons with an intellectual disability, brain damage and other factors including illness etc, because they do not have the cognitive capacity to become aware of how their actions or choices can effect causality. I also believe any species aside from humanity are also exempt because - whilst they share the same biological or physical relationship to us and also instinctual impulses - they do not have the consciousness to become aware of themselves or their environment. A cat may look at a person, but it does not see a person, not like how we do despite us projecting that somehow they are aware. Epistemic freedom takes into account the limitations of the human mind and because we are able to say that we do not know what the future holds is enough to prove in this freedom, this ability to stand in front of the mirror of determinism and see the causal matrix in the reflection behind you.

What sometimes bewilders me about this view of determinism is that 'the causal web', the way that determinism is supposed to actually work, is largely unknown. — mcdoodle

We all have intelligent guesses, I guess, but many people assume free-will as a separation from this determined landscape of causal connectivity and therefore exempt from the natural laws that give experience. I think the biggest difficulty is the randomness problem, namely how synthetic a priori judgments are even possible and where the spontaneity of Kant' causality in reason is difficult to explain, but our choices still remain restricted by nature' causal rules. It is not independent, but all causality starts from somewhere and we have the capacity to throw the stone into the lake and cause a ripple. We impose onto the causal web. I don't see that as any hubristic belief in our own rationality, as shown below:

It is impossible ever to comprehend through reason how something could be a cause or have a force, rather these relations must be taken solely from experience. For the rule of our reason extends only to comparison in accordance with identity and contradiction. But, in so far as something is a cause, then, through something, something else is posited, and there is thus no connection in virtue of agreement to be found—just as no contradiction will ever arise if I wish to view the former not as a cause, because there is no contradiction [in the supposition that] if something is posited, something else is cancelled. Therefore, if they are not derived from experience, the fundamental concepts of things as causes, of forces and activities, are completely arbitrary and can neither be proved nor refuted. — Kant

So, Kantian causality is really the conceptual model of schema that is fundamental to the possession of all knowledge and so we are making sense of the causal web itself and therefore a unity between our understanding of causality and freedom. There is no real empirical randomness, it is reason working in unison with understanding; so spatial or temporal or causal are not actual objects per se that we experience, but are conditions that enable us to understand experience and pure information.

I'm not quarrelling with where your later words explain you end up, seeking a balance etc.; I just don't seem to find in myself an understanding of this intermediate step. But I often feel I must be missing something, as other people seem to find it so obvious :) — mcdoodle

I would much prefer a quarrel. But, we don't get what we want sometimes.

You really don't seem to understand what determinism actually means. — JustSomeGuy

You like your struggle, have it.

Determinism is a religious belief system, similar to Calvinism, and some people simply want to believe their lives are fated despite all evidence to the contrary. That is the nature of a religion.

I agree with your conclusion, but dispute your premise. Vengeance reprisals are not the consequence of resistance, that is to accept the warped logic of the tyrant.

But one can still ask what makes the virtue of resistance to tyranny a virtue in the first place. Is it not that virtuous acts, a good polity is what has positive consequences in general and overall? — unenlightened

(a) I think a justification for vengeance reprisals could be that exemplary punishment will prevent others in future acting in the way that the one punished acted. This justification isn't in my view 'warped logic'. I don't agree with it, but it has a logic to it and is not an uncommon rationale in liberal law courts. Retribution isn't wrong in principle, and nor even is exemplary retribution.

(b) What does make something a virtue? I agree that if more people acted virtuously, or indeed if just less people acted viciously or with akrasia, then for a neo-Aristotelian the world would become a better place. I still feel this is different from the 'consequences' in 'consequentialism', which are about the act itself and its repercussions. For the virtue ethicist it's about doing the right thing in the right way at the right time for the right reasons, one of which will be 'consequences'. (But not all of which.)

I would much prefer a quarrel — TimeLine

Oh all right then.

...a unity between our understanding of causality and freedom — TimeLine

I did have a Kantian summer a couple of summers ago but I didn't get as far as I'd hoped among Critiques so you may have left me behind here. I think 'reason' 'unity' and 'natural law' are indeed interlocked in a nexus. After my Kantian summer I got to reading Hamann a little, and to my mind he's an ancestor of a Wittgensteinian point of view: he pokes suspictiously at this 'reason' business and criticizes Kant for not seeing that it rests on assumptions about 'language' which Kant doesn't explore. Not that he (Hamann) could come up with as systematic a view as Kant's (so he ends up with a more religious view to give himself a comforting unity) but that's part of the point. Once you think unity, natural law and reason are locked together, you presume System and Determinism, you don't demonstrate it. Whereas you can be pluralist, scientific in method, but open to the arts or religion for instance as having something equal to say about fundamentals, something that might not have the same unified Systematic causal outlook.

I don't know why I had an outbreak of Capitals there but that was the impulse so I'll leave 'em in. Hope I'm not talking rubbish here.