I'm using 'the right thing' to replace what is traditionally called 'morality' in religion.

The way I see it, religion uses a punish and reward system to get their followers to act correctly. When you take the concept of heave/hell or karma away, what's left? How can atheists demand the best from themselves and others?

Humanist morality would say that a moral action is one that, overall, benefits humanity (or a particular member of the human race, for the less lofty moral decisions )

Another option - Kant said that if an action could be universalised, it was moral.

So for example, stealing is immoral, because if everyone stole things all the time, the whole concept of ownership would disappear (everyone's just helping themselves anyway, why bother claiming to own a thing?) and then it would cease to be stealing, because no-one owns anything. So theft can't be made universal and isn't a moral action

On the reverse, things like being helpful, or working hard could be made universal - if everyone did them then society would continue to work, thus these things are moral.

Kant's view were a bit more extreme than that. He was an all or nothing kinda guy.

According to him, if lying was immoral, no one should ever lie.
Imagine you had a friend bang on your door in the middle of the night, telling you he has been framed and that the mob is after him. You let him in. A while later, the mob comes banging on your door. They ask you if your friend is in your house. Do you help your friend by lying, or do the 'moral' thing?

According to Kant, it is your duty to be moral in all cases, so you can't lie to the mob.
He saw the world in black and white, no grey areas.

And that is exactly why traditional 'black and white' morality doesn't work either. What do you do with the grey areas, of which there are many?

hehe.. note to self: don't hide out at Kant's place.

Good topic, Dek. I think this is one of the 'big' questions that people from a religious background have about atheism. Why be good? The truth is - good people do good things, bad people do bad things. As physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg pointed out a year ago in a dialog on religion with other scientists: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things--that takes religion."

hmm.. just realised I didn't mention the evolutionary basis for "doing good".

In human history, everyone around you was likely to be related to you in some way (communities were small, travel was limited) so if a gene came into existence in a community that predisposed people towards being good to one another, it would help the other people to survive, although possibly at the detriment of the altruist. This still makes it more likely that the "do good" gene is in the next generation, and so it proliferates.

I can't buy the idea that there are 'good' and 'bad' people. In the same vein, the 'good-gene' theory doesn't sit right with me either. I think we are responsible for our actions, but our actions are also determined by our environment (culture) and circumstances.

Well it'd be more complex than a binary good/bad gene, and after this amount of time whatever the genetics behind an inclination to altruism are would be essentially universal. The fact that there are still selfish bastards around would be the environmental/nurture factors coming into play.

I don't think there are many people who are so misanthropic that they have zero desire to do good things to other people. I think the difference is how much personal disadvantage you're willing to put up with and still do that good.

dek, when you say "we" are responsible for our actions, can you separate this 'we' from your brain? And, if not, isn't the architecture of your brain directly attributable to two factors: 1) genes and 2) environment?

No Cam, I don't separate the 'we' from the brain. I don't separate it from the body either.

The issue I have with finding a gene for 'good'/'bad' is that it then becomes (is generally seen as) the cause of behaviour, as opposed to just being a factor

Genetic predisposition != cause.

You can be predisposed to be tall, but fail to become tall because you're malnourished, or be predisposed to be obese, but not become obese because you work out a lot, or predisposed to be longlived and not live a long time because you fail to look both ways before crossing the road one time.

Being predisposed to a certain kind of behaviour just means that in a certain situation you're more likely to do a certain thing.

There was actually a piece on personality (and how it relates to various structures in the brain, and some tentatively suggested genetic factors) recently in New Scientist.. might see if I can find it in their archives to link to or something.

Found 2 related articles, but to read the full thing you need to be subscribed (which I am, but you aren't) they're also rather long to copy and paste here without disrupting the flow of things.

I'll put them up in my group and link here

The Personality Factor: What makes you unique

Are Political Leanings all in the Genes?

Nice one. Thanks SK.

I'll read them carefully later

@ Super-King:

It is not the common doctrine that genetic determinism defines who we are and what we do.

@ dekrazee1's first question:

To do 'the right thing' could be based on responsibility ethics: to see whether your actions have constructive or destructive effects. Just think of Niccolò Machiavelli, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl R. Popper, etc.

Let me add a few words.

@ SK:

There's not only genes and the environment. There's also self-referentiality or different levels of self-referentiality that are differently complex. Also you utterly miss the point that cultural evolution has outpaced genetic evolution. So we have to assume that there's something else going on - as Richard Dawkins as pointed out more than 20 years ago. He called it "meme".

All psychologists and evolutionary biologists I know do not reduce people's personalities and actions to the interplay between the environment and our genes. Maybe the psychic self that we've been looking for doesn't exist. Why not adopt a new different definition that is based on functionality rather than substance?

Dino, what you say is true... I don't see where I said otherwise.

Maybe by omission, but that's because I know I lack the relevant knowledge to explain it all properly.

wait wait wait. of COURSE our personalities can be reduced to genetics and environment. Our personalities reside in our brains. The architecture of our brains is the direct result of those two factors. Any "responsibility ethics" would have to reside in our brain and would therefore have to have developed as a result of those two factors. Why we have ethics in the first place is what SK was referring to (I believe). Is it possible that evolution has favoured people who show ethics over those who do not?

But I think we need to move the discussion up a level.

The bottom line is that atheists, if they try to "do good", do so because it makes us feel good about ourselves. We "do the right thing" because it makes us feel happy, proud, or, at the very worst, less self-loathing. We want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning and feel good about who and what we are. We want to feel like we are contributing something positive to the world around us. We don't need a promise of rewards in an afterlife.

Or, perhaps, we do it because we believe that "what goes around comes around".

What goes around comes around is too 'karmic'.

Does doing good make you feel good about yourself?
What about the parent who feels bad when disciplining their child?

Can we equate a completely selfish motivation and altruism?

@ Cameron:

You're gravely mistaken. Maybe you should dig a little deeper into the matter. Any neuroscientist I know wouldn't agree with you. It's just what's written and fabricated in the newspapers and on the telly. Simplifications won't get us anywhere.

@ dekrazee1:

A memetic point of view easily explains why we're acting altruistically. Altruism isn't just a fancy and Christ-friendly tag that you paste on selfish actions.

BTW: I don't assume that you're saying that.

Care to expand on the memetic point of view?

Are you familiar with memetics?

It never made a big dent in the scientific world. Often seemed to be another fancy "internet theory". It is based on Richard Dawkins' theory of genetic selfishness. Genes are selfish, eagerly "waiting" to spread, replicate, multiply. A gene is a replicator. The only thing a gene wants is to be replicated as often as possible - without assuming that genes have a will.

Cultural evolution has outpaced genetic evolution. According to Dawkins, it makes more sense to think of a second replicator that is also copied under the special conditions of variation and selection - a second replicator that goes through Darwinistic evolution. And that's a meme, a unit of information that is imitated. Cultural evolution is rooted in man's capacitiy to imitate.

Would this explain why in many ways history seems to repeat itself?

Perhaps. It explains that genetic and cultural evolution are two completely different, yet intertwined things. I'd like to think of culture as the result of memetic evolution and sexual selection.

Dek - "what goes around" - hasn't your experience been that if you do "the right thing", you get a reputation for being that kind of person and it pays dividends? I think when a parent disciplines a child, even though they might feel bad about it, they know they are doing it for good reasons - to teach the child an important lesson - and the feeling that they are being a responsible parents outweighs the bad feelings about the punishment. At least that's my experience.

Dino - I'm 'gravely mistaken' about what? That personality resides in the brain? That our brain architecture is determined by genetics and conditioning? What else, in your "grave" opinion, could be involved? By the way, I've read a couple of books about memetics, so I'm quite familiar with the topic.

I'm thinking from all of this that the structure of the brain itself is (must be) determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors (some people might be born with a good memory, taxi drivers have been shown to have certain areas of the brain related to navigation and landmark-memory that have enlarged compared to the rest of us)

So this sets you up with the 5 main personality traits NS was talking about, but doesn't fill in the rest of what we'd call a personality - that's shaped by your culture and society, and what ideas there are floating around the place for you to think about, which also shapes your personality.

Cam, I don't necessarily see doing the right thing as giving me good reputation. Sure, people who know me will know the type of person I am and they types of things I'm prone to do.

How do we expand that to random acts of kindness? Or doing the right thing when no one is watching?

@ Cameron - First of all, any theory is absolutely arbitrary. We can only test the effects that applications cause. To be utterly materialistic and praise the 'gene & environment' narrative is as optional and subject to personal taste as an idealist's belief that matter doesn't really exist and that there would be a mental reality only. There are still lots of phenomena and 'hard facts' that a 'gene & environment' narrative cannot explain. Even evolutionary psychologists wouldn't agree that we're slaves to our genes and the circumstances. There's freedom of choice - for better or worse. And freedom of choice presupposes self-referentiality.

@Dino - freedom of choice is unscientific. Conscious actions are by-products of thoughts. Thoughts are by-products of neurons. Neurons operate under the laws of chemistry. And we don't have "freedom of choice" over the laws of chemistry. We have no more "freedom" over our thoughts than we do over dialysis. What are these "hard facts" that cannot be explained by a combination of genetics and environmental conditioning?

@dek - random acts of kindness make you feel good about yourself (I assume)?

@ Cameron - I could only repeat what I have already written. I don't know any psychologist, biologist or sociologist who would agree with your point of view. Maybe you don't know self-control, but that doesn't indicate that no other person could ever experience self-control. Besides, your theory is self-immunising - and that's not very scientific. Just reach out for more information.

One hard fact that might surprise is early agriculture - the beginning of human civilization. You can't explain this very beginning by biological means only. Why did they imitate this technology from each other? Not because it meant health, longevity or more food - quite the opposite! So why did they not abandon agriculture and keep on biologically vegetating? Because something else took hold in man's world. Richard Dawkins argued that it would be a new replicator, the so-called "memes". That's just one explanation.

Cam - re random acts of kindness. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't dwell on it too much.

Is that enough? If it were, wouldn't we all be more kind, generous than we are?

Why did they imitate this technology from each other? Not because it meant health, longevity or more food - quite the opposite!

I don't think I get what you're saying here... agriculture allows more people to be supported from the same amount of land, food supplies are more dependable and easier to "catch" (compared to hunting, killing farmed animals is piss-easy. "Hunting" crops, easier still) and the whole system is geared around producing as much food as you can.

There's some significant downsides to the individual's taking it upon themselves to start farming, but a society with agriculture should have a decent advantage over one without it. Especially when winter rolls around and the farmers have a storehouse full of harvested food.

I may be wrong with all this, maybe I've fallen for a common myth, but if as you say, agriculture were a disadvantage, surely all the farmers would have failed to compete and died out.

Agriculture was a disadvantage from an exclusively biological point of view - your 'genes & environment-only' point of view. And there's no 'black & white', either - they'd either flourish or die out. Most of them died earlier, suffered a lot, had less food. Not everyone died. And that new technology spread and developed.

That sort of 'black/white-gene/environment'-reasoning can't explain the advent of language nor the spread of religious views, fads, pop songs, etc.

I don't see why a genetic argument should seek to explain fads, those are a by-product of our complex intelligence.

You could take that, see how evolution-like rules may apply, and thus have cultural evolution, but to me it seems to be a layer of abstraction above what genetics and environmental arguments look at - genes describe the brains we're born with, then what we do with them is (we assume) up to us, although what we decide on/feel like doing will be influenced to some degree by to the genes/environment that went into the development of the brain.

One other thing, how would memetics explain the idea of agriculture being so wildly successful, if it was such a disadvantage to those that used it?

»I don't see why a genetic argument should seek to explain fads, those are a by-product of our complex intelligence.«

You're the one who's so eagerly defending genetic determinism, not me.

Look at agriculture from a meme's point of view: it is something that can be imitated. Imitation = spread of memes. Now do the math.

I'm only eagerly defending my side in so much as I don't know a lot about your side 

Turns out I actually kinda agree with you and just misunderstood exactly what you were saying.

Thinking about it, both things (genetic evolution/cultural evolution) could be considered to be very similar - the spread of a successful pattern. Genetic evolution affects patterns of DNA that are duplicated and mutated by animals breeding, cultural evolution affects patterns with the human brain (ideas/thoughts/culture) that are duplicated and mutated by people.

The internet being a highly efficient duplicator of ideas and information, hence why there are so many memes floating around it (and why piracy is near-impossible to prevent) 

I still think that the "evolution" of ideas is bound to be affected by the nature of the human brain itself, which is in turn controlled by the genes/environment (thinking about agriculture won't magically change the structure of your brain), and the idea that an apparently disadvantageous strategy could become dominant purely by the fact that people copy each other is still bugging me - it just seems wrong.

Surely a meme that was so deleterious to those who imitated it would die out pretty quickly because people would reject it, and it would negatively affect their chances of surviving to pass on the idea.

In other news, I saw this in my RSS reader and thought you'd like it - Slashdot: "Natural Selection Can Act on Human Culture"

Whether it's memetic evolution or something else - human culture cannot be explained exclusively biologically.

The renowned sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson is quite famous for stating that genes have culture on a leash. Maybe culture deviates from genetic evolution every now and then, but culture would eventually play its subordinate role again. But this reasoning is sluggish: cultural evolution has created new circumstances and selectors that do not only affect cultural evolution, but also genetic evolution. Furthermore, cultural evolution is happening more rapidly than genetic evolution. Why is the human brain way too large? Why do we have languages with grammar, syntax, semantics, etc.? Who could explain fax machines and interactive media biologically? Does reading Nietzsche's writings benefit genes?

I do not agree with Susan Blackmore's conclusions, but she summarized and reassessed many genetic prejudices in her book, "The Meme Machine". Ideas undergo the same procedure: a unit of information is being copied under the special conditions of selection and variation.

Genes and the environment obviously affect our behavior, but there's also something else that cannot be explained in biological terms. And self-referentiality - the capacity to reflect on self-caused effects on different levels of complexity - cannot be ignored.

One first thing, Why is the human brain way too large?  The "we only use 10%" thing is a myth - its like saying we only use 10% of our muscles because we aren't exercising flat out all the time. We may only use small areas at any one time but the whole thing does get used.

I was only saying that genetics is going to have an influence on culture, not that it has it on a leash, or that there's a genetic explanation for any particular idea. The 2 things clearly affect each other. The structure of the brain will cause some ideas to flow easier than others, and ideas are capable of changing the environment in a way that genetic evolution has to react to.

@Dino - just because you "don't know any psychologist, biologist or sociologist who would agree" with my point of view, just means you don't know enough of them. You haven't provided any alternative viewpoint to my argument that personality resides 100% in the brain and is, therefore, caused BY the brain. You just keep repeating that I should "reach out" or "dig a little deeper", which leads me to suspect you may not have any clarity on your own views. If you can make a rational alternative argument, please do.

I had the pleasure last year of meeting the guy who helped demolish the idea of mind-brain dualism back in the 50's - J. J. C. “Jack” Smart, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences at Australian National University. He and his colleagues put a bullet in the head of the idea that our minds were anything other than the brain.

You might also want to explore the work of John Gabrieli, associate professor of psychology at Stanford and Antonio R. Damasio , M.D., Ph.D, USC College  (in fact, you can watch his video here where he discusses the neurobiology of ethics and emotion).

So I think it's clear that there is a LARGE body of research, by very credible scientists, that point to the personality being indistinct from the brain.

@ Cameron: I'm not supporting your genetic determinism, that's all. Somebody's personality and his moral views can't be reduced to the interplay between the environment and his genetic disposition. It's not about seperating the mind from the body. It's just sluggish to ignore self-referentiality.

An Atheist's motivation to "do the right thing" is the same as anyone else's ... survival.  Think about it.  If survival means killing what's trying to kill you, you kill.  If survival means growing food or hunting to feed yourself, you do that.  If survival means not angering the wrong entity, then you don't.  Every living thing on this planet has the same core instinct.  Do whatever it takes to survive.  That's all the motivation there is.  If we're all here under the premise that the Laws of the Universe govern everything, we probably should admit that the basis of any progress anywhere would be survival.  The rest is a bonus.

IMO, the basis for progress is that we are inherently lazy.

IMO, the basis for progress is that we are inherently lazy.

..and hence trying to create labour saving devices for ourselves? Not that it seems to have worked... we're probably doing just as much work now as ever, but different work, like fighting to make computers work or unjamming photocopiers. 

LOL - I suspect you are correct.

The will to survive may be derived from the will to power.

Or the will for power may be derived from the will to survive

Or to maximise your chances of reproducing

Or both

giganat - survival doesn't explain why I would help an old lady carry her groceries, or why we should give our seats up to expecting women

@ Super-King: Nietzsche had lots of strong arguments for my deducting the will to power from the will to survive/live.

Dek, look waaaaay up back at my 3rd post in the topic for an evolutionary basis for doing good things to the people around you.

Dino... sounds like Nietzche is on my side then if he's deducing will for power from will to survive instead of the other way around.

First comes uninhibited creativity as expressed in Nietzsche's will to power, then comes self-preservation - if is helps a will to power to flourish and thrive ..

But that's just speculation, anyway. I'm really into philosophy, but I'm also into empirical research.

SK - That worked in a small community, possible, yes.

What about now?

Either its a little evolutionary leftover (like a vestigial limb) or its because doing good things for others often means they reciprocate.

Generosity is linked to sexual selection. Genetic selection is all about efficiency, whereas memetic selection is based on imitation and sexual selection is best described in terms of excess, exaggeration and profusion. IMHO human culture - as we know it! - is linked to the fruits and results of sexual selection and memetic selection.

Writing pop songs, designing software programs or clothes, painting, doing scientific research - that's not very efficient, that rather seems to be an explicitly non-efficient waste of resources.

Could be the handicap principle in action - like how male peacock's tails are so large and noticeable as to be a disadvantage. The message to the female peacocks is "hey, check out me, I can survive even with this ridiculous tail, I must have some pretty awesome genes"

Or it could just be that we put effort into these things because "hi there, wanna fuck?" isn't the best approach 

I've come to discover a place that is beyond selfishness and altruism. That's why I'd rather reject the self-immunizing theory that everything we do is in favor of one's own pleasure and self-interest. This theory presupposes an individual or a self, and every action could be refered to this true self as the innermost core of one's reality.

The problem with the theory of absolute selfishness is that it's not falsifiable. If you diligently try to find confirming facts for your theory, you will succeed. For every theory you will discover confirming facts. All facts can be explained differently. Therefore it's more important to find facts that falsify your theory. If you can't find any, your theory is still in contention.

OK.  Dek, giving up one's seat is societal.  Mama told you it was the polite thing to do, so you do it.  The question is, how often do you do it because you WANT to?  I never want to, but I do it anyway.

SK -  "hi there, wanna fuck?" - I'm falling out of my chair from laughing so hard!  Maybe we'd all be better off if we stopped over-analyzing the whys and got right down to it?  What the hey ... I'm game!

Dino, we are limited thinking beings with different perspectives.  Your theories may be ridiculous to me and vice versa.  Proving or disproving a theory doesn't necessarily make it any more true.  It's still theory.

The human brain's capacity to make simple things complicated is what continues to astound me.  And I still want to know what "the right thing" really is.  I've done my level best to live by the wiccan creed, "an it harm none, do what thou will" (not proseletyzing, just for explanation sake).  I find it nearly impossible to live life without ever hurting anyone or anything in any way.  Where does one draw the line?

I think we're back to individual definitions, individual motivations based on nature/nurture, and individual judgment.  There's no answer.

Now you can all tell me how simple I am.

I'm thinking the reason "hi there, wanna fuck?" doesn't work is because if it did, anyone could use it - all the selection (via the things that Dino was talking about) would cease to happen. With such selection going on the only way it can work is in an almost double-bluff fashion of demonstrating yourself to be intelligent and/or funny by the fact that you've sliced through all of the rest to the bare bones of "hi there, wanna fuck?".

It seems we make things more complicated because they need to be complicated to ensure that only the individual's who are best at playing that game are successful at it... whether we really want to be selecting those individuals to be the most successful is another matter, but in theory it should be oriented towards pushing the fittest to the top (again, definitions of fitness may vary).

Dino, I'd be interested to hear an explanation of our motives that transcends self-interest, seems to me that the interests of ourselves and those we care about (plus some extra values or impulses either taught to or nurtured into us by the people around us) are the main drivers and motivations. I don't think this makes us absolutely selfish - it leaves plenty of room for us to care about other things than ourselves, but in the absence of such things then self interest would rise to the top.

Dino, I'm still waiting for you to explain what else comes into play in personality which cannot be explained by brain chemistry which is a matter of genetics and conditioning. Self-reference happens in the brain. To suggest there is something else, you should state what that something else is.

I'd like to think of it as a so-called memeplexe: a network of mutually dependent memes that runs on differently complex levels of self-reference. You can't dissect this (Popperian) emergent structure without destroying it.

And any meme requires brains to operate within, like a virus needs a host (but the meme, without a brain, literally can not exist for any time at all). It seems to me that brains, and the chemistry that runs them, cannot be separated from all thoughts, ideas, actions.

It would seem that way.

I've just finished watching a documentary on sensory deprivation. A 48 hour period of no stimulation very seriously affected the test subjects' brain activity.

Rather amazing actually.

I wonder how I'd do in sensory deprivation... sure I could get some good thinking done, but by god it'd be boring after a couple of hours.

I'd probably just try and sleep through it as much as possible 

You know, even the subjects who tried to sleep thru it didn't do very well.

There was this one lady who looked like she slept thru it, and her mental abilities were affected at the end too. And there was a guy who was excited at the occasion, saying that he could meditate thru it. Similar outcome to the rest.

That was the scary thing. How fast, severe and across the board the effects were

Well, we're evolved and built to handle a constant stream of information through the senses, large amounts of resources go into deciphering the slew of data, flagging what's important, filtering out what's not, occasionally making things up to fill in gaps, generally working the information flood to extract meaning and patterns from it.

Cut that off.. and the brain won't be a happy bunny.

Dek, do you have more info on the documentary ... name, link or something?  I'd like to see it.

Sure, I'll look it up

It's called Total Isolation, and whaddya know, it's on YouTube!

(You can click thru to see the rest of the parts on YT)

This was an interesting, and slightly related, article about the biological part in moral decisions:

Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices

So, back to the question.  What is an atheists motivation to do the right thing?

Well it doesn't seem to be through fear of going against the rules and guide-lines that were issued by someone who has read a book which contains the rules written by someone who they think was given the instructions by a superior being.

Perhaps atheists are atheists because they have the ability to work things out for themselves?

It's rather difficult to answer this question. It reminds me of opposing atheists to religionists without taking notice of the many differences among the adherents and supporters of the same religious belief and ideology. They're not the Borg, we're not the Borg. So I wouldn't say that atheists are atheists because we'd allegedly have the ability to work things out for ourselves - because it's a breathtaking generalization of atheists and religionists alike.

My answer to the question may, as you say, be a generalisation but the question makes a general assuption that a God gives a religious person a list of things that are good, they do them and then God gives you nice things.  On the basis that there might be one or more reasons for an atheist to have the inclination to do the equivalent good things demanded by a religion, why can't an atheist be of the mind to do things simply because they don't need a God to be told what is good.  This is not to say that following a religion makes anyone reliant on something to overcome some sort of stupidity or that being an atheist makes anyone clever.

I ommited my answer for motivation in the previous post so here it is.  This is the hardest to determin. The atheist probably won't go to heaven but there again you don't (apparently) go there until you are dead.  So the motivation could be based on some kind of reward from society (they get to make friends for example) or they might see it as some way that they will have some sort of memorial after death.

I might not be right but it's a simple way of looking at it and in my experience the simple answer is the one which is best.

That, and the even simpler fact that doing good things for other people can very often be its on reward (and sometimes you get some actual reward as well! ) even if being a do-gooder doesn't fill you with the warm and fuzzies, doing the wrong thing makes you feel bad, so you'd at least be basically moral.

Some people don't experience this, and it enables them to be bastards without remorse... but religion probably wouldn't have much effect on that mindset either. I guess another exception would be people in situations where ethics takes a back seat to survival, which I think can be justified. Obviously you should be as moral as you can afford to be, but sometimes a decision that would otherwise not be "the right thing" becomes the only option.

I think empathy and 'doing good' should go hand in hand.

It reduces the need for a reward system. Also, once you approach things from an emphatic point, it just becomes easier to do the right thing.

I suppose it might depend on your lifestyle whether you look for empathy or reward.  If you are constantly "on the go" (or in a mood/phase to be so) you may be more inclined to looking for a reward whereas if you are more inclined to a sluggish lifestyle (or in a mood/phase to be so) then empathy may well be sufficient.

In my experience, empathy makes it more compelling. Especially if there's another human involved. It's harder to ignore an action when you can put yourself in the affected person's shoes.

A reward is something one might look forward to, but also something one can decide to do without. Doesn't have that much of a hold I don't think.

If we want to seriously discuss this issue, we all have to aknowledge the fact that the homo oeconomicus is a myth. I'm writing this because I have the impression that a few participants repeatedly rely on selfishness and rational choice as the 'kernel' of people's motivation to do the right thing. People are far more altruistic than one might guess. We are tribal animals and we want to be part of a community - whether it's an imagined community or a social network that really exists.

On the other hand, we could easily continue where we left off. Religion is a fact. It shaped our culture. And our sense of justice is definitely affected by our upbringing and the culture that we were born into. Instead of subtracting religious influence in order to discover man's true nature, we're embedded in social constructs that shape our sense of justice and our very own approach towards issues such as ethics and morals.

Bearing this in mind, we could continue our discussion with a less metaphysically inclined attitude? Now we can see that atheists - much like anyone else - develop their own set of morals in accordance with a 'supreme idea' that probably is or ought to be shared among other members of the same tribe.

Thanks to Nietzsche, I think that different codes of morals could be expressions of one's physical health and will to conquer (or be conquered, for that matter).

Every book or document I've ever read relating to my own professional interest gets read for it's relevance to what I'm interested in reading the book or document for.  Even if someone is documenting the final and absolute proof they've discovered about something or the best answers to complex questions and stuff, I'm rather inclined to think that I can possibly use that document to actually do something different.  It's probably easier to do that sort of thing with science and technology but I suppose if you combine chemical, physical, biological and phsycological stuff you pretty much end up with the same amorphous pot which is really saying "not quite proven but on balance it's maybe likely to be this...".

By the way, I have never read a word of Nietzshe, Freud or others of the same ilk.

(is freud of the same ilk as Nietchze? - don't answer that! let me stay ignorant...)

A related article to the discussion we had earlier in this topic: Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them

@ dekrazee: If we take such events out of context, we can't understand them.

I wouldn't be surprised that they see brain activity before the action happens, there's always some lag between deciding to do something and actually doing it. 7 seconds before they became aware of the decision though.. that just means there's more to the decision making process than the conscious mind.

Like the guy said at the end of the article, the brain is the physical basis of your mind, a decision arising from it's pathways is your decision, as you would want to make it.

Of course the alternative view of it is that we're all slaves to the deterministically decided movements of chemicals and electricity in the brain, that all our decisions could, if given perfect information about the initial state of the universe and the rules governing it since then, all be predicted.

But how could we ever know the difference? If on hearing that they lack free will people decide to commit suicide from the pointlessness of it all.. then they weren't really deciding - they were predestined to do that. If they did have a real choice then free will exists after all (and its rather unfortunate that they were so easily driven to suicide). You can't argue that you were predestined as a legal defence - the judge would be just as much predestined to sentence you.

Since there's little to no subjective difference between the 2 alternatives the question becomes meaningless, who gives a crap if it changes nothing? We'll just carry on as we are either way.

Those discoveries were conducted under laboratory conditions and do not include a person's biography, habits, learning experience and decisions up to that point. So it is quite shortsighted to contend that we always act before making conscious decisions.

Even Libet himself dismissed such deterministic misinterpretations of his discoveries.

Hang on.... I don't think anyone is jumping to that conclusion....

From the New Scientist:

Although we make some choices in a heartbeat, Haynes thinks his experiment captures the dawdling tempo of daily life.

"In most cases, we decide internally in a self-paced way: 'Now I want to get some orange juice' or 'I'm going to get some apple juice instead','" he says

Our brains might pick beverages long before we realise, but Haynes thinks such decisions are still a matter of choice. "My conscious will is consistent with my unconscious will – it's the same process," he says.

Given the complex nature of the brain and how little we understand about it, I think it's too reductionist to say this is how we make a decision, or this determines that.... This is but a little window into the process

I get the impression that Super-King actually sees it that way.

Materialism is nothing but a model of reality and not reality itself. Materialism is only a theory that can't be proven. The same applies to idealism.

I'd like to describe reality in monist terms: There are several modes of only one substance, so there's no essential difference between material and mental - without giving neither the preference.

Its actually pretty hard to come up with an explanation for the world that takes into account the unpredictability we would expect if we had a truly free will do as we wish... straight determinism is no good, and introducing quantum randomness doesn't help (that would just mean our decision is determined by a quantum event, not by ourselves. Plus, if things were decided by random quantum events we'd find ourselves doing things we wouldn't choose to at the behest of quantum stuff.

More important I think is that we act in the way we would choose to, whether or not that choice is actually determined by chemicals/electricity in the brain or whatever other deterministic explanation you can come up with. Given that our brain's paths and patterns are what produces our mind, I don't think that making a decision based on the arrangement of the brain is an issue - it's what we would decide because of how our brain is wired.

Our biography, habits, learning experience and previous decisions will all be represented in the brain in one way or another, they'd have an effect even on decisions where they aren't really relevant, hence why you wouldn't choose left (or right) every time - the previous choice of left/right has an effect, and you may not choose to do the same thing every time... choose being something of a loaded word in this discussion, but in any case, the brain is changed by every decision or indecision or moment of awareness, if you could restore a person's brain to precisely the state it was in a minute ago then maybe you could make someone choose left every time...

It's very simple.

Thoughts are properties of the brain.

The brain is made up of chemicals.

The brain operates according to the laws of chemistry.

Therefore, thoughts obey the laws of chemistry.

The generally accepted definition of free will is the ability to think and act outside of the laws of causality ie the laws of chemistry.

So, unless you can explain how you usurp the laws of chemistry, you have to accept that your thoughts are 100% subject to causality and therefore are not "free".

Free will is a silly concept. It has never been true, never could have been true, and never will be true.

(I found this strangely analogous to the initial subject: Why Superman Will Always Suck)

Cam, I might have a different definition of free will than you. The 'act outside of laws of causality' bit confuses me. What exactly does that mean?

I see it as the ability to think critically as well as creatively. If the brain can think up a single original thought, that's a measure of free will. If, when faced with the same choices, it isn't guaranteed that the brain will pick the same way all the time, that's free will.

Does that have merit or does my brain need some new chemicals?

Being presented with the same choices fairly obviously doesn't always produce the same decision, because the brain itself has changed in the time between decisions, and the conditions/circumstances could also have changed.

I think by defying causality he means making a decision that wasn't dictated by the chemistry in our heads, instead for it to be made by the mind.. which demonstrates a bit of a brain/mind dualism I think, actually maybe not (considering the fact that he doesn't think we have free will).

Dek, that isn't a definition of free will. Here's what Wikipedia says:

"The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

The big question is - are we in control over our thoughts and actions? Or are we just acting spontaneously according to our (chemical) programming?

The answer is obviously the latter, but the vast majority of people don't seem to be able to accept that as a matter of fact.

They cling to this notion of being in control, when it is obviously false.

The amazing thing is that once you have let go of the notion of free will, life is much, much better. Less anxiety, less fear, less guilt, less worry. You go with the flow.

Why is the answer obviously the latter Cam?

If you want to do A, but stop yourself and do B instead, isn't that an element of controlling an action?

Isn't more of a mix of both than one or the other?

The answer is NOT the latter, Cam. It is NOT the doctrine. Maybe in the newspapers, but not at universities and colleges. Since I'm a scientist myself and friends with neurobiologists, psychologists and physicians, I know that your utterly deterministic dismissal of one's free will is not in accordance with scientific discoveries. Determinism is NOT a scientific theory. Free will as an unconditioned act of will is NOT the only definition that's out there. Free will also indicates freedom of action: I can choose what to do and I would have always had the possibility to act otherwise.

But this is a major problem that's similar to discussing evolutionary issues with die-hard Christians: conversational partners who cling to their holy truth and dismiss everything else.

If I had to determin what free will actually is I would probably choose something along the lines of what Dino says.  However I would qualify that by saying that having established that someone has spontainously decided that they are going to do something (whether freely or not) the thing that they've decided to do is actually determined by something (eg. knowledge of what's on the menu of things to do).  The possibility to act otherwise is again determined by the persons knowledge of the things that are available to be done.

Okay folks, answer these simple questions for me.

Question #1. Are thoughts properties of the brain?

I didn't know that anything was simple.  If it was someone like me would have all the answers.  People study for years on end and move in circles of academics and scientists whose powers of thought and reason should astound anyone.  The trouble is with all that highbrow stuff is that it can easily become another bucket of nonsense simply because one of the great unwashed has tripped over one or two things that no-one has noticed.  I have studied electronics, mathematics and computer science and practiced it for years.  Everything is supposed to be logical and in some way have some sort of order.  Not so, I am continually amazed by the sparks of innovative ideas and thoughts that come from people who have studied nothing more than the spots that surround their navel...

Thanks for the Arthur, but I think my question was simple enough.

Are thoughts properties of the brain?

To make it easier, I created a flowchart. http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/04/18/my-free-will-flowchart/

testing testing.. is this working?

Nice work with the flowchart Cam

'Can our thoughts and actions be considered free if bound by the laws of chemistry' - that I don't agree with

You're bound by the laws of gravity. Do you not consider yourself free?

If you disagree with that point, answer it's negative.

I don't consider myself free to disobey gravity...

I can't answer the negative cos the question is wrong. Your 'free' and my 'free' aren't the same thing. Having room to move within 'the laws of chemistry' is free will to me. Sure, our thoughts are results of synapses and neurons firing off etc, but we still have the ability to process those.

As I've said before, it's not all or nothing

I could point out that the brain's processes aren't purely chemical, but it would be a tad futile given that electricity is governed by physics.

It doesn't matter.... let the brain be governed by any and all laws. So what?

It isn't a linear process that ends with the creation of the thought. So the thought is the end point. It continues from there. All I'm saying is that the process is way more complicated than that flowchart's endpoint

I think his point is that there is no wiggle room in the laws of science.

Starting conditions A produce conditions B after an amount of time C

The same thing happens when you mix 2 given chemicals, every time the same (barring some variation which could be explained by differences on the particle level if you had that level of information)

And I'm saying you can't reduce it to that. The same reaction happens when you mix two chemicals under the same conditions, but that isn't the end point. What you DO with the result can vary each time.

Nevertheless, if the brain has a purely physical basis (and isn't inhabited by a soul that transcends the world as we know it) then it follows that it is governed by the same physical laws as its constituent materials. Hence for any given brain under given conditions (certain input of electricity from sensory neurons, a certain subtle blend of chemicals sloshing about) you could in theory work out what will be produced as output.

Although of course in practice it isn't possible because of the immense complexity involved.

Explain to me how you could "do something different" with the output of your brain other than your muscles and organs responding appropriately and carrying out whatever action that output implies.

(Once again) The assumption there is that the output is the only thing that matters. That is it the end point. It isn't.

Then what is? Where else does it go?

Explain what step in the process I am ignoring

...and preferably fairly soon, its so late here that its early 

or leave it a few hours and I'll catch up after sleeping

It feeds back into the loop. Things don't end with the creation of one thought. it leads to an action, to more thoughts, interactions.

If it were that linear, we'd all be stuck with the same outputs all the time

But, back to my previous point - we live with laws of the nation we are physically in - are we not free?

Assuming you obey the law, then certain "freedoms" are curtailed. You aren't free to kill another person, or free to take whatever you like from whoever you want. A law is almost always a restriction - either telling you that you cannot do something or that you must do something (and hence can't do the opposite)

I give you that. But you didn't answer the question

On the other point, yes the output creates new input, but bending it back into a loop doesn't escape the part where it's all under the control of physical processes within the brain.

We don't do the same thing every time we're faced with the same choice because on a lower level, the initial conditions are different - the brain is altered slightly by every moment of time that passes and every experience you have, and even when you do the same thing on 2 separate occasions the circumstances will be slightly different.

Are you a free person living within the set of judicial laws?

Where the law makes no proscription it is assumed that you're free to do whatever else comes to mind.

Unfortunately the laws of nature tend to be a bit more all-encompassing than the laws of society, so its really not that good of a comparison.

For any set of initial conditions, there will be one path followed on the atomic/molecular level. No loopholes, no choices, just a progression from A to B

In a brain its more complex, so it becomes A to B to C to D then back to C then to E then F then maybe back to A again, but ultimately all prodded along by the same hard-edged physical laws.

Dek, I think you're missing the point that "what you do" with the output is, itself, a thought and, as such, is governed by the same set of physical laws.

And King, I'd argue that when chemicals are producing an electrical charge, the field of study is still chemistry, not physics.

Ultimately it's all some kind of particle jiggling about. I'm not quibbling over chemistry vs physics.

Thinking about it, if you really want to reduce things down, chemistry is a subset of physics that handles interactions between atoms and molecules.

(as opposed to physics operating either on the macro level of objects from ball bearings to black holes or the extreme micro level of quantum mechanics)

...yeah, I know, there's overlap between the 2... but that's my point 

And Cam, I'm saying that we all have freedom to move within those set of laws.

I don't believe in the traditional (religious?) notion of free will, but your flowchart seems a tad too reductionist

Dek, it's deliberately reductionist because I think the problem is actually quite simple. If you disagree with any of my premises, explain how it's incorrect. You said you don't agree that our thoughts are bound by the laws of chemistry. If our thoughts occur in the brain, and the brain is made up of chemicals, can you explain how our thoughts subvert the laws of chemistry / physics that govern the operation of the brain?

No, I didn't say thoughts aren't bound by laws. I said we have room to move within those laws. Just like we have the ability to move within the laws of gravity.

but you DONT have room to move within the laws of gravity!!! whatever gives you that idea?? Have you found yourself floating recently???

Did you walk today?

yes I walked and my ability to do that was completely governed by the laws of gravity. If I'd FLOWN today (without a plane), then you could suggest I'd broken the laws of gravity.

seriously, is it that hard to see that your thoughts are governed by the laws of chemistry and are, therefore, not "free" but actually completely governed by cause and effect?

No... I'm not saying you break the laws of gravity.

I'm saying that there exists a system of laws, and within that you move freely

So back to the original statement - 'Can our thoughts and actions be considered free if bound by the laws of chemistry'

THAT is what I'm disagreeing with

and I dont see how you can disagree with that statement unless you demonstrate how our thoughts can be bound up in causality and still free from causality

because that's what "free will" is all about - can we think and act outside of causality

because if we can't, then our thoughts and actions are completely determined by prior events

and we are not 'free'

I'd say our thoughts and actions are influenced by prior events, but not determined.

How would we explain new thoughts (inventiveness, creativeness) via determinism?

well let's take part 1 of you last post.

Sure, fire away!

if not "determined', then, again, you have to demonstrate how your brain subverts the laws of chemistry. Because a chain of chemical events are 100% determined by prior events. There is NO wiggle room. Chemicals can't just decide to interact however they want!

as for part 2 of your post

Wrt to part one: I can't answer that. I don't know much about the science of it

why cant inventiveness, creativeness all stem from chemical reactions? How did life arise on Earth? Free will? Or spontaneous chemical reactions? How does evolution happen?

So you're saying that thoughts are an evolution too?

mmmm..... Yeah, I can see that

It seem Einstein, one of the most creative minds of the 20th century, didn't believe in free will. He said: In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place.

That fits with how I've approached it thus far (personally). That we're in a system, and we interact, produce and reproduce in the system and by it.

Lemme go think abt it somemore and see if I can reconcile the last question in your flowchart

ok thanks for playing

hahahahaha

Tis always fun.

One element that seems to be overlooked in this recent debate (Cam/Dek/SK) is the external influences.  While it is unlikely that any external influence (to the physical and chemical properties of the brain) can change what are understood to be the laws under which physical and chemical stuff works, it is entirely concievable that the rates or combinations at which they would occur in total isolation (and hence the expected result) would be different if an external influence is applied.  SK talked about a "Soul" but dismissed it.  While it is probaly ok to dismiss the presence of a Soul it is not possible to eradicate an external influence.  For example, electro-magnetic energy, magnetic fields or plain old gravity (which Dek mentioned).  I'm not sure about the biological science (not my bag) or the phsycology bits (not my bag either) but I am told that a milli-volt or two or a couple of Hertz makes a difference in the old grey matter.

PS.  Sorry Cam, couldn't read your flow-chart.  By the time I'd blown it up to a size that my old eyes can see it was all blurred...

Arthur, you are, of course, correct that external influences affect how we think, they affect us by changing the chemical composition in our brains. Every time you see something, hear something, read something, your brain's chemical composition alters. If you snort some coke, drink a bottle of wine or watch an action movie, you brain's chemical composition alters. These things all change the way your brain is wired, in effect, change who you are, temporarily or longer term. You learn, adapt, evolve. But the thoughts your brain has, after these external influences have had their way with you, remain a chemical chain of events.  Did you click on the flowchart and open it up properly? It blows up pretty big.

Electromagnetism and/or gravity would just be another part of the deterministic side. When and if they come into effect, it doesn't make your will any more free - you have no control over how electromagnetism affects your brain and electromagnetism operates as per the laws of science. So to take it into account is only a case of expanding the scope of what's considered in the theoretical brain-predictor.

And that's the way it might appear to be.  Your body processes something and does something as a result of a chemical reaction going as expected or slightly adrift.  Free will appears to be only as free as circumstances allow it to be.  However, let's put all this into a context.  Does the exact reason for what happens, or doesn't happen, make the slightest bit of difference to the way most of us live our lives and justify (or enjoy) what we've done?  I think not...

Arthur - would you care to expand on your last statement?

To deny free will and eagerly defend genetic determinism is not a very scientific attitude. A scientific theory is potentially falsifiable. Determinism is not a scientific theory. It is self-immunizing (in terms of research). Neither fate nor chance can be tested empirically.

Genetic determinism? No-one mentioned genetics as the reason for it all. Genetics will contribute to the extent that they control the make-up of the brain but they're by no means the be all and end all of the matter.

I think the burden of proof could also be placed on the shoulders of those who claim free will - which is the more "extraordinary" claim, that all things, the human brain included, obey the deterministic laws of nature, or that we're endowed with the ability to break those laws and act contrary to what they would predict?

I agree its a bit of a weakness, but is free will falsifiable? All the determinist need claim is that the laws of science hold true in all circumstances, and they are after all formulated with that intent (to describe all physical events)

It is also true that despite all this I will go away and continue to act exactly as if I had free will - contemplating choices, feeling as if I make decisions. But simultaneously acknowledging that it could all very well be predestined by the interactions of chemicals in my head, which in due course produce impulses and further chemistry that produce thoughts and actions.

Arthur - would you care to expand on your last statement?

Why does it need expanding...?

Does the exact reason for what happens, or doesn't happen, make the slightest bit of difference to the way most of us live our lives and justify (or enjoy) what we've done?

I can't imagine how it wouldn't make a difference. Was wondering why you say that

@ Super-King: Maybe you should consider other notions of free will than yours. We could've acted differently and we can decide to act differently in the future. And so we will.

Ah, I think I see what you mean.  Re-phrase.

Does the exact reason for the mechanisims which cause what happens in our heads, or doesn't cause to happen, make the slightest bit of difference to the way most of us live our lives and justify (or enjoy) what we've done? 

Or put in a simpler way.  Shit happens then you die.  Meanwhile someone does heaps of work trying to work out why the shit happens, why you live and why you die.  And then we debate it.  Even to the point where there are suggestions, proofs, theorems, theories which confound established facts.

For example.  Someone said that the way people do things (those who do not refer to a greater being for guidance) is probably not due to life experience, events etc.  Imagine some poor person sat in a train doing 100mph and there is another train approching on the same track at 100mph.  If they can't see the train approching, or nothing tells them the train is approching they would probably die while reading their book (hopefully a entertaining novel, no-one would want to die reading about Java Scripting or Freud).  If they saw the train approaching, it is likely that they would have seen something somewhere in their past that tells them they are not exactly in the safest place on earth.  The consequence is that they would run to the back of the train or try and jump off.  Clearly proving that your actions are influenced by your life experience, watching TV or whatever.

I think some deductive steps could figure out that 2 trains hurtling towards each other is probably a situation to avoid if at all possible. Although it would require a little prior experience to know that trains are large and heavy and aren't supposed to be hurtling towards each other.

@ Super-King: Maybe you should consider other notions of free will than yours. We could've acted differently and we can decide to act differently in the future. And so we will.

But could you really have acted differently? Assuming the exact same initial state of things I would say that the situation will unfold in the same way every time. The reason you can act differently in the future is because the situation will be slightly different, you will have changed since the first time, and so you act in a different way.

As I've said, doing different things when presented with similar circumstances on 2 separate occasions doesn't indicate free will... if that's not what you meant then sorry for misrepresenting you 

I'm just saying that there is scope left. In almost every situation we can act differently and use our learning experience to cause further experiences that are either favorable or not. Please dig deep into Peirce (for tychism) and Whitehead (for causa finalis).

Had a brief poke into Tychism, I don't think the existence of random chance particularly creates free will. It makes things unpredictable, and would mean you could decide different things even under perfectly identical circumstances, so if it could be demonstrated/proven it would be an effective counter to that part of what I said above... but I still don't see the emergence of free will - all that changes is that with chance in the equation, your decision is decided by a combination of the natural laws and a random element.

I think I said somewhere around the point where I entered the argument that I don't think the probabilistic nature of quantum physics can defend free will because your choices are still determined by something other than yourself, I think the same applies here.

I couldn't find anything useful-looking online about Causa Finalis, can you point something out or explain it to me?

I don't think the probabilistic nature of quantum physics can defend free will because your choices are still determined by something other than yourself

That's interesting.... the mind/body split is evident in that.

I wonder how the argument changes if we took that away?

Well since I think your choices are determined by something other than you (chemical/physical processes of the brain and the world), the mind becomes an interesting side effect of the body, not really a separate entity.

The mind is part of the body. How can we split it up?

Dino says "In almost every situation we can act differently and use our learning experience to cause further experiences that are either favorable or not."

But the point SK and I are trying to make is that we agree completely. We can learn. We adapt. Our brains alter with each experience, and that re-wiring of our neurons changes our subsequent behaviour. All we are saying is that this process of learning, the re-wiring, and the subsequent changes to our behaviour all have to be governed by chemistry. Dino can claims we are unscientific all he likes, but until he puts forward a theory as to how our "will" can work outside of the laws of chemistry, I think he's the one being unscientific. Dino says "A scientific theory is potentially falsifiable.". And I agree. Here's my theory:

"Thoughts are properties of the brain. The brain operates by chemistry and electricity and therefore obeys the laws of chemistry and electricity. Thoughts (and, by inference, "free will") therefore are wholly subject to the laws of chemistry and electricity."

I believe this theory is falsifiable. Where's DINO's alternative theory?