Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[GeorgCantor]

But you don't really want a definition, you want spiritual mumbo jumbo.

You don't consider mind, awareness and free will mumbo jumbo, do you?

And this is likely because I'm sure you can define 'spiritual' unambiguously. Its only likely, because it suits your fancy.

The point was that your 'physical' proposition is in exactly the same boat - unprovable and currently undefinable to the extend of what we experience.

Actually, the more we know about consciousness in general, the more we know about 'freewill', and we are learning more every day.

Oh come on, if we have free will, how would you ever hope to explain it within a deterministic, reductionist point of view?

Asking questions endlessly is what psychiatrists do, not philosophers... but, then again, you might benefit from the former, since you seem to have reality issues.

Actually, most of the issues in this subforum are unanswerable. It's about posing the question and approaching it from multiple directions so that the participants could form a better opinion(FOR THEMSELVES). That precludes making statements like "free will requires determinism" because:

1. You don't know what free will is(you evaded a dozen times the question what free will is and only addressed what free will is not, according to your theory)

2. There is no such thing as weak(soft) free will.

since you seem to have reality issues

You also have a reality issue, you are just more stubborn on your reality issue. Unless you have evidence that shows how to restore the classical realism of the senses, your issue is also there, you are simply not looking at it(or afraid to do so). There are basically 2 set of rules - quantum and classical. And since matter can be put to behave quantumly(i.e. cross the classical boundery of localized objects in time and space) and behave according to the other set of rules, what is it about the classical domain that makes you think it depicts Truths? Your own naivety?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Well its certainly not unambiguous spirituality, but no illusion necessary.

Spirituality is not about measurable quantities. No magic necessary.

 

[GeorgCantor]

You keep coming at things from a wrong, or at least not useful, perspective.

Yes, we would widely agree that we cannot know the truth of reality in some direct, unmediated, sense. But then what. Do we spend the rest of time shaking our heads sadly, saying we just don't know anything? Or instead get on with modelling reality as best we can discover?

I consider free will to be one of the fundamental ingredients of reality. Free will being the starting point for our investigations, we have to define where the answers are coming from - from deterministic internal processes(no free will) or from emergent behavior. I consider the former an attempt to nullify all the knowledge we have about reality, hence my issue with that approach.

I would take you more seriously on our lack of practical understanding of freewill, self-awareness and other aspects of mind if you could demonstrate some particular familiarity of the many ways in which we do in fact have a good understanding of things.

If you knew what we do know, then you might be able to speak more accurately about what we don't yet know.

Could you cite some reference(s) on what you think you know about free will(preferrably research that doesn't conlcude that free will is an illusion)?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Well no. I asked you to unambiguously define what 'physical' is because it's impossible to define.

Something that can be measured and maintains an identity.

Does a molecule put in a coherent state maintain 'identity'?

 

[JoeDawg]

You don't consider mind, awareness and free will mumbo jumbo, do you?

No, I consider them to be interesting philosophical questions.

Spirituality is not an answer. Its a nonsense cop out.

The point was that your 'physical' proposition is in exactly the same boat - unprovable and currently undefinable to the extend of what we experience.

There is a difference between something being unproved, and something being complete nonsense. When we throw reason out the door, as one must, with magical concepts like spirituality, then its not about proof or lack thereof, its about empty rhetoric and appeals to emotion.

Oh come on, if we have free will, how would you ever hope to explain it within a deterministic, reductionist point of view?

I don't think I ever mentioned reductionism. Feel free to point out where I did this.

Causation is an observable phenomena. The fact we don't entirely understand it doesn't mean we should disregard it in favour of magic. That is just anti-rational rhetoric.

That precludes making statements like "free will requires determinism"

Well it does, sorry for your luck.

You can't make a choice, if what results from your action is random. The choice you make must cause the effect you intend, or there is no choice... there is just random event after random event. And people make choices based on their experience, their history.

No amount of appeals to supernatural magic will change that.

Unless you have evidence that shows how to restore the classical realism of the senses, your issue is also there, you are simply not looking at it.

And your solution is that quantum mechanics is spiritual? LOL. Good luck with that.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Causation is an observable phenomena. The fact we don't entirely understand it doesn't mean we should disregard it in favour of magic. That is just anti-rational rhetoric.

'Magic' is actually more sound than "we don't have free will" because of determinism. Free will is as much magic as is anything else that we don't understand.

You can't make a choice, if what results from your action is random.

This isn't about the randomness-determinism dichotomy. It's about a new emergent entity all together, that if it exists, isn't bound to the laws of physics as we know them.

The choice you make must cause the effect you intend, or there is no choice... there is just random event after random event. And people make choices based on their experience, their history.

Funny that you think what you just posted was the result of internal processes over which you have no control. Then this thread is done. There is no good and bad, all events will take place because there is no separate identity("I") that could interfere.

No amount of appeals to supernatural magic will change that.

If magic is defined as that which is unknown, then almost everything is magic.

And your solution is that quantum mechanics is spiritual? LOL. Good luck with that.

I said that existence is more likely spiritual, now you say i implied qm is spiritual. There is just one conclusion to be drawn from this line of "reasoning" - that existence equals quantum mechanics. If i could borrow your own rhetoric - "LOL. Good luck with that".

 

[GeorgCantor]

The whole "freewill-awareness-mind" confusion is likely to go the route of spacetime - i.e. the physical brain being not a fundamental concept of reality, but emerging from more basic rules and principles. If we can find a "background-independent" approach to mind, then we may(hope to) find the whole truth about existence and the phenomenal reality of experience, that would include the mysterious and elusive "I". Of course, neither the background independent approach towards a working GUT is near, and less so the emerging 'physical' brain(though in an emergent spacetime, every object, incl. the physical brain, would be emerging from the fundamental dynamics of some X,Y,Z entities, or from a master equation of the Mandelbrot set sort, from the mind of God, etc.).

 

[apeiron]

Could you cite some reference(s) on what you think you know about free will(preferrably research that doesn't conlcude that free will is an illusion)?

Sure.

http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_JCS%20freewill%20article.html

 

[GeorgCantor]

Sure.

http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_JCS%20freewill%20article.html

I took the time to read the whole article but can't find the gist of the argument. The author seems to be confused(which should be the norm and shows he understands the nature of the phenomenon). For instance:

"In its strange way, human choice is indeed determined - it is socially determined because the cognitive and even emotional framework within which we make our choices is culturally evolved and inserted into us via social learning (Harré and Gillett, 1994). And yet this social script demands that we feel autonomous and so have some capacity to rebel."

Nothing about the "social script" demands that we feel autonomous. This is a bare assetion that has no counterpart in Nature. Moreso, if human choice is determined in a bifold way by the chemical reactions in the brain and the social interactions, then there is no place for free will. The author doesn't address this issue and simply ignores it.



A few sentences below, you find the following(which sounds more like prose):

"Finally, in a broader sense, culture does actually free us from the 'locked into the moment' minds of an animal. The social world into which we are born provides us with a highly polished machinery of language and the thought habits that words and grammatical structure enable. We become equipped to take a step back from the pressing flow of the moment and pursue the private traffic of images and plans that make us thinking, self-aware, individuals. And while it may be a fact that we use our mental independence from the moment mostly to apply a social filter to our actions, we are still undetermined - free to consider options - in a way that animals are not."

Here the author somehow concludes(contrary to what was stated above) that our actions are undetermined(which i agree with) but I fail to see the "explanation" or how his paper is supposed to ellucidate the topic of free will. There doesn't appear to be an argument and this is hardly surprising. For those who seek a description of the phenomenon, this paper will probably come in handy.

 

[Galteeth]

At some point in moral systems, we have to start with a priori assumptions. A common one is that one's own desire to exist and desire not to die (and not to have certain others die) should be recognized in others on the basis that others have the same preferences and those should be respected if we wish others to respect ours. There is no absolute "truth" to this in the objective sense, but utilization of such axiom based moral systems is mutually beneficial.

 

[poor mystic]

Why is violence bad?
We need to look after one another 'round here. It's dangerous, and without one another, we're ******.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is violence bad?
We need to look after one another 'round here. It's dangerous, and without one another, we're ******.

Ok, this thread isn't about mere platitudes.

The question is not a practical one (what does it mean to our day-to-day); it is an academic one (what does it mean in principle).

 

[CRGreathouse]

The question is not a practical one (what does it mean to our day-to-day); it is an academic one (what does it mean in principle).

Yes, that. I'm curious about how to extend commonly-accepted standards to unusual situations. If there was a sapient nonhuman species, how should humans treat them? If psychics were efficacious, what privacy implications are there? etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why is violence bad?
We need to look after one another 'round here. It's dangerous, and without one another, we're ******.

But why? One basic principle here seems to be some kind of altruism or expectation of reciprocity, but I can't quite tease it out.

 

[apeiron]

Nothing about the "social script" demands that we feel autonomous. This is a bare assetion that has no counterpart in Nature. Moreso, if human choice is determined in a bifold way by the chemical reactions in the brain and the social interactions, then there is no place for free will. The author doesn't address this issue and simply ignores it.

How do you define freewill? What essential aspect is there to it that this article fails to address?

 

[GeorgCantor]

How do you define freewill? What essential aspect is there to it that this article fails to address?

I define it as in the duality brain-mind. The mind is the emergent entity that is also the self-aware "I" that supervenes on the brain and has free will. It is also the entity that dreams, thinks and seeks meaning. It's sad we can't capture this emergent 'entity' that appears to be the essence of all reality. It's clear to me, self-awareness will never be reduced to interactions of electrochemical processes in the brain. Free will and the self-awareness of matter are totally mind-bending in and of themselves. I have deep conceptual problems reconciling the materialistic/reductionistic paradigm with those 2 phenomena, so i don't expect progress unless we move past the current paradigm that is also a distorted view of how the world is.

"I think therefore i am" is a correct statement and courts of law correctly assume you have free will when they charge you for wrong doing(hence the answer to the OP). You can think of free will as a god-like ability, the ability to be free to a certain extent from the laws of physics as we know them. Free will is the defining characteristic of the entity that writes this post and seeks to spread ideas and meaning. You don't believe you are deterministic electric current flowing around synapses, do you?

 

[apeiron]

You can think of free will as a god-like ability, the ability to be free to a certain extent from the laws of physics as we know them. Free will is the defining characteristic of the entity that writes this post and seeks to spread ideas and meaning.

OK, so you define freewill as unphysical and above the laws of physics. That would indeed make it very hard for us to talk about a physically natural explanation .

But what warrants such a belief (when a physically natural explanation appears to account for all that we actually observe)?

Remind me of the ways exactly that we are free from the laws of physics as we know them. Be specific, and provide references if you can.

You don't believe you are deterministic electric current flowing around synapses, do you?

Nor a result of random QM or chaotic processes. I've said clearly enough that random~determinism is the kind of physical dichotomy that makes sense in modelling micro-physics, but not complex systems. Here the modern literature would talk about autonomy, intentionality, and other kinds of constructs.

Random~determined is simply irrelevant as "emergence" produces new properties at higher, more complex, levels of physical organisation.

You may dispute this. But first you have to show you understand it.

 

[GeorgCantor]

OK, so you define freewill as unphysical and above the laws of physics. That would indeed make it very hard for us to talk about a physically natural explanation .

But what warrants such a belief (when a physically natural explanation appears to account for all that we actually observe)?

No physical explanation is able to account for self-awareness and free will.

Remind me of the ways exactly that we are free from the laws of physics as we know them. Be specific, and provide references if you can.

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



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


"Strong emergence says that if systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts"

Nor a result of random QM or chaotic processes. I've said clearly enough that random~determinism is the kind of physical dichotomy that makes sense in modelling micro-physics, but not complex systems. Here the modern literature would talk about autonomy, intentionality, and other kinds of constructs.

Random~determined is simply irrelevant as "emergence" produces new properties at higher, more complex, levels of physical organisation.

You may dispute this. But first you have to show you understand it.

Yes, 'emergence' is the word. It seems we are in agreement. Free will exists and since it's an emergent property, it's not directly reduceable to the sum of its parts. What the laws of physics as we know them say, does not hold for strong emergent behavior.

 

[apeiron]

Yes, 'emergence' is the word. It seems we are in agreement. Free will exists and since it's an emergent property, it's not directly reduceable to the sum of its parts. What the laws of physics as we know them say, does not hold for strong emergent behavior.

I put emergence in quotes for a reason. The bottom-up view of emergence is one approach - the reductionist. My approach is based on systems literature and is about the interaction of the top-down (constraints) and the bottom-up (construction). This is the most natural way to talk about the brain and other examples of complex adaptive systems.

So we both agree reductionism is inadequate. But you are not addressing something different, the systems approach, where people talk about different qualitative concepts such as autonomy.

 

[JoeDawg]

'Magic' is actually more sound than "we don't have free will" because of determinism. Free will is as much magic as is anything else that we don't understand.

OK, the original issue was whether or not freewill *could be* compatible with determinism, there is a major philosophical branch that believes it can be, and is. The fact you disagree with it is irrelevant. And the fact you rely on spirituality as a defense tells me you don't care about accuracy, only using the facts to support your ideology.

It's about a new emergent entity all together, that if it exists, isn't bound to the laws of physics as we know them.

Emergence, while interesting, is also much abused. Regardless, just because it isn't bound by physical laws as we currently understand them, doesn't mean its supernatural. If emergent phenomena exist, I see no reason they couldn't be described by physical laws. In fact, they would have to be if the universe is at all consistent. That doesn't equal reductionism, by the way.

Funny that you think what you just posted was the result of internal processes over which you have no control.

When did I say that, in fact, I am in complete control. The internal processes ARE ME.

If magic is defined as that which is unknown, then almost everything is magic.

Not sure why anyone would define magic that way... but whatever.

I said that existence is more likely spiritual, now you say i implied qm is spiritual.

No, you said freewill was spiritual because we don't understand it, and most physicists would agree we don't understand QM... therefore it must be spiritual too.

All you are doing is inserting 'spiritual' into anything you don't understand.

 

[GeorgCantor]

OK, the original issue was whether or not freewill *could be* compatible with determinism, there is a major philosophical branch that believes it can be, and is. The fact you disagree with it is irrelevant. And the fact you rely on spirituality as a defense tells me you don't care about accuracy, only using the facts to support your ideology.

That "philosophical branch"(if it exists) needs to provide logial arguments for the compatibility of freewill and determinism. So far you have not presented anything that points to freewill. What you have presented after a dozen requests by me to stop saying what free is not, only leads to an illusion of free will(i.e. no free will).

Emergence, while interesting, is also much abused. Regardless, just because it isn't bound by physical laws as we currently understand them, doesn't mean its supernatural.

'Supernatural' is also very often abused by you. What do you mean by it and what do you mean by 'natural'? And then explain how you know what is natural and what is supernatural and how much of that 'knowledge' is based purely on belief? 1%, 50% or exactly 100.00%?

BTW i never implied freewill was 'supernatural', i never use that word as i don't understand what it's supposed to mean in the first place.

When did I say that, in fact, I am in complete control. The internal processes ARE ME.

And how do you know the internal processes are YOU? Through YOUR self-awareness. So you're saying the internal processes are themselseves and they know they are they. Sorry but this is very dumb. Tell your internal processes to get a clue.

No, you said freewill was spiritual because we don't understand it, and most physicists would agree we don't understand QM... therefore it must be spiritual too.

I said NO such thing. I said we don't understand what 'physical' is, hence freewill and ALL of reality might actually be spiritual. I don't know what both spiritual and what physical are and neither do you or anybody else on the planet for that matter.

All you are doing is inserting 'spiritual' into anything you don't understand.

You don't understand anything but a small set of causal relations in a small subset of reality that looks deterministic under specific conditions and seems to take place in space and time only under certain circulmstances. You have no idea what freewill, space, matter, time and self-awareness are and how they relate to each other. In fact, you'd be completely insane to think you understand something all that much about reality from your fragmented and contradictory knowledge of it. The implied 'understanding' in your post above is actually a very deep misunderstanding on your part. And misunderstanding is exactly the opposite of understanding. Wouldn't it have been much easier for everyone who reads this thread if you acknowledged upfront that you don't know what you are talking about wrt freewill(as i would have done on this and the other fundamental concepts - space, matter, time, self-awareness, etc.), instead of presenting a non-viable model with such certainty as in "free will requires determinism!"?

 

[GeorgCantor]

I put emergence in quotes for a reason. The bottom-up view of emergence is one approach - the reductionist. My approach is based on systems literature and is about the interaction of the top-down (constraints) and the bottom-up (construction). This is the most natural way to talk about the brain and other examples of complex adaptive systems.

So we both agree reductionism is inadequate. But you are not addressing something different, the systems approach, where people talk about different qualitative concepts such as autonomy.

Sounds to me like there is a reason why that approach needs to be constantly defined as systems "science". Otherwise, everything I've seen about it so far doesn't point to a 'science' but to a vague philosophy about emergence, that claims emergence is more or less explained, whereas no such explanation has been presented.

 

[Mkorr]

Many people only think that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, but support things like self-defense. The alleged justification for this comes from the concept of self-ownership and property rights. They are, in some sense, two sides of the same coin. If you do not own item X, someone taking it from you is not stealing anything.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Many people only think that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, but support things like self-defense. The alleged justification for this comes from the concept of self-ownership and property rights. They are, in some sense, two sides of the same coin. If you do not own item X, someone taking it from you is not stealing anything.

That's why a number of people posting on this thread, myself included, have challenged the basis on which the question "Why is violence bad?" is posed. You can't answer the question "why" something is bad if it isn't necessarily bad. That is, violence can be justified in certain circumstances, or you could just say it's a feature of nature.

So a lot of energy is going into defining "bad" here. In terms of moral philosophy, the idea of willful wrongdoing is important, and that entails the "free will" argument. I think the question should be restated to avoid this thread from wandering. (Of course, a number of people seem to like wandering threads in this forum).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anything that humans deem negative to themselves or anybody is considered "bad" =) so there you have it.

I don't want someone calling me nasty names, but that doesn't mean that their ability to speak freely should be curtailed.

My application (not discussed here!) is to consider a particular legal and socially acceptable action which has negative effects on others. If I adopted your principle I would say that it should be forbidden, but it's not clear that it should be (in light, e.g., of my example of free speech). I'm trying to collect ethical principles that may be relevant without biasing people by discussing its particular nature.

 

[CRGreathouse]

We apply things like the Golden Rule to decide why we think we shouldn't inflict it upon the do-ee, but that's not to be taken for granted. Thus the reason for this thread.

Precisely!

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's why a number of people posting on this thread, myself included, have challenged the basis on which the question "Why is violence bad?" is posed.

Yes, because no one believed me when I wrote "Not a trick question". I'm not looking at the special cases but the broad general principles. There's a general principle that violence (as originally defined here: "nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain", essentially intentional harm-causing) is impermissible, and there are exceptions where it *might* be allowed. Self-defense is sometimes allowable, depending on the circumstances and proportionality of the response; military action is sometimes allowable, depending on how and why it's declared and subject to restrictions on the action of those involved, etc.

I'm not asking for those corner cases, like when harm can be prevented only by inflicting lesser harm first. I'm asking about the basic underlying principle that stops me from taking my neighbor's car, stealing from the grocery store, beating up people whose music annoys me, or shooting someone who argues with me. These principles are fairly well-accepted -- not many people seriously argue that it would be OK for me to machine-gun down strangers just for the heck of it, or to steal their valuables, etc. If I walked up to a random house, smashed the window, and proceeded to take things from it there would be few people who would say that this is a moral action. Could it ever be moral? Perhaps, but I'm not talking about those cases.

 

[jreelawg]

violence is bad, because is harmful, or hurtful. No one can argue that being harmed is a good thing. Now if you divide the spectrum, and ask from the stance of the victim, as well as the victimizer. You may find that in some cases the victimizer may feel that the harm inflicted was a benefit.

Often, the victimizer however will in some way or another bring harm to themselves by committing the act of violence against another. For example, you may lose the respect, and trust of others who know what happened. You may turn people against yourself, you may invite a counter attack, or fuel the hatred of others against yourself.

As well as the external implications of your actions, there may be internal implications. In breaking the trust between yourself and others, and in self centering your justifications and your motives, you might iscolate yourself in a way.

Deep down inside, you will know your not trustworthy, or truly worthy of being loved. I think this will eat away at a person from within.

-

 

[SW VandeCarr]

=CRGreathouse;2774180
I'm not asking for those corner cases, like when harm can be prevented only by inflicting lesser harm first. I'm asking about the basic underlying principle that stops me from taking my neighbor's car, stealing from the grocery store, beating up people whose music annoys me, or shooting someone who argues with me.

Do you want to go deeper than I did in post 55? I referenced the general principles that were set forth in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Assuming a functioning democracy carries out the will of the people, these concepts, and the laws based on them, would seem to come into play because they reflect some basic and widely held views on the ways humans should behave.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Often, the victimizer however will in some way or another bring harm to themselves by committing the act of violence against another. For example, you may lose the respect, and trust of others who know what happened. You may turn people against yourself, you may invite a counter attack, or fuel the hatred of others against yourself.

As well as the external implications of your actions, there may be internal implications. In breaking the trust between yourself and others, and in self centering your justifications and your motives, you might iscolate yourself in a way.

Deep down inside, you will know your not trustworthy, or truly worthy of being loved. I think this will eat away at a person from within.

-

Your argument is based on the idea that the "victimizer" will suffer consequences, including social isolation and loss of self esteem. But hardened criminals are largely immune from these consequences, although they may fear the sanctions of the law. A criminal culture has its own rules. Whole cultures of violence have existed in the past such as the Vikings. They had no trouble dehumanizing their victims and acting accordingly.