Yes, well, that’s great when human consciousness is not deterministic, but since you’ve made a point out of assering a deterministic frame, our goals are exactly what the universe “wants” us to have. I realize you want it both ways, but I don’t think you can have your cake after you’ve eaten it like this.
But what difference does it make? Whether the universe is deterministic or not, it will always appear that we have “free will” and such.
And it doesn’t do much good to assume non-determinism if you’re concerned about human dignity anyway. Then we still have the same goals that the universe “wants” us to have, chosen randomly from a list of possibilities. Is that any better?
I hesitate to ask how this follows, but I’m asking: how the hell does this follow?
What, do you suppose, would it take to answer such a question?
Perhaps it would help if we rephrased things slightly:
Instead of asking what we should do, without specifying what we should do (which leads to horrible problems and terrible headaches for me), let’s use a different phasing.
Morality is our understanding of the right way to live.
If we choose a path that results in our dying, isn’t that by definition not the correct way to live?
In a way, my claim is somewhat similar to Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas. There are several differences: he claims the universe has a goal or endstate towards which it is proceeding purposefully, I claim that universe is without purpose and generates purposes from its actions. He claims the final state of the universe is God; note that he’s not making a definition of the term “God”, but asserting that the universe will proceed towards a specific entity that he’s pre-defined. I have no idea what the “final state” will be, but it will be the ultimately incarnation of morality; I don’t directly make claims about what that morality is.
Emotions are evolutionary memories, prejudices that we’re born with because they were successful at being passed down. It doesn’t necessarily follow that obeying your emotions or impulses is the best way to survive. Reference gom jabbar.
** Non-determinism: certain events have genuinely random outcomes. That doesn’t make us any more free than we were before: there’s no rhyme or reason for why those events turn out any particular way. And we’re still bound by the determinstic events.
There’s also the very real possibility that the universe is the sum of all possibilities, in which case the non-determinism of the universe is what makes it deterministic. It would be like imaging every possible ordering of a deck of playing cards: there’s one in which the cards have been placed sequentially. Or like viewing a sculpture made up of flat planes, suspended at seemingly random angles, that form a coherent image when viewed from a particular angle. Except that it would be the superposition of all such sculptures.
I don’t think it can be. Human “choice” is just as much an illusion one way as the other. The problem is that people want to believe that their decisions are controlled by an underlying mechanism while they’re simultaneously NOT controlled by any mechanism. They can’t perceive how their own minds work (necessarily), and so they insist that they’re not the result of causal processes, yet they also claim their actions are consistent and meaningful.
Only if… [drummroll]… you’ve defined “good” as “not dead”, then yes, you are right.
Funny thing is? It isn’t obviously necessary to define it as such.
This is false, still. I know you would absolutely love to twist it around, but evolution only determines what isn’t fit. Traits that don’t cause death do not necessarily cause life; witness the appendix.
It would if existing as such is the definition of ‘good’ like you’ve been saying. So, hey, how’s that cake?
I’m sorry, I thought we were using standard philosophical conceptions of non-determinism which do not consider the opposite of “everything is predetermined” to be “stuff is random”.
And this false dichotomy of “meaningful” versus “uncaused” is supposed to be obvious to me… how, exactly?
Is this anything like you insisting there is an absolute standard even though you don’t know it? Ah, of course not, because you have true truth that evolution defines goodness, while the rest of us are stuck with untrue falseness.
And, actually, determinism is just that everything has a cause; fatalism is that everything is predetermined. Sorry.
Okay, who are you and what did you do with the TVAA who had been posting to this thread?
- How could I see it as “wrong” if I’m dead?
- To whom would I ascribe the “wrong” action? What “wrong” choice was made?
- If the meteor has no desires how can it hold something to be “wrong”? If it cannot hold something to be wrong how can it be said to have a moral system? If I can be said to have a moral system but a meteor cannot what is the underlying difference between us? Or is it only mud puddles that you cannot distinguish from people?
- If a thing is possible, the universe approves of it? If a thing happens, the universe approves of it?
- Doesn’t claiming that the universe “approves” of something smack of teleology?
- Your answer admits that there are many possible moral perspectives on one event none of which appear to be privileged. How do you square this with a rejection of relativism as defined by erislover?
I’m not actually all that familiar with information theory. I was just trying to define my terms clearly. If you feel my definition is both clear and useful, how do you respond to the conclusions I draw from it?
Well, thank you for your generosity in accepting the premise of my thought experiment. But you’ve missed the point. I suppose I made an unfounded assumption in taking for granted that you would think killing someone you love is “wrong”. My point was to highlight a paradox in which a violation of someone’s established moral system could lead to “success” (as you’ve defined it) for that moral system. Stated like that, do you have a reply? Or are you of the mind that one cannot violate one’s moral system, only modify it? In which case, how can it be said to be a guide for behavior? Or do you reject morality being a guide, since all of our actions are predetermined and “morality” is simply a state that our brains have come to?
Right. And what everyone else here has been saying is that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce moral things, it produces things that are good at remaining present in the universe. Why couldn’t all your arguments be reproduced with the word “happy” instead of “good”?
Do none of you listen to classic Reggae?
Not just “happy”, but true happiness. 
** Not “only if”. Isn’t it clear that the right way to live doesn’t involve dying? How can dying be part of proper living when death is defined as not being alive?
** It caused life. It doesn’t seem to be necessary now, which is why it’s fading.
** But that IS the opposite of “everything is predetermined”, and vice versa. Either everything is predetermined, or there is at least one thing that isn’t.
If people’s choices aren’t attributable to anything, there’s no way that anything can be considered responsible for it.
Hello… the universe exists. Thus its functioning happens without our understanding what the its nature is.
Let me ask a question for TVAA, just to possibly help clarify things a bit (hey – it could happen):
Let’s say you have a population of moths living in, say England before the industrial revolution. These moths are generally white, although on a rare occasion a random mutation causes a moth to be born with dark spots, or even entirely dark. These moths live in peace in harmony, and avoid airborn predators by blending in seemlessly with the white trees that exist in their environment.
Now, let’s say that along comes the industrial revolution and pumps tons of coal dust into the air to such a degree that all the previously white trees are now black. As a result, these poor moths start getting eaten by birds at an unprecedented rate. Except, of course for the moths with dark spots who are able to blend in with the now black trees and avoid getting eaten.
As a result, within a few generations there are no more black moths, and the entire species has evolved to become a new color. Previously, the random mutations were contrary to survival (since black moths could be seen easily against white trees), but as the environment changed the principles of evolution allowed the moths to successfully adapt to that evironment, and being a black moth is now a “good” thing (assuming you think it’s good to have a large moth population).
My question for TVAA is what does the fact that the species has survived as a result of random mutation say about the moth’s system of morals? If the species has adapted and survived according to the laws of evolution, this must be the result of having a good moral system, right? After all, morality doesn’t just apply to humans, does it? What choices did the moths make to allow them to survive?
Barry
** I’m still here. I’ve always been here.
You could see it as wrong as a hypothetical. Clearly it would be difficult for you to hold an opinion when you’re dead.
The universe produced an outcome you find undesirable. Obviously you’d blame the universe. You would of course be wrong to do so, but that’s life. (And death.)
** Your emotions are just the result of your brain operating according to the laws of physics. The meteor follows its nature, as do you. The whole point of this thread is that morality is more than human opinion.
The only difference between you and the puddle is that your substance is in a different configuration.
** Metaphorically, yes. It’s what came next.
** No, just metaphor. You try discussing unintelligent processes without using it.
** Privileged system: one moment came as a consequence of the preceding one. That’s all there is.
Are you suggesting that your opinion about whether you should be hit with a meteor can be compared with the principles of physics themselves?
What conclusion is that, again?
** I do not currently believe that murder would be the proper response to the basic scenario, but your presentation of it stated the outcome as a given.
You can never violate the system that controls how you behave. If you take an action, you’ve selected it. You can take an action that you reject later. Perhaps in the absence of a particular emotion, you view the choice differently. You may not consciously “like” the choice before or after you make it, but that’s not the point.
Everything that everyone does seems like a good idea at the time. That’s why the phrase is a cliche. When the decision is made, it’s the result that is given by the configuration of the person’s mind at that particular time by definition.
** Now you’re discussing human ideas about what the module making decisions should do. That can be and is a “guide”, but it’s not the module itself.
** My point is that morality WILL BE understood to mean “things that are good at remaining present in the universe”. Evidence demonstrates that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce happiness.
Let’s assume that your scenario would actually work out as you said it would. From one perspective, would it be “wrong” to reject the offer? Perhaps not – but the component of that person which lead to that decision might not have survived, while the selfish jerk who carried out the murder would have been duplicated and amplified throughout the universe. That component, which perceived the murder as the “right” thing to do, has now eliminated the competing opinions. It is now, necessarily, “good”.
I personally hope I don’t live in such a universe. But my hopes have nothing to do with whether or not I do.
We’re now looking at the moths as fiduciary observers, yes?
One group of moths had a property that camoflaged them, and the others didn’t. Then circumstances changed so that the first group was disadvantaged and the second benefitted. The properties are what matter.
The moths don’t make choices. The system in question had certain properties, and it changes according to certain principles, and they produce a certain outcome. That’s all there is.
Human beings are not separated from the rest of the universe. They have thoughts and opinions and beliefs, but these are just properties of their neurology. It’s just a different system, and it develops according to the same principles. The system accepts input, so, and produces output, so. That’s all there is.
It was morally correct that the white moths survived in the first part of the scenario, and morally correct that they be eaten in the second. But it doesn’t matter what the moths thought about things. We’re not talking about the moth’s morality, we’re talking about the universe’s.
Now, if the moths held beliefs about white supremacy, and killed all moths who deviated from their own genetic “perfection”, all the moths would probably have died when conditions changed. Then we could discuss the morality of their strategy, since you seem set in your conception of morality as associated with consciousness.
Yes, well, evidence also demonstrates that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce things that are good at remaining present in the universe either. Was the Dodo produced by evolution? How about the Passenger Pigeon? There are plenty of species which “evolved” to their current state, only to go extinct.
On what basis can you claim that the “purpose” of evolution is survival? Just because some species survive longer because of how they evolved doesn’t mean that other species haven’t failed because of how they evolved. You are the one who has arbitrarily decided that the purpose of evolution is survival. Perhaps the “purpose” of evolution is, say, mererly to provide as much variety as possible.
Barry
Actually, the dodo is an excellent example of the dangers of paradise.
Mauritius appeared to be a perfect environment: no predators, plenty of food, no competition. In the absence of selection pressures which maintained them, many of the dodo’s traits atrophied: it seems to have lost its fear response, it lost its nesting instincts (and supposedly left its eggs where they fell), and so forth. Between the energy saved by terminating metabolically expensive traits and genetic randomization not countered by selection, the dodo devolved. The same thing is happening to the koala, by the way.
When the environment changed radically, with the introduction of predators such as rats and dogs, the dodos had lost the ability to adapt to anything other than the extremely simple and safe existence it, as a species, had become accustomed to.
For someone so concerned with survival I’d think it would be clear that a sacrifice of the individual so the rest may prosper could (not necessarily would) be a valid judgment. I mentioned earlier that your survival criterion was not so clear cut, because the question “My survival or everyone’s or only these people’s survival” were all variously at odds with each other, but still using the “survive = good” criterion. If the fact is that there is a proper way to be, then this criterion fails. If the fact is that this is a privileged methodology, then this criterion fails and in fact will create dilemmas between people valuing different survivals. In short: it fails to eliminate relativism.
Again, this is not necessarily the case. Mutations that do not kill the organism will perpetuate. This never has and never will mean that mutations that do not kill the organism will make the organism survive “better”.
Another mechanism for selection involves enabling procreation in an easier form. However, this can obviously be a species’s downfall if it outgrows the food supply.
From talkorigins
Note it never says, nor can it be deduced from the passage, that all mutations that perpetuate are either beneficial to reproductive success or (exclusive) directly harmful. Should we return to the square root of two? 
Actually, in this case, a more illustrative example would be the cube root of two.
Yes, of course, that is a simple application of the law of the excluded middle. However, “isn’t predetermined” still does not necessarily indicate “is random”, which was my problem. This is a false dichotomy. For further reading on the matter, I suggest reading up on incompatibilist theories of free will.
Obviously. When I read this I see, “If people’s choices aren’t causal in origin then you can’t create a causal chain to explain them” which is trivial. The interesting question would be: why has TVAA ruled out all non-causal activity?
Yes, but only TVAA has claimed a unique and intimate understanding of how the universe works. While most of us indeed assume it exists in a definite and (at least partially) knowable way, that has not cleared the way for single, unique theories of epistemology, morality, aesthetics, will, and etc.
** Of the person deciding, yes.
Whether a particular choice would result in a particular outcome is not dependent on the person’s opinion.
** What?
The reality is the absolute. The proper way to be is that which leads to survival. Instead of sticking to a human perspective, you’re going to have to step outside.
** It might. It depends.
Depends on what? On the forces that affect the organism.
If such a thing happened, then it wouldn’t be an improvement, would it?
** Of course harmful mutations tend not to propagate. I presume that’s what you meant?
Without selection, the genome “spreads”. Mutation and recombination will slowly broaden the species’ extent in genome-space. It’s easier to eliminate traits than generate them, so the random shifting of the genotype will gradually erode the organisms’ traits. Selection is what maintains those traits – without it, information degrades.
With too much selection, the genome “constricts”. Selection will slowly eliminate all diversity and difference, focusing the species’ extent in genome-space. The eventual result will be a species that is in perfect equilibrium with its environment, but is unable to adapt to even a minor change. When the environment inevitably changes, the species will probably be destroyed. If it survives at all, it will probably take dozens of generations to regain its genetic diversity: harmless mutations that might one day prove adaptive.
** “Pre”-determined may be the wrong way to speak of it. Causality is causality: the universe proceeds from one state to another in a specific manner. Any moment in time implies all the others that came before and after. Something that isn’t derivable from earlier moments is by definition truly random.
“Determined” does not mean forseen by a cosmic intelligence. A god does not need to know the future for things to be determined, because they’re determined by the workings of the universe. I suggest you find and play with an Applet of the Game of Life to gain an intuitive grasp of this concept.
** We can simply imagine a probablity tree: the Tree of Worlds. It contains all possible pasts and possible futures. The tree itself is static. All the previous arguments apply.
If “aesthetic”, for example, is merely that which induces a particular state in the human brain, then anything can be aesthetic. It’s only necessary to create a link between that which detects and condition and that which produces the state.
What’s important is that most such linkages do not seem to be viable. There are standards that judge whether the link is compatible with existence or not. These are not standards that exist in the human mind; they are parts of universal law.
The passenger pigeon is another fascinating study.
It lived in flocks so huge that they literally blocked out the sun. Millions would travel in groups, carpeting the skies. Their numbers were why people foolishly assumed they couldn’t become extinct.
From what scientists can gather, their breeding instincts had come to depend on being in large groups. (It’s an obvious progression: first, such a social animal must necessarily have instincts and responses that permit it to breed in large groups, and as time goes on it will accumulate traits that depend on that state for activation. When it reaches equilibrium with the forces it generates, it will inevitably take the conditions it creates for granted.) The minimum population for successful breeding was quite high.
Hunting diminished the numbers below that minimum population, and the population crashed. Didn’t you people ever take elementary differential equations in college? Population dynamics are a standard example.
Not at all. I meant exactly what I said. There are more mutations than “beneficial” and “lethal”. Anything which doesn’t kill will be passed on.
Human beings with varying moral standards that all exist are much more pertinent.
Who’s survival? Mine? Mine and those I like? Everyone’s? Why is this answer conspicuously absent? I have my ideas but in this case time may very well tell.
Of course. My point wasn’t that death is really good.
Except for your conception of morality which is quite static, of course, and seemingly uncaused (I hope you take that as lightly as I meant it, but I do mean it.)
I hope you don’t think I suggested that was your position. If you do, please let me assure you I do not harbor that conception.
Good luck with that. Again, whether you have faith that such a thing is factual does not change epistemic limitations which create plural systems that are not able to be concurrently evaluated.
Actually I took it in high school. Growth and decay curves are part and parcel of trivial diffy-qs. I’m not sure what you think this illustrates about morality per se. I understand where you want to get to, but it is like the old cartoon, “A miracle occurs” and I’m telling you you might want to develop that step a bit more.