Yeah, lost me in the first half.

The absence of emotion does not equal the presence of reason or vice versa.

They didn't really say anything lmao. It's almost literally gobbledygook still meant as reddit rationalcel cope

>If reason is at least partially driven as a neurological function, then it would follow that an emotional brain would need to intentionally suppress that aspect of consciousness to “think clearly.”

What, why? I don't follow

>I agree that we should use words how they are used in daily life and not redefine them.

That's my main argument. Most people have compatibilist intuitions in respect to free will. Most professional philosophers are outright compatibilists. Moral, court and justice systems are all based on compatibilist free will.

So yes, we should use the definition of what most people/society really mean by the word free will.

>[https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all)

The only people redefining free will are the ones using libertarian free will, and incompatibilists.

I call bullshit. They are opposites.

RIP Ayn Rand and Objectivists everywhere. 🤡

>Then, as I kept trying to explain more, I realized I don’t even think ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ really make sense in a deterministic/random universe.

I use the word voluntary since it's also used by incompatibilists like Sam Harris.

So Harris gives the example of deliberately shaking your hand as a voluntary action and your hand shaking as a result of Parkinson's as an involuntary action.

In theory we could do brain scans to differentiate the kinds of actions which are voluntary and involuntary.

So lets just use the words as defined by medical science.

I assume you agree there is a manful different between someone hitting you on purpose vs having an epileptic fit. That difference is what people normally mean by voluntary and involuntary actions.

>My point was that free will means you could have acted differently given the same exact set of circumstances, genetics, environment, so on,

Libertarian free will would mean that, but I'm talking about compatibilist free which doesn't doesn't.

>I’m not sure what the conventional use of the term ‘free will’ has to do with metaphysics. See the conventional use of “begging the question” for why lay use of philosophy jargon is not always helpful.

My point is that most lay people have compatibilist intuitions, most professional philosophers are outright compatibilists, pretty much all moral, court and justice systems are based on compatibilist free will.

>Most professional philosophers are compatibilists https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all

Why on the earth would someone use some metaphysical definition of free will, "libertarian free will", which is only really used by some amateur philosophers? It has zero relevance to what most people actually mean by the term, and has zero relevance or impact on the world in which we live.

I want to talk about the definition of free will which most people really mean, the term used by most professional philosophers, the the definition used by moral systems, court and justice systems around the world. I want to use the definition which is relevant to the world in which we live.

So if you want to talk about metaphysics which has zero relevance to the world in which we live, then you should make it clear. Because when people say that free will doesn't exist it confuses lay people. When you confuse people then it leads to people being more racist, immoral, etc.

​

>These three studies suggest that endorsement of the belief in free will can lead to decreased ethnic/racial prejudice compared to denial of the belief in free will. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091572#s1>
>
>For example, weakening free will belief led participants to behave less morally and responsibly (Baumeister et al., 2009; Protzko et al., 2016; Vohs & Schooler, 2008)
>
>From https://www.ethicalpsychology.com/search?q=free+will
>
>these results provide a potential explanation for the strength and prevalence of belief in free will: It is functional for holding others morally responsible and facilitates justifiably punishing harmful members of society. https://www.academia.edu/15691341/Free_to_punish_A_motivated_account_of_free_will_belief?utm_content=buffercd36e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
>
>From https://www.ethicalpsychology.com/search?q=free+will
>
>A study suggests that when people are encouraged to believe their behavior is predetermined — by genes or by environment — they may be more likely to cheat. The report, in the January issue of Psychological Science, describes two studies by Kathleen D. Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan W. Schooler of the University of British Columbia.
>
>From https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/health/19beha.html?scp=5&sq=psychology%20jonathan%20schooler&st=cse

If emotions and reason are deeply connected, then maybe we should stop placing so much on the promise of objective rationality, especially since the concept of reason itself isn't entirely objective in the first place.

[removed]

I wonder why you said scientific understanding isn’t possible if there is a random if statement.

Science already tries to uncover those of statements as causality, isn’t it? If there is an if statement, that would be under the chain of causality since it always applies.

This is exactly Schopenhauer’s position on free will.

I don't think it's fair to say there's really an overarching strategy here, certainly not between the people placing abortion clinics & the pro-life crisis centers. Different goals.

Abortion clinics are "strategically" placed where there are large concentrations of people who need their services including sexual health care, contraception, education, and yes also abortion.

Who needs this discounted health care? That means poor people.

Who needs abortions? That means unwanted, out of wedlock pregnancies. Which also means poor people

That means an urban environment.

And urban poor happen to be black.

Seems more like a discussion on terminology.

This is what most philosophical debates usually boil down to, especially if heated

You need induction to make up concepts by giving them definitions: raven has features x. Deduction is the surface level comprehension: ”that is a raven because it has features x” when a data base has been established and concepts agrees upon.

But on the cartesian level you need water proof deduction to go forward and begin inference.

But induction can just make conceptions, observations and data bases of the observable objects whether they exist outside some alleged virtual reality for example. It is after all the reality where at least i’m personally forced to live in.

well, what does your body want? sugars? then it's chocolate. is your fear of losing health a bit high due to news you have heard? maybe that fear is stronger than your need for sugar. then it's carrots. meybe you can eve feel your inner fight, because the 2 desires are almost identical. but the stronger prevails in the end

We could be in a simulation. Ur inner gut feelings that have steered u away from making a different course of action and if u had stuck with ur plan u wos have been dead. Couldn't ur self intuition or ur instincts could be considered actions programed in to u or u are being controlled by a different higher being that created this simulation and the voice and feeling of danger ahead let me take a different path could be our minds and actions being controlled or influenced by some program that's running off a specific specialized state of events and actions that have been programed or is it that we are a random beta version and.no laid out definitive guide to be followed is being used and it's all just luck or again we are being controlled by someone else outside our matrix

I suggest reading how Emotions are made by Lisa Feldman Barrett and either Scattered minds (scattered in the US) or the myth of normal by Gabor Mate for illuminating discussions on the interplay between emotion and reason, as well as the nature of perception and the origin of individuals' behaviour.

Edit... Er... Addendum: Dr Mate concludes that Emotion and Reason are not only extremely compatible but also inextricable. Though the compatibility does not always lend itself to a logical or pleasant outcome. It's well documented that emotion precedes most any thought (my source for this is Behave by Dr. Sapolsky), and that the post-hoc rationalization that immediately follows an emotional reaction is often mistaken for intuition. What's excellent about this is that with awareness and mindfulness you can, over time, help guide how your emotions develop given certain contexts, thereby altering your innate, automatic reactions. For example: us-ing and them-ing; structurally induced racial bias resulting in outward aggression to perceived "outgroups" being entirely alterable with work and self- and societal awareness.

Man, I love the brain. It can be so frustrating to be a human with a brain but it's just so cool.

I’ve pretty much always suspected determinism is more likely, but Sam Harris’s book on free will was fairly convincing for me.

All I can see is you have a cultivated mind. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

lol, thanks mate.

Any schedule for when the new world order gets us eradicated?

I think objective reality would rely on deduction, not induction.

I perhaps agree though that objective reality as perfect reasoning cannot exist.

What does logic ultimately evidence? Induction is not really possible, only as a sociological study of existing judgments. There was no such a promise of objective reasoning in the first place.

If reason is at least partially driven as a neurological function, then it would follow that an emotional brain would need to intentionally suppress that aspect of consciousness to “think clearly.”

However, humans have pre- and post-reasoning actions like anticipating and reflecting, too: if humans are emotionally responding to an argument before AND after an argument in which reason is applied, then we haven’t really separated reason from emotion yet.

The only way to mitigate this is to remove all emotion from the conversation, during as well as before and after. I find this rather disturbing as an absolute, because emotions have potential to be good drivers of instinct and direction of values. If I were a surgeon who felt nervous putting a patient on an operating table, the emotion of fear is quite valid in the reasoning to operate vs. using alternative means of treatment.

Great thoughts and discussion to be had.

As someone with anger issues, this makes sense. Ive learned that my rationale often conforms to my current feeling. I often feel different about situations after the fact when I'm calm

Seems more like a discussion on terminology.

Good reasoning leans away from emotion toward logic. Objective rationality is when all reasonable opinions are the same because of the lack of emotion employed.