A hard determinist would say you can't know what your actual motivation is. It's lost in a sea of determining factors that brought you to the point of doing what you have decided will help. You can't know exactly which factor(s) brought you to that decision. What is good about what you do when you contribute is your conscious intention to do good, but you can't be sure where that intention springs from and I'm not sure you can take credit for it. No doubt your conscious motivations are pure, but there are unknown motivations you are unaware of. I admit it is a difficult concept to understand.Well, a hard determinist would say I can't take credit for anything at all. And I wasn't necessarily trying to say that I can take credit for it. But it sounds to me like you were putting forward a claim that I've made a mistake about what my "true" motivation is, and I'm just wondering, how could you know. I mean, do you think that generally people have pretty good insight into what their motivation is, or do you think that's not the case?
I believe Lois is quite correct. While we all “know” that we know what our motivations are, most in-depth psychological testing seems to show that much of our behavior is driven by unconscious motivations/desires/drives of which we are completely unaware. Of course, you may be an extremely rare person, Rupert, who has no unsconscious drives so knowe exactly what motivates his actions, but it pretty unlikely that you are so different from almost all of us.
I agree that it’s annoying for me or anyone to think that I’m not completely in conscious control of my behavior, but that seems to be the case.
Oh, and I have about 27 units of lower and upper division psychology courses. I pretty quickly realized that taking them was a good way of raising my grade point average. 
Occam
I believe Lois is quite correct. While we all "know" that we know what our motivations are, most in-depth psychological testing seems to show that much of our behavior is driven by unconscious motivations/desires/drives of which we are completely unaware. Of course, you may be an extremely rare person, Rupert, who has no unsconscious drives so knowe exactly what motivates his actions, but it pretty unlikely that you are so different from almost all of us. I agree that it's annoying for me or anyone to think that I'm not completely in conscious control of my behavior, but that seems to be the case. Oh, and I have about 27 units of lower and upper division psychology courses. I pretty quickly realized that taking them was a good way of raising my grade point average. :) OccamAll right. Well, you have the advantage of me in having taken more units of psychology. When we did first-year psychology we didn't talk very much about unconscious motivations, as far as I remember, but I did also once study Freud as part of a philosophy course. But Freud's views are pretty controversial these days. So could I ask which experiments you have in mind? And do you have any thoughts about which unconscious desires might have been in play on this particular occasion, or is it just not possible to know that?
My main motivation in bringing up the example was to get clearer about why Lois thinks we can often be mistaken about our true motivations. It sounds as though you agree I've probably got reasonably good insight into what my true motivations are.I don't have the qualifications to make a judgment either way. I know just enough to ask questions. Such as, how do you know that someone is suffering? And when you see suffering, do you suffer an empathic response? Is it at this point that you say, "we must do something about this suffering" and you reach out to lend a helping hand? IMO, one must first be aware that suffering is taking place. This information is provided by the senses and processed in the mirror neural network. Which is more effective, reading an article about a tsunami that killed 100 thousand people 3000 miles away in another country, or seeing a single picture of a village under water and a dog swimming, looking for its master who was washed away? Which is the more powerful image that would motivate you to take some action to alleviate this kind of horrific suffering. Then there is the example of a person placing himself in real danger to help. When asked why, they usually respond, "there was no time to think, I just acted, but now that you ask me, looking back at the situation, I must have been a little crazy to do what I did." After Katrina I recall my outrage looking at a picture of a man wading through waste high water with a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, with the headline of 'theft is rampant in the stricken area" and a rant on the people who were taking advantage of disasters should be arrested. Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The guy in the picture lived in the stricken area (was a victim) and merely did what he needed to do to survive. Should he have left money or a promissory note? OTOH, millions of people also saw this article and were motivated to make donations to help alleviate the suffering. Clearly the same picture caused different emotional mirror responses. One was designed to sensationalize a tragedy, the others were from empathy and a desire to relieve the suffering. My interest is in finding at what level these emotional responses which motivate our actions are experienced and how they may be influenced by "false perceptions" or "intentional misinformation".
My main motivation in bringing up the example was to get clearer about why Lois thinks we can often be mistaken about our true motivations. It sounds as though you agree I've probably got reasonably good insight into what my true motivations are.I don't have the qualifications to make a judgment either way. I know just enough to ask questions. Such as, how do you know that someone is suffering? And when you see suffering, do you suffer an empathic response? Is it at this point that you say, "we must do something about this suffering" and you reach out to lend a helping hand? I used to support Schistosomiasis Control Initiative in the past. That charity focuses on neglected tropical disease. Since that time I've seen some pretty nasty video footage of people who suffer from such diseases. But I hadn't seen the footage at the time, my decision to donate was mainly motivated by the fact that charity evaluation organizations which I regarded as reliable had come to the conclusion that this was a cost-effective health intervention. More recently I have been supporting a meta-charity called Effective Animal Activism. I believe that my donation will help to raise funds for other charities such as Vegan Outreach and the Humane League, who will use the money for the purpose of doing online ads making people more aware of the conditions animals experience on modern farms and encouraging them to become vegetarian or vegan, or at least reduce their consumption of animal products. I believe that if more people become vegetarian or vegan as a result of my doation, then fewer farm animals will come into existence, the strongest effect being on broiler chickens. I have read information about what the life of a broiler chicken is like and I believe that it is better if less of them come into existence. I've seen video footage of suffering factory-farmed animals in the past, sure. Probably not all that much about broiler chickens specifically. I can't really remember. So it's not really a case of the suffering entering directly into my experience. I have access to information that I take to be reliable that the suffering is taking place and make a considered judgement, and I try to spend my money where I believe that it will do the most good.
So, would you classify yourself as acting on sympathy or empathy?
btw, I admire your active participation, regardless of the fundamental cause for your motivation.
So, would you classify yourself as acting on sympathy or empathy? btw, I admire your active participation, regardless of the fundamental cause for your motivation.Thanks. I just checked the dictionary definition of the two words and I'm not really sure what you think the important distinction is. I suppose the main thought is "It would be unfortunate if some sentient being had to endure suffering as a result of my doing nothing".
A hard determinist would say you can't know what your actual motivation is. It's lost in a sea of determining factors that brought you to the point of doing what you have decided will help. You can't know exactly which factor(s) brought you to that decision. What is good about what you do when you contribute is your conscious intention to do good, but you can't be sure where that intention springs from and I'm not sure you can take credit for it. No doubt your conscious motivations are pure, but there are unknown motivations you are unaware of. I admit it is a difficult concept to understand.Well, a hard determinist would say I can't take credit for anything at all. And I wasn't necessarily trying to say that I can take credit for it. But it sounds to me like you were putting forward a claim that I've made a mistake about what my "true" motivation is, and I'm just wondering, how could you know. I mean, do you think that generally people have pretty good insight into what their motivation is, or do you think that's not the case? I don't think anyone can know all the factors nor can we have any particular insight as to what our true motivations are. We can know what we are consciously aware of and we can assess those we know about, but I think those we know about are not even the tip of the iceberg. We like to think we know, but we can't possibly know which of millions of possible factors are in play or which ones take precedence in any situation. That is something beyond our ability to know, IMO. It's not a matter of whether you have made a mistake. My contention is that you can't know because most motivating factors are not available to your conscious mind. We are not capable of "making a mistake" because we lack full knowledge. It's not just you--it's everyone. You may well have made a good guess, but I still say you can't have enough information. There are too many competing and conflicting factors and we are not aware of what they are or how they work or which takes precedence. It sounds as if you are upset with me for taking this position, but I think it is impossible for anyone to know, not just you. But you are entitled to your opinion. If you think you know, then you think you know. I just don't think we will ever yknow the truth about our motivations. I hate to think I've hurt your feelings, but IMO, that's the case with everyone, including me. I am not conscious of what my motivating factors are any more than anyone else.
No, no problem, not upset. Just curious about your views.
Is there any particular theory about the unconscious that you subscribe to, like are you a Freudian?
No, no problem, not upset. Just curious about your views. Is there any particular theory about the unconscious that you subscribe to, like are you a Freudian?I don't label myelf that way. i came to take the deterministic view pretty much on my own (not counting unconscious factors), before I even knew there was a philosophical concept known as determinism. The idea just struck a chord with me and answered so many questions about human nature and why we act the way we do. It just seems right to me to accept that our conscious minds are not that much in control. Other factors control our decisions. Part of what led me to think this way was that I messed up my life with poor decisions when I was young. I missed great opportunities and put myself into a bind I could not get out of. I also thought I should have known better than to make the life changing decisions I made. But when I learned more about the philosophy of determinism, I realized that given who I was at the moment of decision making, what my background was, my environment, my experience, even my genes, the decisions I made were inevitable. I had no way to step outside of my determining factors and make better decisions. Then I realized that no one has that ability and people who seem to make "better" decisions for themselves are products of different genes, experiences and environments over which they also have no control. We shouldn't beat up on ourselves too much. We have much less control than we have been led to believe. While studying more about how the deteministic view works, I learned that both Freud and Einstein were determinists, for what that's worth. There are some interesting essays about determinism on www.determinism.com, the site of The Society of Natural Science, which is "devoted to exploring the psychological, sociological and religious implications of determinism." it's an interesting site that explains and discusses many aspects of determinism.
Some quotes about determinism
“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.”
- Albert Einstein
“We like to forget that in fact everything in our life is chance, from our genesis out of the encounter of spermatozoon and egg onward.” - Sigmund Freud
“The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate.” - Stephen Hawking
“The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills.” - Bertrand Russell
“I’m a victim of coicumstances!” - Curly Howard
Geez, Lois’ post number 29 could have been written exactly the same by me describing my earlier life.
It would seem that if everyone had only conscious motivation, they wouldn’t do anything that would damage them. If that is so, consider: a) the large population in jails, b) the larger population in mental institutions, d) the many successful psychiatric therapists.
Take a few examples of mentally ill people you know or have read about, and for a moment attempt to think like them. See if their weird reasoning appears to be all conscious.
Occam
Have you studied philosophy of quantum mechanics at all?
Although chemistry majors were not required to take philosophy courses (wouldn’t want chemists to have ethics, would we?), my wife took some philosophy courses at a local university. They interested me so I enrolled and took a number of them. However, while both are extremely important, I see science and philosophy as almost completely separate disciplines. Just because the reality of quantum mechanics is very different from the macro world we observe, I don’t think it justifies a separate set of philosophy.
Occam
Geez, Lois' post number 29 could have been written exactly the same by me describing my earlier life. It would seem that if everyone had only conscious motivation, they wouldn't do anything that would damage them. If that is so, consider: a) the large population in jails, b) the larger population in mental institutions, d) the many successful psychiatric therapists. Take a few examples of mentally ill people you know or have read about, and for a moment attempt to think like them. See if their weird reasoning appears to be all conscious. Occam;-)
Have you studied philosophy of quantum mechanics at all?Rupert, will you explain what quantum mechanics has to do with determinism vs free will? Lois
perhaps this may be more directly related to the discussion.
from wiki
Altruism, Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Rupert, will you explain what quantum mechanics has to do with determinism vs free will? LoisIf you define determinism to be the doctrine that everything that happens is the inevitable outcome of previously existing conditions, then the philosophy of quantum mechanics is relevant in that there are some interpretations of quantum mechanics in which some aspects of the evolution of the state of the system which are indeterministic. For example, in a given sample of radioactive atoms, there is no way to predict which atom will decay next, it is a purely random matter. On the other hand, the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics could be considered deterministic, in the sense that the evolution of the multiverse is deterministic. The relationship to the question of free will is less clear, because it's not really clear that randomness can rescue free will. I think Write4U is worried that we are going off topic.
Don’t let it stop you. Please. I enjoy all intelligent discussion…
But I did also run across this;
Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism.and
For example, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued, in the §133 of his The Dawn, that in such cases compassionate impulses arise out of the projection of our identity unto the object of our feeling. He gives some hypothetical examples as illustrations to his thesis: that of a person, feeling horrified after witnessing a personal feud, coughing blood, or that of the impulse felt to save a person who drowns in the water. In such cases, according to Nietzsche, there comes into play unconscious fears regarding our own safety. The suffering of another person is felt as a threat to our own happiness and sense of safety, because it reveals our own vulnerability to misfortunes, and thus, by relieving it, one could also ameliorate those personal sentiments.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism I believe this argues for my citing the "mirror neural network" as an important factor in our motivation to help.
At the moment I can’t remember the name of the excellent physicist who said, “If anyone says they understand quantum mechanics, they don’t.” One of the most common misconceptions non-scientists have about it is conflating the events that occur in the micro world with macro world behavior. Just because some of the world at or below the level of atoms is indeterminate doesn’t mean that translates into our macro world.
While a given sub-atomic particle will behave according to quantum indeterminacy, the trillions (to some power) of particles in any macro world item, will behave quite nicely deterministically.
Occam