|
On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large.
Why not put all criminals in mental institutions?
|
On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge?
Did you notice that I said "You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations" ? We should put people in prison to achieve goals of justice system, rehabilitation and if not possible isolation. Of course also for satisfaction of instinctual urges as ignoring them causes bigger societal problems. Unfulfilled need for justice causes big societal problems and those cause a lot of suffering. Plus you still missed my point that determinism does not absolve anyone from moral responsibility.
|
On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions?
Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever.
|
On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge?
We should put people in prison because I don't want them to kill me (or whatever else they are in prison for).
|
On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something?  physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete.
To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts.
|
On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions?
Because not all of them are mentally ill. Do you really need it to be spelled out ?
|
On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever.
So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism?
Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals?
|
On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals?
Because everyone is a potential criminal. It wouldn't be very practical, would it ?=)
Why don't everyone commit suicide ? this way the murder rate would decrease to 0% ! I found the perfect solution to everything !
|
On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals?
Even if we accept your cheap view that nobody's responsible for their actions, we still put people in jail to pull them away from society at least.
As for your second question I don't even know why you think it's relevant.
|
On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals?
Short answer : We should, if we could, but we can't (yet).
Long answer : The issue is of course accuracy of our prediction. If the method was 100% correct, I see absolutely no issue with doing that. But of course with less than perfect method issues arise. At that point we need to solve the same issue as every justice system in the world already has to solve, what amount of innocents are we willing to imprison ? That issue is unavoidable even in our current justice systems and we can solve it in the case of preventative jailing in the same way as we solve it today.
EDIT: And those criminals have control of their actions, by definition. They are just determined, but it is still actions that come from them internally.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals?
For other pragmatic reasons:
1. We don't have a very good system for accurately distinguishing from potential criminals and non potential criminals. More pertinently if we were to imprison people who are 'more likely to commit crimes' we would be imprisoning a heck of alot of people.
2. We are squeamish about imprisoning wrongly accused people, we also have 'instinctual urges' that result in an aversion to punishing people before the crime.
3. We would consider imprisoning before a crime an abuse of power, and it would lead to civil unrest, civil unrest is generally not pragmatic.
4. We have laws for conspiracy to murder etc, it is itself a crime and we do imprison people for it.
|
On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions?
Because we cant choose where we put them. We are already predetermined to put them in prison herp de derp.
Gosh, some people suck at defending their holy determinism.
|
On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts.
there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist  .
it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?.
if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon
|
On July 05 2013 23:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:[quote] the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals? Even if we accept your cheap view that nobody's responsible for their actions, we still put people in jail to pull them away from society at least. As for your second question I don't even know why you think it's relevant. My cheap view? No, I think you misunderstand me. I'm accepting the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) for the sake of the argument. Personally, I find the whole concept of determinism to be ridiculous.
It is relevant in that it exposes a disconnect between one belief and another.
|
On July 05 2013 23:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:[quote] the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals? For other pragmatic reasons: 1. We don't have a very good system for accurately distinguishing from potential criminals and non potential criminals. More pertinently if we were to imprison people who are 'more likely to commit crimes' we would be imprisoning a heck of alot of people. 2. We are squeamish about imprisoning wrongly accused people, we also have 'instinctual urges' that result in an aversion to punishing people before the crime. 3. We would consider imprisoning before a crime an abuse of power, and it would lead to civil unrest, civil unrest is generally not pragmatic. 4. We have laws for conspiracy to murder etc, it is itself a crime and we do imprison people for it.
Plus we also actually lock up mentally ill people even if there is no way to cure them to protect society, so we are actually already doing it to a degree.
|
On July 05 2013 23:11 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:[quote] the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals? Because everyone is a potential criminal. It wouldn't be very practical, would it ?=) Why don't everyone commit suicide ? this way the murder rate would decrease to 0% ! I found the perfect solution to everything !
Indeed. However, why not take known factors like race, education, income level, etc, and use those?
|
On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon
I asked you for definition so we are on the same page and you answer with accusing me of dogmatic physicalism ? Are you for real ?
|
On July 05 2013 21:45 FoxShine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 21:23 NukeD wrote:
^ thats a long way of saying absolutelly nothing. I'm sorry do I need your permission to post a thought or Idea? Yea.. I didn't think so. You may be surprised to hear this, but I don't need the approval of a disrespectful jerk like you.
Sorry xD
I was in a bad mood. Im a jerk.
|
On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy and bent the spoon
If there's something external to the physical world, I have no evidence of it, and that's my problem. Show me proof and I'm willing to accept it. Until then, I have to say that I'm not convinced, and I admit that there a lot of things that I don't know. That said, many things that people attribute to the non-physical world may actually be unknown parts of the physical world. And they make assumptions which, I would argue, are wilder than the assumptions that I make, which are based on the current state of knowledge. And like I said, I'd be willing to change my mind given proper evidence. But there really isn't any.
|
On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism)
That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
