|
On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:18 DoubleReed wrote:But really, "unreliable" is not the correct word. Logic is not how the brain functions. The brain is much more Bayesian than that, and relies almost entirely on previous information. The brain also is evolutionarily adapted for social behavior, rather than logic, which is why humans are prone to things like the conjunction fallacy, which mistakes plausibility for probability. While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that the initial experiments done on the conjunction fallacy are rather dubious because of the way the questions were posed/worded. The question about the Soviet Union, for example, may imply that the U.S. breaking relations with the Soviet Union over an invasion is different from the U.S. breaking relations for no reason. The debiased experiment tends to frame the question more clearly and far fewer people fail that one. On July 08 2013 02:29 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:14 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:11 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
unless you have your own definition of free will ( do share) everything I have said is relevant to the concept of free will. Try to honor your name and reason with me. He's right though, your conclusion doesn't logically follow from anything you've said so far, and what you've said is not really relevant to free will at all. I assume free will has to do with decision making or else what is it good for? Free will is (google): the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Everything I have said in that post is 100% relevant. The alterations of your brain change your decision making process, they prove that your decision making process follows material laws; these laws are either probabilistic or deterministic or a combination of both. Now it is you that has to find room for your "free will" concept, because I sure can't No, it isn't. A change in the physiology of your brain is not due to a constraint of necessity or fate. You still act at your own discretion, unless you are suggesting that no one has free will to begin with. of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible.
You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will.
I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society
|
On July 08 2013 08:17 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 07:14 D10 wrote:On July 08 2013 07:01 Signet wrote:On July 08 2013 06:56 oneofthem wrote:
disembodied consciousness is quite a bit more ridiculous though, given what biology tells us. you have to fit that best possible neuroscience in somewhere. as vague as talk about degrees of ridiculous can be, we do know that there are no ghosts or souls.
We have no evidence of ghosts or souls. But that's the entire point of epiphenomena. Since they don't interact with the physical universe, there wouldn't be -- couldn't be, by definition -- evidence for them whether they exist or not. Despite our failure to present empirical evidence, its not like theres 0 evidence. In rural Brazil a poor black woman who lived in a small community in the middle of nowhere started showing some serious symptoms of confusion and schizophreny, the weird part is that she started speaking in a language nobody knew. At the hospital they called for someone from the university to go there with a recorder (this was over 40 years ago) and record what she was saying to be analysed by some sort of linguistic specialist at the university. The woman became fine a day after she was recorded and couldnt remember what had happened A few months of study later the lisguistic specialist finally managed to pin down what as being said by the woman, it was an ancient dialect of german usually spoken in switzerland in 1700's, saying things like "Where am I, whats happening, where are my servants ? Who the hell are you and where the hell am I?" This is all recorded in the federal university of rio records. So yes, we cant prove anything, but there is indeed evidence of there being something else. And obviously, afaik, she could barely speak portuguese, didnt knew any other languages before or after this incident, no one has been able to explain this without some "disembodied consciousness" ridiculousness Ok, let's take this at face value and assume for the sake of argument it is true. This would still not be an epiphenomenon. Granting this woman the ability to speak in a language she doesn't know is definitely an effect. So, in principle, this effect could be detected, and it could be determined that there is nothing in the chemistry and electricity of the brain that should allow you to spontaneously gain fluency in a foreign language you've never been exposed to. So this might be evidence in favor of the substance dualist position - that consciousness comes from the physical parts of the brain, plus extra-physical stuff that has an effect on the brain.
I tried finding about this online, but as I said it was done 30 years ago and was virtually forgotten by everyone since.
Ill see what I can do to present a source, this specifc event came to my attention thro one of my college teachers, a PHD in psychology whose father worked in the UFRJ for a long time ago and participated in the recording of the event and in the subsequent analysis of the tape, shes a serious person and I doubt she would make it up.
I emailed her and asked for some source or instructions of how I could go to UFRJ and have access to the content so I can come back here later and show you guys some credible source that this actually happened.
Now ill wait for an answer, hopefully by this week I can come back with a source.
Meanwhile I want this discussion to continue, this is a very interesting topic =)
|
On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:18 DoubleReed wrote:But really, "unreliable" is not the correct word. Logic is not how the brain functions. The brain is much more Bayesian than that, and relies almost entirely on previous information. The brain also is evolutionarily adapted for social behavior, rather than logic, which is why humans are prone to things like the conjunction fallacy, which mistakes plausibility for probability. While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that the initial experiments done on the conjunction fallacy are rather dubious because of the way the questions were posed/worded. The question about the Soviet Union, for example, may imply that the U.S. breaking relations with the Soviet Union over an invasion is different from the U.S. breaking relations for no reason. The debiased experiment tends to frame the question more clearly and far fewer people fail that one. On July 08 2013 02:29 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
He's right though, your conclusion doesn't logically follow from anything you've said so far, and what you've said is not really relevant to free will at all. I assume free will has to do with decision making or else what is it good for? Free will is (google): the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Everything I have said in that post is 100% relevant. The alterations of your brain change your decision making process, they prove that your decision making process follows material laws; these laws are either probabilistic or deterministic or a combination of both. Now it is you that has to find room for your "free will" concept, because I sure can't No, it isn't. A change in the physiology of your brain is not due to a constraint of necessity or fate. You still act at your own discretion, unless you are suggesting that no one has free will to begin with. of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society
What does "morally" responsible mean?
If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them?
How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place?
None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless.
edit; To be even more clear, the phrase "make an example of him for the rest of society" implies that sending a criminal to prison will dissuade others from committing crimes. It's like a "Hey, look, you, lebowskiguy! This is what will happen to you if you do what he did."
The fundamental problem with this and the self-contradiction in your logic is that if you assume free will does not exist, then this act is pointless. Discouraging criminal behavior implies that behavior is based on choices, that people CHOOSE to commit crimes, and that making an example of a criminal implies you are trying to reduce the likelihood that an individual will choose to commit a crime. Yet by definition choices don't exist if free will doesn't exist.
|
regarding moral, I think its a novel concept in the sense that it can only exist when theres an structure in place enforcing a brand of morality.
Is it moral to kill someone ? no
Is it moral for a soldier kill the enemy ? in most cultures yes
Is it moral to take away someones freedom and engage them in forced labor ? no, but when someone violates our sense of morals to the point where we want to isolate him from society, it stops being immoral to take away their freedom and force them in labor.
Morality is weird because by violating moral standards you invite people to disregard their moral standards when regarding you.
|
On July 08 2013 08:34 D10 wrote:
regarding moral, I think its a novel concept in the sense that it can only exist when theres an structure in place enforcing a brand of morality.
Is it moral to kill someone ? no
Is it moral for a soldier kill the enemy ? in most cultures yes
Is it moral to take away someones freedom and engage them in forced labor ? no, but when someone violates our sense of morals to the point where we want to isolate him from society, it stops being immoral to take away their freedom and force them in labor.
Morality is weird because by violating moral standards you invite people to disregard their moral standards when regarding you.
This morality stuff is completely irrelevant to the problem I was pointing out-namely that lebowski's logic doesn't hold with a world in which free will doesn't exist.
You can't hold people responsible for their actions if you say they never had a choice in them to begin with. If free will doesn't exist, then persuasion and dissuasion, or encouragement and discouragement, don't actually have any effect on people at all. Thus his prison example is self-contradictory.
|
but how would it work ?
Is there always some actor ready to fullfil the roles created by predestination, or is it always the same actor ?
Do we have enough freedom for our choices to matter in regard to what we do with our life, but not enough freedom that they matter enough to truly change anything about the outcome of history?
Every single photon will always move the way it should ?
|
On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:18 DoubleReed wrote:But really, "unreliable" is not the correct word. Logic is not how the brain functions. The brain is much more Bayesian than that, and relies almost entirely on previous information. The brain also is evolutionarily adapted for social behavior, rather than logic, which is why humans are prone to things like the conjunction fallacy, which mistakes plausibility for probability. While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that the initial experiments done on the conjunction fallacy are rather dubious because of the way the questions were posed/worded. The question about the Soviet Union, for example, may imply that the U.S. breaking relations with the Soviet Union over an invasion is different from the U.S. breaking relations for no reason. The debiased experiment tends to frame the question more clearly and far fewer people fail that one. On July 08 2013 02:29 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
I assume free will has to do with decision making or else what is it good for?
Free will is (google): the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Everything I have said in that post is 100% relevant. The alterations of your brain change your decision making process, they prove that your decision making process follows material laws; these laws are either probabilistic or deterministic or a combination of both. Now it is you that has to find room for your "free will" concept, because I sure can't No, it isn't. A change in the physiology of your brain is not due to a constraint of necessity or fate. You still act at your own discretion, unless you are suggesting that no one has free will to begin with. of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless.
I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote.
For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder.
Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites.
|
|
|
On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:29 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that the initial experiments done on the conjunction fallacy are rather dubious because of the way the questions were posed/worded.
The question about the Soviet Union, for example, may imply that the U.S. breaking relations with the Soviet Union over an invasion is different from the U.S. breaking relations for no reason.
The debiased experiment tends to frame the question more clearly and far fewer people fail that one.
[quote]
No, it isn't. A change in the physiology of your brain is not due to a constraint of necessity or fate. You still act at your own discretion, unless you are suggesting that no one has free will to begin with.
of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites.
You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it!
You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this:
the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view.
|
deleted quoted post by Double Reed^^
|
On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: Show nested quote +the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view.
Wtf, do you actually think this, or are you just trolling us? Either way, please just stop trying to debate and go read some books on the subject.
|
On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: Show nested quote +the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view.
You clearly don't understand what I am trying to say or how I view things but you don't care anyway because you hurry up to declare inconsistencies in a way of thinking that I didn't even invent (lol I wish)
This hasn't really been productive and i assure you I tried my best.
Oh well, for the record I didn't say that people don't have decision making processes, just that these are also rooted in the material world contrary to the libertarian definition of free will (for the combatibists my contribution was to put up that Sam Harris video link  ); if you throw a "you could spend your life in prison" in the thinking process of a person you could have a different outcome and if you think that this fact is an argument in favor of free will then you might want to think things over my friend
|
On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 02:48 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
of course I am suggesting that there is no free will to begin with. The fact that you used your phrasing in what appears as a dismissive manner did probably reveals that you are somewhat ignorant of a heated philosophical debate that has lasted centuries. Also idk what you are saying with the constraint of necessity or fate line. Are we to be held morally responsible for our personality changing brain tumors too? That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate. The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!) What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case? Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all. what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: Show nested quote +the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view.
After reading your last few posts I can see that you really don't understand his point of view, and that is why you are getting confused.
The main points you are getting caught up on is the idea that no free will means there is no choice which means that there is no point in A) holding someone responsible for their actions and B) using them as an example to dissuade someone else from doing the same.
The main part that I think you are missing, since you are using the word choice/choose a lot, is that when people say no free will they do not mean that we do not have a choice in what we do, it's that we ultimately do not have control of the choices we make. If you take this into account, it should make a lot more sense to you, however I will still explain both A and B from this perspective just in case.
A) By punishing someone for committing a crime, we can help make them realise that committing crime ends up hurting them, while they may not have control over the choice, that does not mean that the outcomes do not affect their decision (if anything it is the opposite).
B) Pretty much the same as A, except rather than a first hand experience a person is dissuaded just by the knowledge that there is a potential negative outcome. I don't know where you got the idea that no free will = people can't be persuaded, since we have pretty solid evidence that people can be persuaded, so for any theories of no free will to be solid they should (and do) take that into account.
|
On July 08 2013 08:58 politik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate.
The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral.
Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!)
What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case?
Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all.
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view. Wtf, do you actually think this, or are you just trolling us? Either way, please just stop trying to debate and go read some books on the subject.
What?
So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions?
free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
If there is no free will-how can there be a decision making process? Without free will you lack the ability to act at your own discretion!
On July 08 2013 09:11 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate.
The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral.
Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!)
What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case?
Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all.
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. You clearly don't understand what I am trying to say or how I view things but you don't care anyway because you hurry up to declare inconsistencies in a way of thinking that I didn't even invent (lol I wish) This hasn't really been productive and i assure you I tried my best. Oh well, for the record I didn't say that people don't have decision making processes, just that these are also rooted in the material world contrary to the libertarian definition of free will (for the combatibists my contribution was to put up that Sam Harris video link ); if you throw a "you could spend your life in prison" in the thinking process of a person you could have a different outcome and if you think that this fact is an argument in favor of free will then you might want to think things over my friend
More dodging-this comes down to you being incapable of refuting what I have said, so you say that I am intellectually incapable of understanding your sophisticated viewpoint.
Again, I'll quote the definition of free will for you.
free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
You say free will does not exist, which means people don't have the ability to act on their own discretion, i.e. there can be no decision-making process. On a fundamental level it makes no logical sense, and all you're doing is coming off more and more as a sophist.
On July 08 2013 09:21 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 02:57 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
That's mostly because I am not concerned with discussing philosophy, because there is no actual basis or evidence for either side-if your claim is that free will doesn't exist, and my claim is that it does, then...well, there's nothing more to argue until we know more about how the fundamentals of the universe work. I'm a physicist and computer scientist-I'd rather deal with things I can actually substantiate.
The "constraint of necessity or fate" is in the definition of free will, at least the one I'm using. Generally people are held responsible for their actions, yes, regardless of whether or not they are impaired due to a disability or otherwise. The punishment or consequence generally varies depending on the severity of the action and the severity of the injury/disability-this is, of course, in the realms of law and medicine. Some consequences for the mentally impaired involve therapy or assignment to a treatment center-different, obviously, than prison, but society still imposes consequences upon them if their actions are immoral.
Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. If you say we have no free will, and those who are impaired should not be held morally responsible for their actions, then people can do anything they want, and if they can show they were impaired when the action happened, they're not responsible! If I drink until I black out and then go murder someone, are you saying that I should not be held responsible because I don't have free will, and the alcohol impaired my decision-making process? (or rather, I didn't have a decision-making process to begin with, so I guess it didn't even matter that I was drunk!)
What if I drink so much that I get permanent brain damage and become a raging, pyschopathic serial killer? Should I be held responsible for someone's death by my hands in that case?
Your argument really doesn't make much sense at all.
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. After reading your last few posts I can see that you really don't understand his point of view, and that is why you are getting confused. The main points you are getting caught up on is the idea that no free will means there is no choice which means that there is no point in A) holding someone responsible for their actions and B) using them as an example to dissuade someone else from doing the same. The main part that I think you are missing, since you are using the word choice/choose a lot, is that when people say no free will they do not mean that we do not have a choice in what we do, it's that we ultimately do not have control of the choices we make. If you take this into account, it should make a lot more sense to you, however I will still explain both A and B from this perspective just in case. A) By punishing someone for committing a crime, we can help make them realise that committing crime ends up hurting them, while they may not have control over the choice, that does not mean that the outcomes do not affect their decision (if anything it is the opposite).B) Pretty much the same as A, except rather than a first hand experience a person is dissuaded just by the knowledge that there is a potential negative outcome. I don't know where you got the idea that no free will = people can't be persuaded, since we have pretty solid evidence that people can be persuaded, so for any theories of no free will to be solid they should (and do) take that into account.
The first bolded does not change anything you said so far.
If you do not have control of the choices you make, you ultimately don't have choices.
It means you'll always make the same choice no matter what, which means there was never a choice to begin with.
The second bolded still doesn't make sense-if they have no control in their choice, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are. If you have no control over your choice, whatever decision process you take will result in you making that choice, by definition. Thus, the outcome doesn't matter, nor does knowledge of the outcome.
B is the same thing as A.
|
people believing in free will can not only understand the idea of determinism but can also work with compatibilism, people who believe in pre-determinism/determinism can't do either (understand the concept of free will/compatibilism)?.
it seems as if people who believe in free will are not afraid of determinism but people who believe in determinism are afraid of free will.
just take some responsibility you drones!.
in the end it comes down to: leaders need free will to lead and followers need determinism to follow. to each its own.
|
On July 08 2013 09:25 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:58 politik wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view. Wtf, do you actually think this, or are you just trolling us? Either way, please just stop trying to debate and go read some books on the subject. What? So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions? Show nested quote +free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. If there is no free will-how can there be a decision making process? Without free will you lack the ability to act at your own discretion! Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:11 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. You clearly don't understand what I am trying to say or how I view things but you don't care anyway because you hurry up to declare inconsistencies in a way of thinking that I didn't even invent (lol I wish) This hasn't really been productive and i assure you I tried my best. Oh well, for the record I didn't say that people don't have decision making processes, just that these are also rooted in the material world contrary to the libertarian definition of free will (for the combatibists my contribution was to put up that Sam Harris video link ); if you throw a "you could spend your life in prison" in the thinking process of a person you could have a different outcome and if you think that this fact is an argument in favor of free will then you might want to think things over my friend More dodging-this comes down to you being incapable of refuting what I have said, so you say that I am intellectually incapable of understanding your sophisticated viewpoint. Again, I'll quote the definition of free will for you. Show nested quote +free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. You say free will does not exist, which means people don't have the ability to act on their own discretion, i.e. there can be no decision-making process. On a fundamental level it makes no logical sense, and all you're doing is coming off more and more as a sophist. Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:21 Myrddraal wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. After reading your last few posts I can see that you really don't understand his point of view, and that is why you are getting confused. The main points you are getting caught up on is the idea that no free will means there is no choice which means that there is no point in A) holding someone responsible for their actions and B) using them as an example to dissuade someone else from doing the same. The main part that I think you are missing, since you are using the word choice/choose a lot, is that when people say no free will they do not mean that we do not have a choice in what we do, it's that we ultimately do not have control of the choices we make. If you take this into account, it should make a lot more sense to you, however I will still explain both A and B from this perspective just in case. A) By punishing someone for committing a crime, we can help make them realise that committing crime ends up hurting them, while they may not have control over the choice, that does not mean that the outcomes do not affect their decision (if anything it is the opposite).B) Pretty much the same as A, except rather than a first hand experience a person is dissuaded just by the knowledge that there is a potential negative outcome. I don't know where you got the idea that no free will = people can't be persuaded, since we have pretty solid evidence that people can be persuaded, so for any theories of no free will to be solid they should (and do) take that into account. The first bolded does not change anything you said so far. If you do not have control of the choices you make, you ultimately don't have choices.It means you'll always make the same choice no matter what, which means there was never a choice to begin with. The second bolded still doesn't make sense-if they have no control in their choice, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are. If you have no control over your choice, whatever decision process you take will result in you making that choice, by definition. Thus, the outcome doesn't matter, nor does knowledge of the outcome. B is the same thing as A.
not that I want you to agree with what I am suggesting, but you dismiss a side of a debate that lasts a few hundreds of years with the silliest arguments I have ever encountered and the attitude of a thousand cardinals. Mad props to the guy who tried to explain to you what should be somewhat obvious, a shame that it probably will be in vain
|
On July 08 2013 09:41 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:25 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:58 politik wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question.
Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view. Wtf, do you actually think this, or are you just trolling us? Either way, please just stop trying to debate and go read some books on the subject. What? So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions? free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. If there is no free will-how can there be a decision making process? Without free will you lack the ability to act at your own discretion! On July 08 2013 09:11 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question.
Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. You clearly don't understand what I am trying to say or how I view things but you don't care anyway because you hurry up to declare inconsistencies in a way of thinking that I didn't even invent (lol I wish) This hasn't really been productive and i assure you I tried my best. Oh well, for the record I didn't say that people don't have decision making processes, just that these are also rooted in the material world contrary to the libertarian definition of free will (for the combatibists my contribution was to put up that Sam Harris video link ); if you throw a "you could spend your life in prison" in the thinking process of a person you could have a different outcome and if you think that this fact is an argument in favor of free will then you might want to think things over my friend More dodging-this comes down to you being incapable of refuting what I have said, so you say that I am intellectually incapable of understanding your sophisticated viewpoint. Again, I'll quote the definition of free will for you. free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. You say free will does not exist, which means people don't have the ability to act on their own discretion, i.e. there can be no decision-making process. On a fundamental level it makes no logical sense, and all you're doing is coming off more and more as a sophist. On July 08 2013 09:21 Myrddraal wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:
[quote]
What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question.
Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. After reading your last few posts I can see that you really don't understand his point of view, and that is why you are getting confused. The main points you are getting caught up on is the idea that no free will means there is no choice which means that there is no point in A) holding someone responsible for their actions and B) using them as an example to dissuade someone else from doing the same. The main part that I think you are missing, since you are using the word choice/choose a lot, is that when people say no free will they do not mean that we do not have a choice in what we do, it's that we ultimately do not have control of the choices we make. If you take this into account, it should make a lot more sense to you, however I will still explain both A and B from this perspective just in case. A) By punishing someone for committing a crime, we can help make them realise that committing crime ends up hurting them, while they may not have control over the choice, that does not mean that the outcomes do not affect their decision (if anything it is the opposite).B) Pretty much the same as A, except rather than a first hand experience a person is dissuaded just by the knowledge that there is a potential negative outcome. I don't know where you got the idea that no free will = people can't be persuaded, since we have pretty solid evidence that people can be persuaded, so for any theories of no free will to be solid they should (and do) take that into account. The first bolded does not change anything you said so far. If you do not have control of the choices you make, you ultimately don't have choices.It means you'll always make the same choice no matter what, which means there was never a choice to begin with. The second bolded still doesn't make sense-if they have no control in their choice, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are. If you have no control over your choice, whatever decision process you take will result in you making that choice, by definition. Thus, the outcome doesn't matter, nor does knowledge of the outcome. B is the same thing as A. not that I want you to agree with what I am suggesting, but you dismiss a side of a debate that lasts a few hundreds of years with the silliest arguments I have ever encountered and the attitude of a thousand cardinals. Mad props to the guy who tried to explain to you what should be somewhat obvious, a shame that it probably will be in vain
Perhaps it's because you subscribe to a school of thought that I most probably find ludicrous.
I've studied a fair bit of philosophy. I chose not to actually pursue it as a major field of study because I was more interested in physics and computer science, in which I can actually apply logic to my arguments and not be called stupid for it.
e: in fact, all I am doing is using your own words. If my arguments are silly to you then you should really consider taking a basic logic class.
|
On July 08 2013 09:25 wherebugsgo wrote:What?
So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions?
A biological version of a series of if and switch statements.
|
On July 08 2013 09:44 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:41 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 09:25 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:58 politik wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible
I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious.
That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view. Wtf, do you actually think this, or are you just trolling us? Either way, please just stop trying to debate and go read some books on the subject. What? So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions? free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. If there is no free will-how can there be a decision making process? Without free will you lack the ability to act at your own discretion! On July 08 2013 09:11 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible
I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious.
That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. You clearly don't understand what I am trying to say or how I view things but you don't care anyway because you hurry up to declare inconsistencies in a way of thinking that I didn't even invent (lol I wish) This hasn't really been productive and i assure you I tried my best. Oh well, for the record I didn't say that people don't have decision making processes, just that these are also rooted in the material world contrary to the libertarian definition of free will (for the combatibists my contribution was to put up that Sam Harris video link ); if you throw a "you could spend your life in prison" in the thinking process of a person you could have a different outcome and if you think that this fact is an argument in favor of free will then you might want to think things over my friend More dodging-this comes down to you being incapable of refuting what I have said, so you say that I am intellectually incapable of understanding your sophisticated viewpoint. Again, I'll quote the definition of free will for you. free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. You say free will does not exist, which means people don't have the ability to act on their own discretion, i.e. there can be no decision-making process. On a fundamental level it makes no logical sense, and all you're doing is coming off more and more as a sophist. On July 08 2013 09:21 Myrddraal wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible
I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious.
That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. After reading your last few posts I can see that you really don't understand his point of view, and that is why you are getting confused. The main points you are getting caught up on is the idea that no free will means there is no choice which means that there is no point in A) holding someone responsible for their actions and B) using them as an example to dissuade someone else from doing the same. The main part that I think you are missing, since you are using the word choice/choose a lot, is that when people say no free will they do not mean that we do not have a choice in what we do, it's that we ultimately do not have control of the choices we make. If you take this into account, it should make a lot more sense to you, however I will still explain both A and B from this perspective just in case. A) By punishing someone for committing a crime, we can help make them realise that committing crime ends up hurting them, while they may not have control over the choice, that does not mean that the outcomes do not affect their decision (if anything it is the opposite).B) Pretty much the same as A, except rather than a first hand experience a person is dissuaded just by the knowledge that there is a potential negative outcome. I don't know where you got the idea that no free will = people can't be persuaded, since we have pretty solid evidence that people can be persuaded, so for any theories of no free will to be solid they should (and do) take that into account. The first bolded does not change anything you said so far. If you do not have control of the choices you make, you ultimately don't have choices.It means you'll always make the same choice no matter what, which means there was never a choice to begin with. The second bolded still doesn't make sense-if they have no control in their choice, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are. If you have no control over your choice, whatever decision process you take will result in you making that choice, by definition. Thus, the outcome doesn't matter, nor does knowledge of the outcome. B is the same thing as A. not that I want you to agree with what I am suggesting, but you dismiss a side of a debate that lasts a few hundreds of years with the silliest arguments I have ever encountered and the attitude of a thousand cardinals. Mad props to the guy who tried to explain to you what should be somewhat obvious, a shame that it probably will be in vain Perhaps it's because you subscribe to a school of thought that I most probably find ludicrous. I've studied a fair bit of philosophy. I chose not to actually pursue it as a major field of study because I was more interested in physics and computer science, in which I can actually apply logic to my arguments and not be called stupid for it. e: in fact, all I am doing is using your own words. If my arguments are silly to you then you should really consider taking a basic logic class. I also have a physics degree and I am somewhat familiar with that special thing you call logic. Maybe you could apply it to what you have used today as arguments, see if they make any sense.
" a school of thought I find ludicrous"
what philosophical school is that may I ask? Is it the one that disagrees on you on the topic of free will? Do they also do nothing but dodge whatever argument you used today? Do they have anything else in common?
If you only use my own words then I perhaps can be blamed for a poor effort on using them efficiently. But you won't take the award for best discussion partner as well
On July 08 2013 10:00 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:25 wherebugsgo wrote:What?
So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions? A biological version of a series of if and switch statements.
well put
|
On July 08 2013 09:25 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 08:58 politik wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc).
Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process!
You seem to not even understand your own point of view. Wtf, do you actually think this, or are you just trolling us? Either way, please just stop trying to debate and go read some books on the subject. What? So if there is no free will, care to explain how you can make decisions? Show nested quote +free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. If there is no free will-how can there be a decision making process? Without free will you lack the ability to act at your own discretion! Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:11 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. You clearly don't understand what I am trying to say or how I view things but you don't care anyway because you hurry up to declare inconsistencies in a way of thinking that I didn't even invent (lol I wish) This hasn't really been productive and i assure you I tried my best. Oh well, for the record I didn't say that people don't have decision making processes, just that these are also rooted in the material world contrary to the libertarian definition of free will (for the combatibists my contribution was to put up that Sam Harris video link ); if you throw a "you could spend your life in prison" in the thinking process of a person you could have a different outcome and if you think that this fact is an argument in favor of free will then you might want to think things over my friend More dodging-this comes down to you being incapable of refuting what I have said, so you say that I am intellectually incapable of understanding your sophisticated viewpoint. Again, I'll quote the definition of free will for you. Show nested quote +free will
Noun
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. You say free will does not exist, which means people don't have the ability to act on their own discretion, i.e. there can be no decision-making process. On a fundamental level it makes no logical sense, and all you're doing is coming off more and more as a sophist. Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 09:21 Myrddraal wrote:On July 08 2013 08:52 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:45 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 08:18 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:40 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:32 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 08 2013 03:22 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 08 2013 03:14 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
what if I told you that the reasons people started putting other people in jail (or cutting their hands off etc) were pragmatic and not moralistic? The fear of being caught does prevent people from deciding to do whatever they want, it is meant to be one of the variables that affect the decision of the potential law breaker. What does this have to do with free will? You just completely dodged my question. Are you or are you not suggesting that someone who commits murder while impaired by alcohol is morally responsible for his or her actions? It is true that without free will it would be impossible to hold people morally responsible I wasn't dodging the question, it seemed to me somewhat obvious. That doesn't mean prisons would have to close. So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions? You do realize the glaring contradiction here? You can't have it both ways. Your first example involved a brain tumour or whatever-according to your example, alcohol impairment or drug impairment is not much different, only in that the impairment is purposely induced. But then, without free will you wouldn't have the choice to impair yourself, now would you? It would be out of your control regardless, and so impairment itself doesn't matter-you could be fully aware of what you are doing, and since you argue that free will doesn't exist, any criminal should not be held morally responsible. You misunderstood. I believe free will doesn't exist and that people are not to be held morally responsible for their actions. No contradiction there: it's in the first sentence in the post you last quoted. It would be impossible to hold people morally responsible for their actions without free will. I also proposed in my last few posts that we don't really have to think that someone is immoral to put him in jail, we just have to assume he is dangerous or that an example has to be made of him for the rest of society What does "morally" responsible mean? If someone murdered a friend of yours, what does it mean that they should not be held "morally responsible" for that act of murder? They didn't choose to murder them? How is sending them to prison not holding them "morally responsible" for their crimes? If they didn't choose to commit murder then why have prisons in the first place? None of what you are saying makes any sense, because "making an example of someone" implies that people have a choice in how they behave. If people didn't have a choice in how they behaved, there would be no reason to "make an example" of someone, because regardless of what happens, they never had a choice in it to begin with, thus the "example" is worthless. I am considering giving up on the discussion because you don't seem to care enough to actually read what I wrote in the posts you quote. For example, you ask "why have prisons in the first place?" and I gave you two reasons that have nothing to do with morality but are entirely pragmatic(someone dangerous out of prison could do the same, also prison time is supposed to/should make people see the error of their ways,the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Another example: I write a 3 sentence post starting with " no free will means no moral responsibility" and you quote that and ask me " So...you think free will doesn't exist...but people should be held responsible for their actions?". Dude, I just said the opposite, please try a bit harder. Since the concept of morality seems to be so central to your way of thinking that you can't imagine a world without it, I suggest you read Nietzsche's "On the genealogy of morality". It is a book that, as the author puts it, tries to trace "the origins of our moral prejudices" . Do a wiki search and see if it interests you, it is one of my favorites. You said the opposite, but it's logically self contradictory. That's why I repeated it! You have not once been able to refute my points about the logical inconsistencies in what you are saying. Morality has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that if you subscribe to the view that there is no free will, you cannot say this: the prison sentence could be a preventing factor for the decision making process etc etc etc). Without free will there are no decisions, therefore no decision making process! You seem to not even understand your own point of view. After reading your last few posts I can see that you really don't understand his point of view, and that is why you are getting confused. The main points you are getting caught up on is the idea that no free will means there is no choice which means that there is no point in A) holding someone responsible for their actions and B) using them as an example to dissuade someone else from doing the same. The main part that I think you are missing, since you are using the word choice/choose a lot, is that when people say no free will they do not mean that we do not have a choice in what we do, it's that we ultimately do not have control of the choices we make. If you take this into account, it should make a lot more sense to you, however I will still explain both A and B from this perspective just in case. A) By punishing someone for committing a crime, we can help make them realise that committing crime ends up hurting them, while they may not have control over the choice, that does not mean that the outcomes do not affect their decision (if anything it is the opposite).B) Pretty much the same as A, except rather than a first hand experience a person is dissuaded just by the knowledge that there is a potential negative outcome. I don't know where you got the idea that no free will = people can't be persuaded, since we have pretty solid evidence that people can be persuaded, so for any theories of no free will to be solid they should (and do) take that into account. The first bolded does not change anything you said so far. If you do not have control of the choices you make, you ultimately don't have choices.It means you'll always make the same choice no matter what, which means there was never a choice to begin with. The second bolded still doesn't make sense-if they have no control in their choice, then it doesn't matter what the outcomes are. If you have no control over your choice, whatever decision process you take will result in you making that choice, by definition. Thus, the outcome doesn't matter, nor does knowledge of the outcome. B is the same thing as A.
Look, in this you are wrong, I can't tell if you are being intentionally dense or not, but that is just how it is, you are going to have to come to accept this if we are going to move forward. I am not saying this to be a dick, but I just want you to know it is the truth, if you have any interest in understanding the position that free will does not exist, you have to come to accept this: no free will does not mean no choice, period. If you can't accept this then you may as well stop discussing the subject because you will not be able to understand it otherwise.
Choice: An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
At no point does it say that we need to be in control of the choice that is being taken for it to be a choice. The idea is that we are predetermined to make a choice, based on our past/genes/whatever. Potential outcomes affect our decisions regardless of whether free will exists, the only difference is that if you believe in free will, you believe there is some element that you consciously control with regards to making the decision whereas if you don't it means that the decision you will make is pretty much an equation of your previous experience/genes/whatever you believe in.
"It means you'll always make the same choice no matter what, which means there was never a choice to begin with." It means that given the exact same circumstances from the beginning of your life to now you would yes, however something in your life had gone differently, you may have made a different choice. Either way you participate in the act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, either way you have the illusion that you had control over that choice. There was a choice, just because your conscious being was not the one who ultimately decides what to choose, does not make it any less of a choice.
By the way, quoting one definition of free will and calling it "the" definition of free will is not really useful in this sort of argument, because there is not one widely accepted definition, especially in philosophy, here's a few more.
1. (Philosophy)
a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
b. the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion he left of his own free will: I did not influence him
Note: I am not saying that these are any better than your definition, just that you can't use your definition as evidence as why no free will is not possible, since people may use a different definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
