|
On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true.
first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together.
value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism.
second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that.
i also believe in a god but his name is I.
|
On July 13 2013 20:55 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:04 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 19:53 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 19:38 TSORG wrote:
I think then that we have a different view on what the legal system is for, but I have already admitted that in a deterministic world, this is the only justification for a legal system I can see. That is why I proposed, as a warning, why not just kill them. DQToc then said, that it already happened in the past and that people rebelled. The reason why we have a legal system as eloberate as our own, is simply because the people (are determined to) want it thus, and I accepted his answer. And what do you think the legal system is for if not as a warning or to keep people safe ? Following the will of god in a quest of purifying the world from evil (which is purely subjective :D) ? I am not religious. But the reason why we punish those who break the law I think is 1) to restore the balance of justice (which is why the punishment has to be in accordance to the crime) 2) to remind them of their humanity (which is why, atleast here, we have trajectories to restore them to society) I will admit that in most cases that punishment within a legal system has the effect of deterring others from breaking the law, but I don't think that it is its justification. And ofcourse this is subjective, but that is not problematic for me. google "what is the purpose of the justice system" and look at every link on the page. alternatively here's the wikipedia entry from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice"Criminal justice is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts." If you need further assurances: The criminal justice system in England and Wales aims to " reduce crime by bringing more offences to justice, and to raise public confidence that the system is fair and will deliver for the law-abiding citizen."[3] In Canada, the criminal justice system aims to balance the goals of crime control and prevention, and justice (equity, fairness, protection of individual rights).[4] In Sweden, the overarching goal for the criminal justice system is to reduce crime and increase the security of the people.Your own personal opinions on the matter are not relevant, the purpose of the justice system isn't up for debate. . There are many examples of countries in which the justice system works as a tool for vengeance moreso than anything else. Even within my own country many feel that the punishment for certain crimes is too mild, not because of it not being enough of a deterrent but because its not "punishment (suffering) enough". What the purpose of the justice system is depends on time and place and there are usually many things to consider. For example vengeance is something most civilized countries are moving away from more and more, focusing heavily on public safety and preventing future crime, but if we go back a few hundred years or just look at less civilized countries, it was/is a huge factor.
The punishment is the deterrent.
The justice system anywhere, anytime, can be neatly summed up:
1. Punish the guilty
to
a. Serve justice.
b. Deter other criminals.
Either you agree with me on that, or you don't.
On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. Show nested quote +value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I.
Okay, since you didn't understand my full explanation, I'll just give you the simple version.
You asked me what value predictable events have, and who would give them value?
My answer is determinism does not make value judgements, people do.
I don't actually believe in determinism and I haven't stated otherwise so to claim I view determinism as my God is laughable along with virtually all your posts.
|
On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. Show nested quote +value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I.
what the hell are you talking about?
|
On July 13 2013 21:11 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I. what the hell are you talking about?
that was the allegory of determinism vs free will in a nutshell. internal god vs external god.
|
On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I. Okay, since you didn't understand my full explanation, I'll just give you the simple version. You asked me what value predictable events have, and who would give them value? My answer is determinism does not make value judgements, people do. I don't actually believe in determinism and I haven't stated otherwise so to claim I view determinism as my God is laughable along with virtually all your posts.
- but people are determined to make those judgements ...
based on what other authority could people make judgements in a deterministic world?
else it ends here first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together.
|
On July 13 2013 21:27 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I. Okay, since you didn't understand my full explanation, I'll just give you the simple version. You asked me what value predictable events have, and who would give them value? My answer is determinism does not make value judgements, people do. I don't actually believe in determinism and I haven't stated otherwise so to claim I view determinism as my God is laughable along with virtually all your posts. - but people are determined to make those judgements ... based on what other authority could people make judgements in a deterministic world? else it ends here Show nested quote +first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together.
Actually it ends with you making it clear you don't understand what determinism means and me deciding to stop wasting my time on you. Conversation speaks for itself.
|
On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:
The justice system anywhere, anytime, can be neatly summed up:
1. Punish the guilty
to
a. Serve justice.
b. Deter other criminals.
Either you agree with me on that, or you don't.
I have disagreed, though I have acknowledged b) as a effect of a).
But what my question to Rassy pretty much amounted to is, what does a) mean in a deterministic world? Because our notion of justice, afaik, implies that we are responsible for our actions which we deliberately make. Ofcourse in a deterministic world there can still be punishment, we punish dogs as well, even if we acknowledge that the beast is acting upon his instincts and its action was not deliberate. But when we put down a dog because it bit a babe for example, we do not call it justice. Now perhaps I am misunderstanding some key notion about determinism, if so, please explain it to me. Thats all I was asking him, and now you.
|
On July 13 2013 19:21 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 17:35 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying  But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it. Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say: "if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it" *mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless. "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it. LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write? You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear. But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area. You say you believe in a stochastic world, but when asked to explain what that meant or how it works, you had no answer to give... so don't blame me for not properly understanding what you meant, you havent properly explained what you meant.
You might have trouble understanding what a stochastic world is, but to then conclude i believe in a deterministic world instead (wich you make clear in several of your posts wich i not gonna bother to quote unless you persist on it )seems odd, to say the least.
I thought "stochastic world" would be a concept everyone understands without further explanation but i see now that its not, so specially for you i will explain this as a one time favour
A stochastic world is not predetermined,if we would run the universe again from the same starting conditions, something different might happen in a stochastic world, this contrary to a deterministic world where the same would happen.
I have come to this believe in a stochastic world due to the findings of physics.
You should also read several of the previous pages in this whole thread, so that it is easier to understand what someones opinnion is and what someone is talking about.
It is realy annoying to have to explain your position over and over again everytime someone new and ignorant steps into the discussion and starts asking questions to wich the answer should be obvious and or wich have been answerd already.
Deleted a sort of insult, as i will give you the benefits of the doubt for now
On the justice system.
No, it is not "fair " (fair according to my perception) to punish someone if his actions where completely determined, but the good thing is:justice does not have to be fair and it never has been. People are put in jail innocently, while other criminals escape, all the time. Justice is not fair and it will never be.
|
On July 13 2013 21:48 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 19:21 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 17:35 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it. Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say: "if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it" *mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless. "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it. LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write? You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear. But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area. You say you believe in a stochastic world, but when asked to explain what that meant or how it works, you had no answer to give... so don't blame me for not properly understanding what you meant, you havent properly explained what you meant. You might have trouble understanding what a stochastic world is, but to then conclude i believe in a deterministic world instead (wich you make clear in several of your posts wich i not gonna bother to quote unless you persist on it )seems odd, to say the least. I thought "stochastic world" would be a concept everyone understands without further explanation but i see now that its not, so specially for you i will explain this as a one time favour A stochastic world is not predetermined,if we would run the universe again from the same starting conditions, something different might happen in a stochastic world, this contrary to a deterministic world where the same would happen. I have come to this believe in a stochastic world due to the findings of physics. You should also read several of the previous pages in this whole thread, so that it is easier to understand what someones opinnion is and what someone is talking about,so that you can make an interesting contribution. It is realy annoying to have to explain your position over and over again everytime someone new and ignorant steps into the discussion and starts asking questions to wich the answer should be obvious and or wich have been answerd already. "From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area." You act like a 14 year old who has just read his first book on phylosophy and now thinks he owns the world. One one hand you try to use difficult words and try to speak in an elegant and intelligent way and on the other hand you cant understand what other people are saying, nor make an effort to do so. I can only hope this "insult" will open your eyes but i dont have high expectations.
You are the one who started insulting. If you read my post then you wouldve seen that I did not say that you thought that, but that since I didnt know what you meant, and since you didnt elaborate on it, I proposed what I thought it meant. Instead of just saying I was wrong there and then post what you meant, you call me a troll.
What you say here though, is something else than what you posted in the post I responded to. Because you said there that it is like 1+2 = 3. But 1+2 is always 3, and it wont be that something else could happen.
|
You are right and i am sry for my insult, i will just see where it goes from here.
But pls, try make at least a small effort to understand people. And if you want to ignore me pls do, i wont take offense.
What you say here though, is something else than what you posted in the post I responded to. Because you said there that it is like 1+2 = 3. But 1+2 is always 3, and it wont be that something else could happen.
This was my response to a question in a previous post, on how i would vieuw the relation between a killer and a victem in a deterministic world.
I dont believe in a deterministic world but if the world was deterministic, then this is how i would vieuw the relation between them, and i do understand that its a vague description but its the best i can do.
I have a question to everyone here who believes in a deterministic world:
Would you dare stick a finger in the quantum shock machine?
|
On July 13 2013 21:54 Rassy wrote:
You are right and i am sry for my insult, i will just see where it goes from here.
But pls, try make at least a small effort to understand people. And if you want to ignore me pls do, i wont take offense.
I am, that is why i asked you to explain it further. But nevermind it, reason already did a good job.
This was my response to a question in a previous post, on how i would vieuw the relation between a killer and a victem in a deterministic world.
I dont believe in a deterministic world but if the world was deterministic, then this is how i would vieuw the relation between them
ah. so it was all a misunderstanding then
|
On July 13 2013 21:48 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 19:21 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 17:35 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:37 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 05:12 Rassy wrote:On July 13 2013 05:00 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 DertoQq wrote:On July 13 2013 04:05 TSORG wrote:On July 13 2013 03:48 Rassy wrote:
I do believe in punishing criminals btw, but from a pragmatic point of vieuw, not from an ideological point of vieuw.
Punishing someone from an ideological point of vieuw i would find wrong. what does that even mean... especially if you think that everything in the universe is predetermined to happen, or even destined to happen. You blame the philosophers for free will, but you could take their example atleast when it comes making clear what you mean, that is, to explicate your definitions. You mix up so many things on so many levels I don't even know what to make of it. He meant that the legal system exist to prevent people from doing things that make everyone else life more shitty, not because the philosophy of their actions are "morally wrong or right". =pragmatism vs moral I understood that, but what does that mean in the world he believes we live in. In the world he thinks we live in, this discussion is entirely pointless, and we only have it because some input determined that we have it. Ofcourse the legal system exists to preven people from doing things that make everyones life more shitty, the problem that arises is in defining what exactly "more shitty" means. You cannot say, we want pragmatic law, unless you define the values it is empty, and when you define the values, it is becomes another ideology. I dont think everything in the universe is predestined to happen, i was hoping this would be clear by now lol. You are technically right,in the end the pragmatism is based on another ideology which defines the values,though we dont need to establish thoose values inside a phylosophical framework and by thinking verry hard and deeply to find the "truth", we could simply vote on them. I would be more then happy to determine these values in a democratic way, and let the population decide wich criminal acts should be punished and with what sentence, this is what i meant with pragmatic. Maybe i should have worded it differently. DertoQq summarised my position quiet well btw, The above just to answer your objection that in the end pragmatic would still be ideological because we have to determine thoose values, we can determine thoose values in other ways then ideological ways, for example by simply voting on them. No it is not clear, that is why I asked you to make it more clear. You mix in so many terms with different connotations that it is completely unclear what exactly it is that you are saying But if I may guess I think you mean to say we are determined that if one event would happen at another time under the exact same circumstances we would react to it exactly the same way and there is nothing we could do about it. We are hardwired to always respond to input A with response Z in situation 1. What I fail to see then however, is why we would still punish someone since our very legal system is based on the assumption that we are responsible for our own actions and that we can deliberately do these actions. I mean I can envision some sort of system that would put to death everyone who breaks the law, but this would hardly be "justice". Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do. Ofcourse, if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it. Can and do you even read and do you have basic understanding, or are you doing this misinterpretation on purpose and beeing a trol.? I said clearly that i do believe in a stochastic world and not in a 100% deterministic world, several times btw, and it could be concluded from nearly all of my posts, yet at the end you say: "if what you say is true, this entire conversation is rather pointless, since your response is already hardwired, and so is my response after that etc, and there is nothing we can do about it" *mind is blown* This conversation is indeed pointless. "Otherwise, there is no reason to punish them since they are hardwired to do whatever it is what they will do." This is just your own opinnion, we can still punish criminals even in a deterministic world, i realy dont see why we could not. We can punish criminals for the simple reason that the majority of the population agrees on it. LOL? Are you serious? Perhaps I should ask you if you can write? You use determinism and destiny in one sentence and then tell me that I am the one who is purposely confusing things? Half the words you spell wrong and half the grammar is fucked up. Now this is not something to hold against you, English is not your first language, that is why I ask you to make it more clear. But sure, if you can only respond like this then dont even bother... Enjoy spouting around stuff that is impossible to understand because it is incoherent and badly written... From now on I will just ignore you since you do not care to explain yourself or improve in that area. You say you believe in a stochastic world, but when asked to explain what that meant or how it works, you had no answer to give... so don't blame me for not properly understanding what you meant, you havent properly explained what you meant. A stochastic world is not predetermined,if we would run the universe again from the same starting conditions, something different might happen in a stochastic world, this contrary to a deterministic world where the same would happen.
Is this actually true of other stochastic processes than those related to quantum phenomena? So far I haven't received an answer to my question as to whether other stochastic processes feature actual randomness (i.e. the kind of randomness that can be found with some quantum phenomena) or if they are categorized as random and probabilistic only because we cannot analyze and predict the individual behavior of each of their elements. If it's the later, they would still be deterministic, only detailed knowledge of the said determinism would escape us.
|
On July 13 2013 21:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:11 Snusmumriken wrote:On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I. what the hell are you talking about? that was the allegory of determinism vs free will in a nutshell. internal god vs external god.
determinism and free will or values or whatever else youve been talking about are as mutually exclusive as pasta and tomatoes. Just sayin
|
This no freewill factor confuses even those that believe it.
Just because there is no freewill does not imply there is no will. Will. Who am I? That philosophical question that no one seems to be able to answer.
The Will is the third person in the mind. Which basically watches a movie of itself doing actions it might disagree with, but doing them regardless.
A good example is, try to quit smoking, or don't masturbate for a couple months or something. Then analyze your thoughts. The mind will assault you with thoughts on why you should smoke or masturbate, and you the Will will attempt to fight them.
The mind will have low thoughts that will convince you to smoke or masturbate, and high thoughts that will encourage you to not do it called the conscious. You, the Will...will then be forced to make a choice. Also your body does some chemical stuff that doesn't help the situation either.
That choice, is the illusion of free will. For every action you go through that same process.When you simply follow the dictates of you mind without challenging it, it appears that all your decisions are your own. However, when you challenge you own thoughts and lose time and time again. You realize how free will is an illusion.
This is just one example.
|
I use stochastic in the sense of beeing actuall random, the randomness that is found in some quantum phenomena.
Off course there are other definitions possible, but this is the one i use when using the word stochastic.
It could verry well be that the hidden variables theory is right and that quantum processes in the end are deterministic as well, i cant say for sure that they are not. In the end it comes down to what you believe. You cant completely rely on the opinnion of physics in this case, since physics is still a work in progress and no final theory of everything has been found yet.
|
On July 13 2013 22:05 Rassy wrote:
I use stochastic in the sense of beeing actuall random, the randomness that is found in some quantum phenomena.
Off course there are other definitions possible, but this is the one i use when using the word stochastic.
It could verry well be that the hidden variables theory is right and that quantum processes in the end are deterministic as well, i cant say for sure that they are not. In the end it comes down to what you believe. You cant completely rely on the opinnion of physics in this case, since physics is still a work in progress and no final theory of eveything has been found yet.
Yes, but which stochastic processes are you thinking about exactly, which would be actually random but not be quantum phenomena?
|
i can only think of quantum processes atm,or processes wich are influenced by quantum mechanics, like my hypothetical quantum shock machine.(wich is made to counter the argument that quantum processes do not play a role inside your brain)
|
On July 13 2013 22:02 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 21:11 Snusmumriken wrote:On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I. what the hell are you talking about? that was the allegory of determinism vs free will in a nutshell. internal god vs external god. determinism and free will or values or whatever else youve been talking about are as mutually exclusive as pasta and tomatoes. Just sayin
or, OR, you can't have one without the other. meaning, both exist. just saying
pure determinism would drive itself to extinction.
pure free will would drive itself to extinction.
but just see the irony of it all: either both exist or neither of them. contradictory ideas/concepts/believes forced to coexist in an evolutionary dance.
free willys are energy while determinists are matter. it's almost poetic.
|
On July 13 2013 21:46 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:
The justice system anywhere, anytime, can be neatly summed up:
1. Punish the guilty
to
a. Serve justice.
b. Deter other criminals.
Either you agree with me on that, or you don't.
I have disagreed, though I have acknowledged b) as a effect of a). But what my question to Rassy pretty much amounted to is, what does a) mean in a deterministic world? Because our notion of justice, afaik, implies that we are responsible for our actions which we deliberately make. Ofcourse in a deterministic world there can still be punishment, we punish dogs as well, even if we acknowledge that the beast is acting upon his instincts and its action was not deliberate. But when we put down a dog because it bit a babe for example, we do not call it justice. Now perhaps I am misunderstanding some key notion about determinism, if so, please explain it to me. Thats all I was asking him, and now you.
Why are you asking Rassy about what justice means in a deterministic world?
In order to deter criminal acts you must punish the criminals, whether justice would technically be possible or not in a deterministic universe isn't really relevant.
|
On July 13 2013 21:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 21:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 20:39 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does - Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value? The question is not what value those predictable events have, or who would give them value. The question is, what value do unpredictable events have, or who would give them value. The point in this question is to demonstrate that there is no difference between events that can or cannot be predicted in terms of value, value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. The idea here is that you realise saying stuff like "lol everything is deterministic so nothing means anything" is completely stupid even when used in half-jest, it's a complete misunderstanding of determinism or a completely outrageous attempt to pretend your own personal system for attributing value somehow logically follows if determinism is true. first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism. second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that. i also believe in a god but his name is I. Okay, since you didn't understand my full explanation, I'll just give you the simple version. You asked me what value predictable events have, and who would give them value? My answer is determinism does not make value judgements, people do. I don't actually believe in determinism and I haven't stated otherwise so to claim I view determinism as my God is laughable along with virtually all your posts. - but people are determined to make those judgements ... based on what other authority could people make judgements in a deterministic world? else it ends here first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. Actually it ends with you making it clear you don't understand what determinism means and me deciding to stop wasting my time on you. Conversation speaks for itself.
nope, you fail to define the missing links between your deterministic processes. how, or based on what do you connect two deterministic processes/events?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
