Free Will

[DivineFire]

This forum never ceases to make me think about things I'd never thought about before... As well as confuse the hell out of me.

[Mr. Griggles]

In a deterministic universe there can be no free will, however this does not release us from moral responsibility.

I think in a deterministic universe you would be absolved of moral responsibility actually.

Ill give you my argument that I told GS and venox yesterday. I like to think of a deterministic universe as chains of dominos falling over. Each action has a consequence that is the same no matter how many times you play it over, which would be knocking the next domino over.

Now one of these dominos happens to represent a guy shooting and killing someone else. The domino is going to fall over and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it in a deterministic universe. Why are you morally responsible for something that you can do absolutely nothing about ? The domino is set up to fall. Why is it their fault that previous domino crashes into them ?

I could replace you with the murderer atom by atom, and give you the exact same life experiences as the murderer. In a deterministic universe you would do the exact same thing as they did. That defeats the whole concept of moral responsibility. By saying that someone is morally responsible youre essenitally saying that youd have done something different or couldve done something different and therefore this guy is fully responsible for what they did. But you couldnt do anything different in a deterministic universe, its impossible.

Dont blame a random domino.

Griggley Judicially. Hes a bad man, according to plan. Thinks that he has to, or likes that he can. Pity and punish or begone with the man.

[deleted_user0]

There is a long vid about a guy arguing in favorvof dererminism and still being morally responsible. I found his argument failing on some crucial points but he did raise some interesting notions.

For me in the end its irrelevant because whichever it is however interesting the debate, were not gonna live our lives any differently.

In the end i guess my ideas will put me in the kantian trench

[Mr. Pecksniff]

lol gs remember the discussion we had about this

[Goodspeed]

Yes (facepalm)

Discussing whether a self-triggering gun is a logical fallacy or not. What a solid way to spend one's free time

[Mr. Pecksniff]

In a deterministic universe there can be no free will, however this does not release us from moral responsibility.

I think in a deterministic universe you would be absolved of moral responsibility actually.

Ill give you my argument that I told GS and venox yesterday. I like to think of a deterministic universe as chains of dominos falling over. Each action has a consequence that is the same no matter how many times you play it over, which would be knocking the next domino over.

Now one of these dominos happens to represent a guy shooting and killing someone else. The domino is going to fall over and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it in a deterministic universe. Why are you morally responsible for something that you can do absolutely nothing about ? The domino is set up to fall. Why is it their fault that previous domino crashes into them ?

I could replace you with the murderer atom by atom, and give you the exact same life experiences as the murderer. In a deterministic universe you would do the exact same thing as they did. That defeats the whole concept of moral responsibility. By saying that someone is morally responsible youre essenitally saying that youd have done something different or couldve done something different and therefore this guy is fully responsible for what they did. But you couldnt do anything different in a deterministic universe, its impossible.

Dont blame a random domino.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#ChaPriAltPos

Jones has resolved to shoot Smith. Black has learned of Joness plan and wants Jones to shoot Smith. But Black would prefer that Jones shoot Smith on his own. However, concerned that Jones might waver in his resolve to shoot Smith, Black secretly arranges things so that, if Jones should show any sign at all that he will not shoot Smith (something Black has the resources to detect), Black will be able to manipulate Jones in such a way that Jones will shoot Smith. As things transpire, Jones follows through with his plans and shoots Smith for his own reasons. No one else in any way threatened or coerced Jones, offered Jones a bribe, or even suggested that he shoot Smith. Jones shot Smith under his own steam. Black never intervened.



In this example, Jones shot Smith on his own, and did so unencumbered ?? did so freely. But, given Blacks presence in the scenario, Jones could not have done otherwise than shoot Smith...

If determinism threatens free will and moral responsibility, it is not because it is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise. Even if determinism is incompatible with a sort of freedom involving the ability to do otherwise, it is not the kind of freedom required for moral responsibility.

[deleted_user0]

There is a huge gaping hole in the compatibalist argument as presented by dennet though. And he goes totally ham on the could have done otherwise objection, but ignores many others.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

But, given Blacks presence in the scenario, Jones could not have done otherwise than shoot Smith...

Uhm, no. Jones could have stopped shooting Smith because his actions were pre-determined to first decide to shoot Smith and then waver.

Well yeah, Black had no impact on the outcome, he may as well have not been there. The idea is to imagine a scenario in which the lack of an ability to do otherwise has no direct influence on the course of events, hence leaving the agent responsible.

I didnt expect anyone to spot that so soon, though.

[deleted_user0]

Griggle confusion, freewill''s an illusion? Do ye shiver, if life is a river? You can still paddle.

Haha

Who is this riddler, that spins rhymes as if notes strung from a fiddler. He speaks like a sphinx about life''s most mysterious things. But his words appear clouded, and like an oracle, in mist his truths are shrouded.

[deleted_user0]

Uhm, no. Jones could have stopped shooting Smith because his actions were pre-determined to first decide to shoot Smith and then waver.

Well yeah, Black had no impact on the outcome, he may as well have not been there. The idea is to imagine a scenario in which the lack of an ability to do otherwise has no direct influence on the course of events, hence leaving the agent responsible.?

I didnt expect anyone to spot that so soon, though.?

Imo the troublesome part about that example is tge way that it differentiates between actions and intentions. It asserts that jones is morally responsible for his murder because he did it for his own reasons, regardless if he could have acted otherwise. This implies that if jones would have not shot smith for his own reasons but only because black programmed him to do so, he would not have been responsible. Thus meaning that one is only morally responsible when ones actions follow from ones intentions (this doesnt mean that you cant be held accountable for actions you did not intend, hence the distinction between murder and manslaughter). Jones is held responsible it seems because he could have intended otherwise, which obviously in a determined world he also could not have. And thus imo it fails to convince that people are morally responsible in a deterministic world.

[deleted_user0]

What about people with mixed roots?

[_venox_]

I think the judicial system exists to give society a feeling of justice, not necessarily safety. The safety part comes in when something you can relate to happens, like nearby or the victims are similar to you or your family. Especially when media induced fear is in play, then things get irrational.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

The judicial system exists to reinforce the aims of the landed elite.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[WickedCossack]

Nah, I've heard that one before ...

[Mr. Pecksniff]

The judicial system exists to uphold the interests of the judicial system.

[deleted_user0]

Justice is an illusion.

[deleted_user0]

This post is an illusion

[Metis]

From the standpoint of a biologist I see a lot of animal behavior that is "hardwired" or innate. For instance, you can take a beaver kit and raise it entirely apart from other beavers, yet it will still cut down trees and make dams. Other behavior is learned but once learned it too is "hardwired" in neural pathways -- this is why it's so hard to "unlearn" a bad habit.


More human behavior is innate than humans want to admit. Humans are primates and one need only look at other primates to see which of out behaviors have been passed down from our ancestors.


Most of the body is under its own control. We pretty much only have control over the voluntary musculature and certain cognitive thought processes. The body also has safeguards that prevent the conscious self from causing it too much damage, though via technology we can override this (a bullet leaves little time for second thoughts or the body to shut down because of pain).


We like to think that we have free will but ask yourself why, if you do, then do you not just do anything that you wish? If you never do a thing or nearly always do a thing then it may be because you really have little choice in the matter and the idea that you do is just wishful thinking on your part.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

This post is an illusion

This is why pots illegal. (facepalm)

Youre just mad because youre an illusion.

[deleted_user0]

Exactomundo.