Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Phmcw]

I was using your post as an answer, not making a dig at you.
Though I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that second sentence with the computer program, seeing as you're giving an example of a thing that cannot be held responsible in any meaningful way, while going on to say that everyone should be responsible for what they do.

I believe we're basically big computer programs that should be judged on what we do (in reasonably normal circumstances). Free will is irrelevant.

[Graknorke]

I was using your post as an answer, not making a dig at you.
Though I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that second sentence with the computer program, seeing as you're giving an example of a thing that cannot be held responsible in any meaningful way, while going on to say that everyone should be responsible for what they do.

I believe we're basically big computer programs that should be judged on what we do (in reasonably normal circumstances). Free will is irrelevant.

Okay.
I'm not sure what we're supposed to be disagreeing about here.

[Baffler]

how do you propose free will does exist when it would (with the assumption of being able to know all the factors that could affect it) be possible to predict every decision a person will make?

If all of these things were knowable and perfectly predictable, then there probably couldn't be any free will. But I do not believe this is the case. It feels lazy, but I'll just refer to the Uncertainty principle, the Observer effect, and the randomness apparently inherent in quantum mechanics. Among other things.

Don't you trash the paper bag? Do you wonder if the program that is hanging your processor is personally responsible for its failure before clausing it?

Everyone is responsible for his actions even if they were cause by exterior factors.

Even if prediction are faulty, your decision can ever only be the product of A) Your nature B) Your nuture C) randomness. You have control over neither.

But you are what your are. After all it's the thing you are now that I judge? Why the hell would I care about why you became what you are.

Edit : this is an oversimplification but I think it got my point across. Of course you can be the victim of circustances, take by temporary madness, or otherwise have your judgment temporarly impeared. There's reasons why the law is several big books.

I'm sorry, but I have great difficulty understanding what you're saying. People are responsible even if they're not?

[Frumple]

It is an awfully good illusion, though, so I don't see any reason to let it bother you one way or the other.

This.  There is no perceivable difference between a choice made by free will and one invisibly predetermined by forces we cannot influence, access, or even perceive, and since the only thing that really matters is perception who gives a shit?

More or less. The only possible difference we could perceive would potentially be observable after death (which would mean no means of communication with living folks, so it doesn't really matter to those still living), insofar as we're aware, and we can hobo shank that in a metaphysical alleyway if it turns out there is something else out there, when we get there.

Heaven is stabbing a creator deity in the ribs, forever.

[Phmcw]

Some peoples think responsibility is being at the beginning of the causality chain that cause something. It's not.

In an SMBC, the author joke areound making a chip that introduce true randomness in the brain (based on the uncertainty principle) and thus give free will. But why would you be more responsible for decision taken because of the decay of atoms than those cause by the way you were where you were born and your lifes experiences since?

You are what you are, and that's what we judge. Who the hell give a damn if your actions can be predicted? I can predict some peoples, I can predict that if I got and say I'm an atheist is ISIS HQ in Syria, they'll murder me. Do that absolve them? Would it absolve them if I was able to predict with 100% certainty who was going to be an ISIS membre when they're born? No.

The free will question is about God and God alone.

[Graknorke]

how do you propose free will does exist when it would (with the assumption of being able to know all the factors that could affect it) be possible to predict every decision a person will make?

If all of these things were knowable and perfectly predictable, then there probably couldn't be any free will. But I do not believe this is the case. It feels lazy, but I'll just refer to the Uncertainty principle, the Observer effect, and the randomness apparently inherent in quantum mechanics. Among other things.

Ah, but if it's random it's still not a free choice. It's not predictable, but it's random so it's out of control.
For free will to really exist, there has to be a system that is both entirely deterministic and free from cause and effect (in so far as the input does not decide the output). If you didn't notice, those two requirements are completely at odds with each other.

[DeKaFu]

I can't let it sit. To take the idea to its logical conclusion: does that mean that nobody is truly responsible for their actions? Everyone is nothing more than the product of various environmental factors out of their control. To reject free will is to reject the most basic premises of morality and ethics. It isn't the fault of a paper bag floating in the breeze when it hits the side of a building, so why do we hold people who commit crimes responsible for their actions? Both are equally powerless, after all. As you say, they could only ever make that one choice.

But really, when someone is punished, it's not because they've done something abstractly "Evil", it's because they've done something that causes harm to themselves or others in society, and punishing them is a good way to cause them to decide not to (or be unable to) do it again. Likewise, when someone does something great and are praised for it, it incentivizes them and others to do things that are beneficial for society.

These things are true regardless of whether free will exists or not. The punishment or praise falls under the "environmental factors" part of the equation for the person in question. So why would you stop doing those things? Or do you mean something else by "hold people responsible"?

It really changes nothing, outside of some religious questions as people have said.

[Cthulhu]

how do you propose free will does exist when it would (with the assumption of being able to know all the factors that could affect it) be possible to predict every decision a person will make?

If all of these things were knowable and perfectly predictable, then there probably couldn't be any free will. But I do not believe this is the case. It feels lazy, but I'll just refer to the Uncertainty principle, the Observer effect, and the randomness apparently inherent in quantum mechanics. Among other things.

Don't you trash the paper bag? Do you wonder if the program that is hanging your processor is personally responsible for its failure before clausing it?

Everyone is responsible for his actions even if they were cause by exterior factors.

Even if prediction are faulty, your decision can ever only be the product of A) Your nature B) Your nuture C) randomness. You have control over neither.

But you are what your are. After all it's the thing you are now that I judge? Why the hell would I care about why you became what you are.

Edit : this is an oversimplification but I think it got my point across. Of course you can be the victim of circustances, take by temporary madness, or otherwise have your judgment temporarly impeared. There's reasons why the law is several big books.

I'm sorry, but I have great difficulty understanding what you're saying. People are responsible even if they're not?

"Responsibility" is irrelevant.  If your upbringing/brain chemistry/quantum state/horoscope/own personal Jesus/free will causes you to commit societally unacceptable acts then you will be removed from society.  It doesn't matter what causes it.

That's true even in our own laws.  While you may not be held criminally liable if you kill someone because of insanity, you will still end up in some kind of institution.  Technically it's even worse.  If you go to jail they have to set an upper limit on your stay.  If you go to a mental hospital they keep you until they decide you're better.

[Baffler]

I can't let it sit. To take the idea to its logical conclusion: does that mean that nobody is truly responsible for their actions? Everyone is nothing more than the product of various environmental factors out of their control. To reject free will is to reject the most basic premises of morality and ethics. It isn't the fault of a paper bag floating in the breeze when it hits the side of a building, so why do we hold people who commit crimes responsible for their actions? Both are equally powerless, after all. As you say, they could only ever make that one choice.

But really, when someone is punished, it's not because they've done something abstractly "Evil", it's because they've done something that causes harm to themselves or others in society, and punishing them is a good way to cause them to decide not do it again. Likewise, when someone does something great and are praised for it, it incentivizes them and others to do things that are beneficial for society.

These things are true regardless of whether free will exists or not. The punishment or praise falls under the "environmental factors" part of the equation for the person in question. So why would you stop doing those things? Or do you mean something else by "hold people responsible"?

It really changes nothing, outside of some religious questions as people have said.

"Responsibility" is irrelevant.  If your upbringing/brain chemistry/quantum state/horoscope/own personal Jesus/free will causes you to commit societally unacceptable acts then you will be removed from society.  It doesn't matter what causes it.

That's true even in our own laws.  While you may not be held criminally liable if you kill someone because of insanity, you will still end up in some kind of institution.  Technically it's even worse.  If you go to jail they have to set an upper limit on your stay.  If you go to a mental hospital they keep you until they decide you're better.

By hold people responsible, I mean in a more personal way: outside of judicial action. It's one thing to create an incentive to do good (or disincentive against evil) but another to dislike a criminal, or do anything beyond what is required to create that disincentive. Of course it could be argued that under such a philosophy that the penalty for even minor infractions should be death after long and painful torture, as that creates the strongest disincentive possible (at least that I can think of.)

how do you propose free will does exist when it would (with the assumption of being able to know all the factors that could affect it) be possible to predict every decision a person will make?

If all of these things were knowable and perfectly predictable, then there probably couldn't be any free will. But I do not believe this is the case. It feels lazy, but I'll just refer to the Uncertainty principle, the Observer effect, and the randomness apparently inherent in quantum mechanics. Among other things.

Ah, but if it's random it's still not a free choice. It's not predictable, but it's random so it's out of control.
For free will to really exist, there has to be a system that is both entirely deterministic and free from cause and effect (in so far as the input does not decide the output). If you didn't notice, those two requirements are completely at odds with each other.

The input doesn't need to determine the output absolutely, or not at all. I've never said that. Environmental input may influence output, but it is not the sole cause. Either way, I suppose the people here who are saying that it doesn't matter may be on to something.

[Graknorke]

The input doesn't need to determine the output absolutely, or not at all. I've never said that. Environmental input may influence output, but it is not the sole cause. Either way, I suppose the people here who are saying that it doesn't matter may be on to something.

What kind of input would you be talking about other than environmental? Initial conditions?

[Baffler]

The input doesn't need to determine the output absolutely, or not at all. I've never said that. Environmental input may influence output, but it is not the sole cause. Either way, I suppose the people here who are saying that it doesn't matter may be on to something.

What kind of input would you be talking about other than environmental? Initial conditions?

No, I should have been more clear. I mean one that is fundamentally independent: free will.

[Descan]

One- The sexual acts are outside of marriage so that's not ok

This is just a PTW, and you guys might have continued on beyond this, but I just wanna say, this is really circular.

"No gay marriage!"
"Why?"
"Homosexuality is a sin!"
"Why?"
"Because it's outside of marriage!"
"Then let them get married...?"
"We can't, because homosexuality is a sin!"

[freeformschooler]

One- The sexual acts are outside of marriage so that's not ok

This is just a PTW, and you guys might have continued on beyond this, but I just wanna say, this is really circular.

"No gay marriage!"
"Why?"
"Homosexuality is a sin!"
"Why?"
"Because it's outside of marriage!"
"Then let them get married...?"
"We can't, because homosexuality is a sin!"

Close, but not quite right. More like

"Homosexuality is a sin!"
"Why?"
"Their sexual acts are committed outside of marriage!"
"Then let them get married?"
"Marriage is between one man and one woman!"

Not circular, but still annoying.

[Graknorke]

The input doesn't need to determine the output absolutely, or not at all. I've never said that. Environmental input may influence output, but it is not the sole cause. Either way, I suppose the people here who are saying that it doesn't matter may be on to something.

What kind of input would you be talking about other than environmental? Initial conditions?

No, I should have been more clear. I mean one that is fundamentally independent: free will.

Sorry, but with all the discussion the thread must have burned through at least 3 different interpretations of what 'free will' is. What exactly does it mean in this context?

[Baffler]

The ability to act of one's own accord without metaphysical constraint, in simplest terms.