|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 17:52:07 GMT
tpfkar The Lost One said:I think the story is self-contradictory. "Bob is an extreme misogynist and kills Jane" cannot coincide with "Bob would only ever hurt women" as Bob is deranged, violently so. But, yes, I think that the unjustified willful taking of a life makes Bob deserving of losing his own. At the hands of Jane especially, if she could rematerialize momentarily to do the deed. The "justice" of Adam doing it is a murkier subject, but I would understand it if he did for numerous reasons including anger/hate.
Tonight missoula turned its back on me |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 18:02:36 GMT
tpfkar The Lost One said:I think the story is self-contradictory. "Bob is an extreme misogynist and kills Jane" cannot coincide with "Bob would only ever hurt women" as Bob is deranged, violently so. Oh sure but thought experiments don't have to be realistic. Ok well lets narrow things down a bit more. Let's say Adam was not actually upset about Jane (he had no feelings for her one way or the other), but he is obsessed with delivering justice. Let's also say he cannot just kill Bob since he needs him for some two-man job in a few days time that is essential for both of them to survive. Any punishment therefore would be inflicting some temporary but genuine suffering to Bob. Jane cannot rise from the grave so any infliction of punishment would have to come from Adam. So again would it be just for Adam to punish Bob with some temporary suffering? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 18:22:49 GMT
tpfkar The Lost One said:Sure, how about this one. You know that a future city-nuking psychopath is in a certain kindergarten class, but you can't know which one it is and you'll lose your chance to act after today. Do you or do you not massacre the class? I'll answer yes if we can stipulate Adam's action would be just and no if Adam's action would be unjust. I think the answer is covered by my last reply. What is just to happen to Bob and what is just for Adam to carry out are not identical questions, and what Adam actually does for whatever reasons personal or otherwise does not affect whether Bob is deserving of the loss of his life as a consequence of his willful unjustified taking of Jane's life, even if she was an ignorant slut. But let me ask you a question. Given Adam and Bob (and Jane) could not have chosen to do other than what they did choose to do, how is "justice" even a concept at all?
Everyday there’s a way to do it just right |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 19:18:00 GMT
Sure, how about this one. You know that a future city-nuking psychopath is in a certain kindergarten class, but you can't know which one it is and you'll lose your chance to act after today. Do you or do you not massacre the class? Ah just when I thought I had you on the ropes, you deliver a sucker punch! That's a very good question and one I'm really struggling with. So my initial reaction is of course I don't. And that's probably what I would do too, I just couldn't bring myself to do it whether it was the right thing or wrong thing to do. On another tack, is the maxim "I will kill a class of kindergartners if doing so would save millions" universalisable? Probably. What about the second Kantian check to treat people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end? Here I think you could say killing people to prevent a disaster is using people as mere means to an end and therefore is wrong. The problem is this would seem to preclude a lot of the reasons for punishment I have already agreed with since all apart from maybe rehabilitation are using people as mere means to an end. So yeah this is a bit of a quandary for me. And it's not actually that ridiculous a scenario since collateral damage is a very real issue in the world. I'm not sure if what this reveals is an issue with my assessment of desert but it shows that there is definitely some flaw in my ethical stance - back to the drawing board! As a matter of interest, how would you answer your own thought experiment? We can consider if something is just or unjust in the way we consider whether something is hot or cold. If the intention is to cause suffering for no good reason then it is unjust. But people cannot help being predisposed to justice or injustice, anymore than they can help being short or tall. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 19:51:40 GMT
tpfkar The Lost One said:The answer in one world is it matters not, for you cannot choose other than what has been destined from the outset. For me the answer is I would. With the caveat that I would be a criminal lunatic either "knowing" what cannot be known or believing I could change what cannot be changed. Hot and cold are based upon energy, average particle velocity, sensation, etc. which are not in dispute. However "justice" is founded upon "deserving", which is. And "justice" without "deserving" is incoherent.
Are you wicked, or what? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:02:06 GMT
So as far as I'm concerned we have no disagreement. I'm not sure you and Mic do either, at least as regards free will, but I shall leave you two to decide that! Rabbit doesn't believe in determinism because it's too emotionally important to him to believe that he's a free agent whose actions are not inevitable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 20:04:09 GMT
I already have done innumerable times, and reported my findings back to you. But I've never had anything from you except for 'Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong?', which doesn't weigh in on the subject of free will. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 20:07:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 20:13:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by viola on Jun 30, 2017 20:58:28 GMT
Good point, kls. Discussing free will requires discussing how that ability develops (maybe we should be named “human becomings” rather than “beings”…) Agency gives us the power to strengthen our characters, and having Jesus as an example would have given Peter more than most – Perhaps a key point of the story, especially here, is that hardship and failures (even grievous ones) are also part of this development (in biblical terms, he sacrificed his own life for his fellows,) though interacting with and supporting others who accept the constant need to learn and grow is also essential. I'm intrigued - what do you mean by free will being an ability that develops? What for you is free will and how does it emerge? Thanks lostkiera, I would define free will as the ability, granted by language, to learn and grow throughout our lifetimes and contribute to knowledge after we are dead. Agency, which begins when learning language, is strengthened or weakened to the extent we can or cannot resist temptations and distractions from this growth (or to "forget" what we have learned.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 21:41:16 GMT
You've done nothing but push your own 'God of the gaps' agenda; stating that the studies I've cited might be flawed in some way, and that the philosophers who argue against free will are arrogant and overstating the matter. But never providing any experimental evidence in support of free will, or citing any secular philosophers who positively assert the existence of non-deterministic free will. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 21:43:23 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Proper punishment is not. Regardless of what one can "help", a psychopath wants to / is very willing to hurt people whereas a disease carrier on its own has no such intention. And I know that you can't help the fact that you firmly believe that things cannot be altered from their predetermined outcome one whit yet can't see the great irony in your frantic scrambling to change things. But it is still you, and you are still assessed by it.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 22:31:21 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Proper punishment is not. Regardless of what one can "help", a psychopath wants to / is very willing to hurt people whereas a disease carrier on its own has no such intention. And I know that you can't help the fact that you firmly believe that things cannot be altered from their predetermined outcome one whit yet can't see the great irony in your frantic scrambling to change things. But it is still you, and you are still assessed by it.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.I'm not saying that the law should treat the psychopath and disease carrier equally; but in neither case could the person help the fact that they are dangerous to others. If people were able to choose whether or not to be a violent psychopath, I doubt that would be a very popular personality to have, because it's unlikely that pathologically violent and harmful people are happy with their lives. And I'm not "frantically scrambling" to change anything from the predetermined outcome. I'm being caused to play whatever my small role is in a very long chain of causality. The chain of causality may or may not move in a direction that is more favourable to me, but I'm driven to do whatever it seems to me from my limited perspective would be in service of a favourable outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 22:36:05 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:  You just freely post laughable jibber-jabber. There is no "God of the gaps" where no god is postulated, but get on with your rational self! And many studies are flawed, sometimes comically so, and there are reams of criticisms available that you of course dismiss. And you're not a philosopher, even a poor armchair one, just a liar. The evidence of free will is what we live every day, and no study nor conjecture has come close to overturning it, nor even explaining the consciousness that it is based upon. None of that evaporates via your passionate need to tweak things that you firmly believe cannot be altered, all in service to your holy projecting quest.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 22:59:23 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said: You just freely post laughable jibber-jabber. There is no "God of the gaps" where no god is postulated, but get on with your rational self! And many studies are flawed, sometimes comically so, and there are reams of criticisms available that you of course dismiss. And you're not a philosopher, even a poor armchair one, just a liar. The evidence of free will is what we live every day, and no study nor conjecture has come close to overturning it, nor even explaining the consciousness that it is based upon. None of that evaporates via your passionate need to tweak things that you firmly believe cannot be altered, all in service to your holy projecting quest.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society, as It's a supernatural belief which is held onto for reasons of emotional attachment, much like God. And one which its believers have to keep trying to cram into smaller and smaller gaps, as science increasingly shows why it is not necessary as a postulate. If the studies I've posted are flawed, then how about you post a flawless study which substantiates your incoherent version of free will. What we experience every day can be explained entirely in deterministic terms, and you've yet to adequately explain (in fact as far as I can gather you've never even attempted to explain) why our conscious experience is unlikely to be explainable in deterministic terms. The fact that consciousness isn't entirely mapped out doesn't grant you the license to impose your own favoured interpretation; especially when you cannot even begin to explain how your 'free will' would operate and when what you're describing sounds exactly like the way that 'compatibilist free will' is described, except that you deny that our behaviour is deterministic. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 30, 2017 23:03:11 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:"Can't help that they are" is a meaningless statement. Still irrelevant, coupled with illogical assertion/assumption, as people do the things they want to do, by definition, however it's driven (internally). And anybody will ultimately be less than happy when harmful repercussion strikes, whether deserved or not. Of course you are, and the really wretched bit is your inability to recognize the irony of you simultaneously holding that things cannot be changed, yet you must urgently save the ghoulish from the healthy.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 2, 2017 2:56:23 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Only in the mind of one who holds religion so dear he's compelled to conjure it up when he's without it.  That is some of your delusional holy doctrine, for sure. If it's incoherent to you, that's serious indication it has legs.  How about you point out a flawless study that proves we're not part of the matrix? As it is, free will is where it's at, baby. In any case, the flaws/limitations of the studies themselves pale in comparison to the unrestrained exaggeration and calculated but awkward misrepresentation that you routinely field on them. Why don't you explain how consciousness works? I know! It's just like gates in silicon! As for "determinism", the fact that everything has causes is irrelevant to free will. We're right in there with it, choosing away, regardless of the events that got us here in the form we are, ordering dinner. Consciousness isn't even really defined, calling it "not entirely mapped out" just again highlights your wanton ludicrousness. I'm not the one routinely overstating and comically misrepresenting for holy cause; we'll see to the degree we're able as time rolls on. I'm just not interested in your oversimplistic overwrought death-scripture.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2017 3:25:16 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Only in the mind of one who holds religion so dear he's compelled to conjure it up when he's without it. That is some of your delusional holy doctrine, for sure. If it's incoherent to you, that's serious indication it has legs. How about you point out a flawless study that proves we're not part of the matrix? Because you're asking me to prove a negative (and one that I've never claimed), whereas I'm asking you to substantiate the positive assertions that you've made. Honestly, have you not encountered this when a theist has asked you to prove that God doesn't exist after you've asked for evidence of God's existence? That's very elementary stuff. That's basic argumentum ad populum. Free will is "where it's at" as is theistic religion. Two fundamental logical fallacies already in one post. It's the choice of those who feel that they need to believe in it. It surely doesn't allow us to direct our brain activity to produce certain thoughts before the brain activity which gives rise to the thoughts has occurred. The process which gives rise to thoughts is opaque to us, and there are far too many threads of causality for us to be able to follow each one as far as it goes. But that doesn't mean that there is any element of magic to the process. The fact that we don't know absolutely everything about the origins of the universe does not give us license to presume that it was created by our favourite deity. If you're accepting the compatibilist paradigm of free will. But if so, then that's a drastic row-back from where you were previously stating that the human will is definitely definitely definitely definitely indeterministic. So if you're now settling on compatibilist free will, I would have to interpret that as a concession of defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 2, 2017 3:52:32 GMT
tpfkar @miccee said:Semantics, swiftie. You're asking me to prove we don't have things chosen for us. You've asserted that free will is an illusion. The biggest actual evidence we have is what we experience in our heads, in fact everything else is based upon it. It's the starting point, and your grim amateur hour stuff hasn't even given the idea pause. Seriously, you think a bit like a child, albeit a goth one. Sure it is, Saordh. Free will is the baseline. We live it and experience it. Two mentally stunted faceplants with fallacies in one post. Nor does it allow you to blink yourself into Tinkerbell or any number of other bumbling irrelevancies. You go on wondering if there's magic, maybe keep praying to Fate & Oblivion enough and you and Erj will get answers. Myself I'm confident it's all in our own (some of them quite gruesomely disturbed) thinking heads. I don't care about your misuse of whatever definitions you want to throw out in lieu of an ability to articulate. I haven't changed my position one whit, in fact the one who's changed seems to have taken up the Irish pedo's mantle with puerile "concession of defeat" patheticness and positively comical misapplications of fallacies, and just basic reasoning.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 2, 2017 11:08:48 GMT
Free will is the baseline. As an aside, Robert Nozick made a good observation regarding this. He said if we take free will as our baseline (which everyone tends to do when looking at this issue) and then found difficulties with it, we are probably more likely to embrace hard determinism as an alternative. But if we were to go the other way we might embrace libertarianism once we saw the problems with hard determinism. He believed all three traditional stances (libertarianism, compatibilism and hard determinism) were highly problematic and all we could do was opt for the one that is least problematic (and he leaned towards libertarianism). |
|
