The puzzleing thing to understand is the fact that not being able to change the future does not actually mean that we don't in fact have control over what the future is. Because what the future is is made up by how we excersize that control. That's how we are responsible for what it is reguardless of wheather determinism is true.
Well you have to realize that we are supposed to use our intelligence to design a system that allows us to live in a way that allows us to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or something more perfect than that if we are intelligent enough to make it occur. It is clear that the authors of religion used it just like ancient cavemen did to enforce order amongst people with minimal intelligence.
hey man thanks for the response. i think the purposes of deterrence (or producing good effects for society, etc) are served only if it is foreseeable to me that certain effects will produce negative consequences. If I am right about the connection between foreseeability and libertarian free will, deterrence would still require the voluntariness of our acts.
@legodesi I dunno about it requiring "voluntariness", or at least, it would depend what exactly you mean by that, since there is no observable difference between an act of "free will" and a "deterministic" act...the practical result is the same, and so the practical consequence can be the same (in my opinion at least). Philosophically the purpose of those consequences may differ, but the end goal is similar (if not identical) in either case...isn't it?
(this should be attached to my earlier comment) consider an example: criminalizing seizures will not be deterrent. why? because seizures are involuntary and occur without an actor intending it to occur, so they'd occur anyway. criminalizing driving while being prone to seizures, will be a deterrent, because you could have chosen not to drive, when you did drive. i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the end goal is similar.
@legodesi Intent (and the physical ability to pursue that intent purhaps?) is very important, yes. All I meant by the "end goal is similar" is that whether determinism is or isn't true, does not change the goal of the justice system. Namely to deter "criminal actions", and protect the public. There are philosophical differences in a deterministic versus non-deterministic view...but at a practical level most of the same cause/effect situations would work in the same way in the justice system.
@AtheistInTheHat if determinism is true, the system wouldn't punish people on the basis of responsibility. every one would be held strictly liable for everythin. the problem with deterrence can be summarized in one question: what is the best deterrent? Death. so if the justice system's sole purpose were deterrence (as it was in some countries) is deterrence, then it'd have the death penalty for any crime. the idea of responsibility mitigates the severity of punishment in this country.
Your discussion of behavior modification à la utilitarianism is irrelevant until you can demonstrate a way of identifying criminals that does not require the will to do wrong (mens rea).
@jericomovie the "will" to do wrong is not relevant for determining whether or not a particular action should or shouldn't have consequences. It's the actions that matter.
The "will" to commit an action, may effect punishment (if it makes sense in the given situation), but not the need for consequences in general.
For example, there is a difference between stealing food to eat, and someone robing someone at gun-point and then lighting their house on fire, but both should have consequences.
@jericomovie Accidents are devoid of intent, and as such would (or at least should) not be subject to the same consequences...no. It's not about punishing someone because something happened, it's about deterring them and/or other people from intentionally committing similar acts, and in extreme cases possibly removing them from the population (via some form of confinement, or in very severe cases possibly death...though the specific situation where that may apply would be debatable I suppose.
@jericomovie I'm not sure if "intent" is the right word technically here, since it may well require "free will" by definition. Hmm.... perhaps something like "internal self-justification for one's actions" might be more accurate (not as catchy though). I would define it as the purposeful commission of an act, in the sense of "deciding" to do something. That decision is, in my view, a retroactive illusion, but in practical use it amounts to the same thing in regards to personal responsibility.
@jericomovie Not much, if anything. I just think "intent" implies a level of free will to most people, and I want to be clear to avoid that implication since such a thing isn't really compatible with determinism...at least not unless you're REALLY stretching it thin...*cough* compatibilism *cough*
yes, you see, that's precisely the point. If you are unable to describe how intention is made without free will, there is no reason to suppose this theoretical placeholder of yours has any merit.
@jericomovie I'm not sure what you mean. There is no need for "free will" in anything but the superficially practical sense for personal responsibility for ones actions to be an important and relevant concept in a justice system...whatever you call the "intent", and whether or not it's based on one's "free will", or is a product of deterministic principles makes no difference at all in that system The goal of the system is the same (safety of the public), and the results are the same.
That does not answer the question any more than if I said "unfreely" to the same question. I am looking for the process that you are suggesting by asking the question itself.
"If there was a determined process by which intention is made we wouldn't be talking about free will."
The exact opposite is true, we would be talking about free will, as that would be our determined intention.
No, see, "unfreely" would be indicative of a determined process, which would be appropriate in your case. If I was able to provide a determined process to explain free will, then how do you suppose it would be free will at that point?
Still not explaining the process anymore than "Unfreely. It's a contingent force" would when you asked it. What is the process that makes it "non-contingent"? What event's occur non-contingent on other events in which allow for "intent'? It seems to me that intention implies contingency of the thing that has the intent.
See if you could provide me an answer to this, as it might give me insight on your use and expectation of language. Assume an omnipotent being creates a universe. Now, explain the process by which omnipotence creates.
Free from what? Other causes that lead to the cause that leads to intent?
"Now, explain the process by which omnipotence creates."
I have no idea of what such process would be, with the exception that such creation would be (would logically have to be) caused by the omnipotence. Otherwise we could not say such was created BY the omnipotence. Other than that - no idea. If you know the process can you explain it to me? I'd love to find out.
@jericomovie "freely" isn't an answer to where intention comes from...no more than "god did it" is an explanation for the existence of life, or any of the standard non-explanations for things. Such a lax and incomplete answer raises far more questions than it answers...
@jericomovie Still doesn't answer anything...you brought up free will as a requirement for intention, and have given no reason for that requirement, let alone how it would help explain away a deterministic system as inconsistent even if it actually IS a requirement in such a system...since the very idea of free will is counter to most of what we know about how the physical universe (aka the ONLY universe) works...so you'd have some serious explaining to do...
@jericomovie As far as I can tell from a couple vids, you're pretty far in the dualism camp, which I'm sure you can understand that I wouldn't consider a viable theory for numerous reasons. I'll just mention one though...it's intellectually lazy. Nothing we understand about the brain (be it neurologically, chemically, or right down into physics) has led to any evidence of mind/brain dualism, so to assume such dualism requires a leap of faith that is far from rational (in my opinion of course).
@jericomovie How so? Seems to me that unless you can explain a rational connection between "free will" and "intent" ( which you have not even attempted to do, other than to say it's "free", whatever that means), then you've still got serious work to do to form a coherent argument. To be blunt, it's starting to sound from your comments that you simply reduce the problem down to a point where you can't explain it, and fill in the blank with what can only be described as "magic".
The puzzleing thing to understand is the fact that not being able to change the future does not actually mean that we don't in fact have control over what the future is. Because what the future is is made up by how we excersize that control. That's how we are responsible for what it is reguardless of wheather determinism is true.
Roenazarrek 6 months ago
Well you have to realize that we are supposed to use our intelligence to design a system that allows us to live in a way that allows us to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or something more perfect than that if we are intelligent enough to make it occur. It is clear that the authors of religion used it just like ancient cavemen did to enforce order amongst people with minimal intelligence.
iMagUdspEllr 9 months ago
hey man thanks for the response. i think the purposes of deterrence (or producing good effects for society, etc) are served only if it is foreseeable to me that certain effects will produce negative consequences. If I am right about the connection between foreseeability and libertarian free will, deterrence would still require the voluntariness of our acts.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I dunno about it requiring "voluntariness", or at least, it would depend what exactly you mean by that, since there is no observable difference between an act of "free will" and a "deterministic" act...the practical result is the same, and so the practical consequence can be the same (in my opinion at least). Philosophically the purpose of those consequences may differ, but the end goal is similar (if not identical) in either case...isn't it?
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
(this should be attached to my earlier comment) consider an example: criminalizing seizures will not be deterrent. why? because seizures are involuntary and occur without an actor intending it to occur, so they'd occur anyway. criminalizing driving while being prone to seizures, will be a deterrent, because you could have chosen not to drive, when you did drive. i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the end goal is similar.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi Intent (and the physical ability to pursue that intent purhaps?) is very important, yes. All I meant by the "end goal is similar" is that whether determinism is or isn't true, does not change the goal of the justice system. Namely to deter "criminal actions", and protect the public. There are philosophical differences in a deterministic versus non-deterministic view...but at a practical level most of the same cause/effect situations would work in the same way in the justice system.
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat if determinism is true, the system wouldn't punish people on the basis of responsibility. every one would be held strictly liable for everythin. the problem with deterrence can be summarized in one question: what is the best deterrent? Death. so if the justice system's sole purpose were deterrence (as it was in some countries) is deterrence, then it'd have the death penalty for any crime. the idea of responsibility mitigates the severity of punishment in this country.
legodesi 1 year ago
Cart before the horse.
Your discussion of behavior modification à la utilitarianism is irrelevant until you can demonstrate a way of identifying criminals that does not require the will to do wrong (mens rea).
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie the "will" to do wrong is not relevant for determining whether or not a particular action should or shouldn't have consequences. It's the actions that matter.
The "will" to commit an action, may effect punishment (if it makes sense in the given situation), but not the need for consequences in general.
For example, there is a difference between stealing food to eat, and someone robing someone at gun-point and then lighting their house on fire, but both should have consequences.
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
The act alone of, say, killing a person, might seem to warrant consequences in all situations. It is after all, killing. But what of accidents?
With an accident, the action of killing is present just as much as it is in a non-accident. Do you suppose both should be equally punishable?
If not, then by what measure do you justify discrepancy?
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie Accidents are devoid of intent, and as such would (or at least should) not be subject to the same consequences...no. It's not about punishing someone because something happened, it's about deterring them and/or other people from intentionally committing similar acts, and in extreme cases possibly removing them from the population (via some form of confinement, or in very severe cases possibly death...though the specific situation where that may apply would be debatable I suppose.
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
Ah, so it is not the action, but the action and the intent. I agree.
Can you define intent without regards to free will?
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie I'm not sure if "intent" is the right word technically here, since it may well require "free will" by definition. Hmm.... perhaps something like "internal self-justification for one's actions" might be more accurate (not as catchy though). I would define it as the purposeful commission of an act, in the sense of "deciding" to do something. That decision is, in my view, a retroactive illusion, but in practical use it amounts to the same thing in regards to personal responsibility.
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
What do you suppose differentiates "intent" from, as you say, "internal self-justification for one's actions"?
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie Not much, if anything. I just think "intent" implies a level of free will to most people, and I want to be clear to avoid that implication since such a thing isn't really compatible with determinism...at least not unless you're REALLY stretching it thin...*cough* compatibilism *cough*
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
So how does "internal self-justification for one's actions" work, exactly?
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie Just a long-winded way of saying "decide to do something" within a deterministic framework.
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
yes, you see, that's precisely the point. If you are unable to describe how intention is made without free will, there is no reason to suppose this theoretical placeholder of yours has any merit.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie I'm not sure what you mean. There is no need for "free will" in anything but the superficially practical sense for personal responsibility for ones actions to be an important and relevant concept in a justice system...whatever you call the "intent", and whether or not it's based on one's "free will", or is a product of deterministic principles makes no difference at all in that system The goal of the system is the same (safety of the public), and the results are the same.
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@jericomovie
Can you please explain how intention is made WITH free will?
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171
Freely. If there was a determined process by which intention is made we wouldn't be talking about free will.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie
"Freely"
That does not answer the question any more than if I said "unfreely" to the same question. I am looking for the process that you are suggesting by asking the question itself.
"If there was a determined process by which intention is made we wouldn't be talking about free will."
The exact opposite is true, we would be talking about free will, as that would be our determined intention.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171
No, see, "unfreely" would be indicative of a determined process, which would be appropriate in your case. If I was able to provide a determined process to explain free will, then how do you suppose it would be free will at that point?
jericomovie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jericomovie
"If I was able to provide a determined process to explain free will, then how do you suppose it would be free will at that point?"
I didn't ask that you supply me the determined process. I only asked that you supply a process. Could be an indetermined process.
The question is back in your court: Can you please explain how intention is made WITH free will?
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171
freely. it's a non-contingent force.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie
Still not explaining the process anymore than "Unfreely. It's a contingent force" would when you asked it. What is the process that makes it "non-contingent"? What event's occur non-contingent on other events in which allow for "intent'? It seems to me that intention implies contingency of the thing that has the intent.
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171
The cause of one's intent is free.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@trick0171
See if you could provide me an answer to this, as it might give me insight on your use and expectation of language. Assume an omnipotent being creates a universe. Now, explain the process by which omnipotence creates.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie
"The cause of one's intent is free."
Free from what? Other causes that lead to the cause that leads to intent?
"Now, explain the process by which omnipotence creates."
I have no idea of what such process would be, with the exception that such creation would be (would logically have to be) caused by the omnipotence. Otherwise we could not say such was created BY the omnipotence. Other than that - no idea. If you know the process can you explain it to me? I'd love to find out.
trick0171 1 year ago
@jericomovie "freely" isn't an answer to where intention comes from...no more than "god did it" is an explanation for the existence of life, or any of the standard non-explanations for things. Such a lax and incomplete answer raises far more questions than it answers...
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
please refer to my reply to trick
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie Still doesn't answer anything...you brought up free will as a requirement for intention, and have given no reason for that requirement, let alone how it would help explain away a deterministic system as inconsistent even if it actually IS a requirement in such a system...since the very idea of free will is counter to most of what we know about how the physical universe (aka the ONLY universe) works...so you'd have some serious explaining to do...
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
that's why I have a youtube channel. you can browse it at your leisure.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie As far as I can tell from a couple vids, you're pretty far in the dualism camp, which I'm sure you can understand that I wouldn't consider a viable theory for numerous reasons. I'll just mention one though...it's intellectually lazy. Nothing we understand about the brain (be it neurologically, chemically, or right down into physics) has led to any evidence of mind/brain dualism, so to assume such dualism requires a leap of faith that is far from rational (in my opinion of course).
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago
@AtheistInTheHat
Your position makes sense so long as you ignore the problem legodesi posed at the beginning of this conversation.
jericomovie 1 year ago
@jericomovie How so? Seems to me that unless you can explain a rational connection between "free will" and "intent" ( which you have not even attempted to do, other than to say it's "free", whatever that means), then you've still got serious work to do to form a coherent argument. To be blunt, it's starting to sound from your comments that you simply reduce the problem down to a point where you can't explain it, and fill in the blank with what can only be described as "magic".
AtheistInTheHat 1 year ago