RE: Responsibility: Puzzle for Determinists

My answer to the puzzle of justifying personal accountability within a deterministic worldview.

Check out the video I'm replying to... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfGrL_N65zM

Side note: Starting get dark pretty damn early these days, I guess I need some lights in here!

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Criminal
• Law
• Responsibility
• Determinism
• Free
• Will

[Roenazarrek]

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.

[iMagUdspEllr]

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.

[trick0171]

@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.

[AtheistInTheHat]

@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".

[jericomovie]

@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]

@AtheistInTheHat

Your position makes sense so long as you ignore the problem legodesi posed at the beginning of this conversation.

[jericomovie]

@trick0171

The cause of one's intent is free.

[trick0171]

@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.

[AtheistInTheHat]

@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]

@AtheistInTheHat

that's why I have a youtube channel. you can browse it at your leisure.