Are we ultimately responsible for our actions?

[En_Route]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

[Davin]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will not only doesn't imply that we shouldn't seek to change our behaviors, but it also doesn't imply that we should irrationally reject other kinds of free will.

[En_Route]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will not only doesn't imply that we shouldn't seek to change our behaviors, but it also doesn't imply that we should irrationally reject other kinds of free will.

Free will in the sense that we are ultimately responsible for our actions seems to me to need a ghost to be inserted into the machine. All other versions need to be judged on their own merits.

[Davin]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will not only doesn't imply that we shouldn't seek to change our behaviors, but it also doesn't imply that we should irrationally reject other kinds of free will.

Free will in the sense that we are ultimately responsible for our actions seems to me to need a ghost to be inserted into the machine. All other versions need to be judged on their own merits.

What I've proposed for each individual being the ultimately responsible for their actions, exists in many versions of the possible determinism/free will spectrum. I've made no suppositions towards either major posibilities requiring a supernatural thing of any kind, so maybe you can explain why you're brought it into the discussion other than you're failure to be able to imagine a kind of free will that doesn't require it.

[En_Route]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will not only doesn't imply that we shouldn't seek to change our behaviors, but it also doesn't imply that we should irrationally reject other kinds of free will.

With respect, I think the fallacy in your reasoning is that there must be someone or something to be blamed.
Even if this were true, it doesn't seem especially persuasive to argue that  blame should properly be attributed to the agent who is closest in the chain of causation to the blameworthy act. Pragmatically, that is pretty well what happens in the personal and social spheres and one can see why.

[Davin]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will not only doesn't imply that we shouldn't seek to change our behaviors, but it also doesn't imply that we should irrationally reject other kinds of free will.

With respect, I think the fallacy in your reasoning is that there must be someone or something to be blamed.

This is not a fallacy. At most, it is an incorrect premise. No matter, I've never stated it or anything like it.

Even if this were true, it doesn't seem especially persuasive to argue that  blame should properly be attributed to the agent who is closest in the chain of causation to the blameworthy act.

Why not? Can one not blame both the actor and those who have acted upon the actor? Is there some kind of universal law that requires the blame be laid on only one person?

Pragmatically, that is pretty well what happens in the personal and social spheres and one can see why.

I've already stated why I think the actor is to be held responsible for their actions, I don't know what any of this has to do with what I've already stated.

[En_Route]

It is yet unproven either way. As far as I've seen evidence wise, it's currently unfalsefiable, so I find it useless to discuss this as if it were true one way or the other. On thing that I can see standing in the way of predeterminism is the uncertainty principle, while that doesn't help out free will, it does certainly exclude a determinable outcome. Which I think will also lead to never being able to falsify determinism or free will.

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

I think the idea of free will is not falsifiable but only in much the same way as the existence of a supernatural power is not falsifiable. There could be some magic extra ingredient over and above our genes and our environment which shapes our consciousness,but in the absence of any evidence I see absolutely no reason to buy into it. The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will does not imply that we shouldn't  seek to change our behaviours.

The rejection of the metaphysical notion of free will not only doesn't imply that we shouldn't seek to change our behaviors, but it also doesn't imply that we should irrationally reject other kinds of free will.

q


With respect, I think the fallacy in your reasoning is that there must be someone or something to be blamed.

This is not a fallacy. At most, it is an incorrect premise. No matter, I've never stated it or anything like it.

Even if this were true, it doesn't seem especially persuasive to argue that  blame should properly be attributed to the agent who is closest in the chain of causation to the blameworthy act.

Why not? Can one not blame both the actor and those who have acted upon the actor? Is there some kind of universal law that requires the blame be laid on only one person?

Pragmatically, that is pretty well what happens in the personal and social spheres and one can see why.

I've already stated why I think the actor is to be held responsible for their actions, I don't know what any of this has to do with what I've already stated.

One minute you 're saying that we are ultimately responsible for our actions and shouldn't blame our genes and environment, the next that blame can be spread. Of course, the latter proposition implies that the actor is not wholly responsible. But I don't see us getting anywhere given your particular style of disputation (choosing my words with as much discretion as I can muster).

[Davin]

In any of these cases, I think that we are ultimately responsible to ourselves for our actions, anything else is unreasonable. If I were to blame my environment and genes for everything and not have to correct my own behavior, then who does correct my behavior? All the things that lead to my current behavior have already happened and no one can unhappen them, and the chain of happenings that lead to how I currently am, goes all the way back to things that cannot be held responsible (due to being dead for billions of years), so the only reasonable thing to hold responsible for behavior is the actor that is making the actions. We can have an understanding for where the actor came from and still hold them responsible for their current actions whether they be good, neutral or bad.

With respect, I think the fallacy in your reasoning is that there must be someone or something to be blamed.

This is not a fallacy. At most, it is an incorrect premise. No matter, I've never stated it or anything like it.

Even if this were true, it doesn't seem especially persuasive to argue that  blame should properly be attributed to the agent who is closest in the chain of causation to the blameworthy act.

Why not? Can one not blame both the actor and those who have acted upon the actor? Is there some kind of universal law that requires the blame be laid on only one person?

Pragmatically, that is pretty well what happens in the personal and social spheres and one can see why.

I've already stated why I think the actor is to be held responsible for their actions, I don't know what any of this has to do with what I've already stated.

One minute you 're saying that we are ultimately responsible for our actions and shouldn't blame our genes and environment, the next that blame can be spread.

No, I'm not saying that. That doesn't sound like anything I've ever said, let alone anything I've said in this thread. Other than me saying that I don't think it's necessary to have to lay all the blame on one person. I don't think that blaming someone for something necessarily means that you must also hold them responsible, nor does it mean that you can't hold someone responsible without blaming them.

Having an obligation to do something as part of a job or role means that one may be obliged to do something without being the person blamed. As an example: I'm responsible for a few applications. I have to fix them and make sure they work, no matter who breaks them. I can blame other people as much as I want and even if it is completely their fault, I'm responsible for making sure the applications work. In the same light, other people may have acted upon me that leads to my decisions, I'm still responsible for my actions. I can reasonably blame other people for some things, but ultimately, I'm responsible for my actions because no one else is in control of this body. Even if that control is an illusion, I'm the entity that must be addressed and affected in order to get me to change or maintain my behavior.

Of course, the latter proposition implies that the actor is not wholly responsible. But I don't see us getting anywhere given your particular style of disputation.

Only if assigning blame is only synonymous with responsibility, but it's not, because both have other commonly accepted and useful definitions. I also think that the blame might be able to laid on one person, two people, several people, many people or no one. My objection was that your statements implied that I held the opinion that the blame must only be laid onto only one person. I don't think this kind of restriction exists, nor do I think that the blame must be laid on multiple people.

If what you meant by "ultimately respionsible" is only who we blame, excluding all other definitions of the word responsible, then I can go in that direction too. But hopefully my clarifications in this post have helped clear things up.

[pytheas]

Very nice Davin

--

we are ultimately responsible for a part of our actions
we may trace accountability to yet another part of the results, the evidenced outcome

there is the grey area with a lot of shades that maps out as reality, and our black and white glasses

approximation is a correct approach, "not wholly" this or that, more accurate

who are "we"?
No need and no use of ghosts in the machine, gods in the will, or capital cretins as chretiens are known in french.

we are not the story we tell to ourselfs, we are not our story or our thought. the contents of the conscious mind do not define "wholly" "exclusively" our identity.

I buy into the id of the higher self, the expanded or higher consciousness, the observer, the self awareness, agknowledgement of the theatre structure in which the play of ego self and chatter takes place.

instinctual volition can go through the filter and veto of reasoned thought which interacts with environmental feedback and again, finally, can-may-is possible to have the last word.

So yes we are responsible. Blame, feeling bad , chemical emotions. learning developing chemical growth. free will, a neurochemical interplay fizzing along. can exist happily along with the determinist (quasi-buddist) outlook in actual wolrld outcome, no individually we matter not.

[En_Route]

Very nice Davin

--

we are ultimately responsible for a part of our actions
we may trace accountability to yet another part of the results, the evidenced outcome

there is the grey area with a lot of shades that maps out as reality, and our black and white glasses

approximation is a correct approach, "not wholly" this or that, more accurate

who are "we"?
No need and no use of ghosts in the machine, gods in the will, or capital cretins as chretiens are known in french.

we are not the story we tell to ourselfs, we are not our story or our thought. the contents of the conscious mind do not define "wholly" "exclusively" our identity.

I buy into the id of the higher self, the expanded or higher consciousness, the observer, the self awareness, agknowledgement of the theatre structure in which the play of ego self and chatter takes place.

instinctual volition can go through the filter and veto of reasoned thought which interacts with environmental feedback and again, finally, can-may-is possible to have the last word.

So yes we are responsible. Blame, feeling bad , chemical emotions. learning developing chemical growth. free will, a neurochemical interplay fizzing along. can exist happily along with the determinist (quasi-buddist) outlook in actual wolrld outcome, no individually we matter not.

Very holistic of you, if I may make bold enough to say so.

[pytheas]

So yes we are responsible. Blame, feeling bad , chemical emotions. learning developing chemical growth. free will, a neurochemical interplay fizzing along. can exist happily along with the determinist (quasi-buddist) outlook in actual wolrld outcome, no individually we matter not.

Very holistic of you, if I may make bold enough to say so.

your initial question contains the most elusive holistic term:
"WE"
-----------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism#In_neurology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
"What characterizes the NCC? What are the communalities between the NCC for seeing and for hearing? Will the NCC involve all pyramidal neurons in cortex at any given point in time? Or only a subset of long-range projection cells in frontal lobes that project to the sensory cortices in the back? Neurons that fire in a rhythmic manner? Neurons that fire in a synchronous manner? These are some of the proposals that have been advanced over the years.[6]"

"Given the absence of any accepted criterion of the minimal neuronal correlates necessary for consciousness"

-------------------------

there are circumstances when you could dismiss or decrease legally responsibility based on "Non compos mentis" in a medico/psychiatric/neurologic perspective

otherwise, to negate responsibility with a sound "judging" mind present, borders on sophism

I also have difficulty with the ultimate part, a total solution, this quest for the solid rock amidst a flux of liquids

[NatsuTerran]

I just got done spilling pages upon pages at the other atheist forum over this very topic, lol. I'm a psychology student and the more I study the more firmly I believe in hard determinism. There's almost no doubt in my mind. The conscious mind is what creates our attention span, which can be viewed as free will. The vast majority of our day-to-day actions are dictated by the unconscious mind which is completely shaped from external factors like genetics, environment, etc. The conscious mind creates what I call willpower, which is the ability to *focus* attention on different areas in an attempt to create novel thoughts, so that we don't just get caught up as creatures of habit. This is what many people view as free will. But the problem is that the conscious mind is actually completely based on the unconscious one. There's tons of psychology information on this subject, and I was surprised at how much neuroscientists had figured out, because I certainly didn't know of a lot of this stuff until I started this major. But basically there's nothing that your conscious mind can choose; we are all nothing more than a product of experience. That's not to say people shouldn't be held accountable for actions. The way I have always seen it is to judge from a purely pragmatic perspective (i.e. we are putting you in jail because you are unfit for society, not to satisfy a thirst of revenge), and when possible, I prefer using this information to learn how to raise people better and rehabilitate those who need it. It's not as bleak a position as it seems at first glance. I really like the idea of instead of playing the blame game, looking at what the underlying causes of things from a scientific-deterministic outlook allows us to fix the causes that are easier to fix, rather than simply looking at the cause that immediately preceeded the negative result. Revenge for the sake of it only builds more distrust; it's bad karma. I'm pretty much a collectivist utilitarian at heart.

This topic delves into both philosophy and science. Although personally, I have a strong distaste for philosophy. I think science as it is now is more than enough to prove the point of determinism. After that point you have to define "free will" which is where I argued explicitly against a "compatibilist" in the other forum. In the end it just depends on your definition of free will. I've always thought of it as the metaphysical kind and not sheer "willpower." Animals have basic willpower such as we do, it's the language they lack in allowing them to make novel ideas as we can.

[En_Route]

I just got done spilling pages upon pages at the other atheist forum over this very topic, lol. I'm a psychology student and the more I study the more firmly I believe in hard determinism. There's almost no doubt in my mind. The conscious mind is what creates our attention span, which can be viewed as free will. The vast majority of our day-to-day actions are dictated by the unconscious mind which is completely shaped from external factors like genetics, environment, etc. The conscious mind creates what I call willpower, which is the ability to *focus* attention on different areas in an attempt to create novel thoughts, so that we don't just get caught up as creatures of habit. This is what many people view as free will. But the problem is that the conscious mind is actually completely based on the unconscious one. There's tons of psychology information on this subject, and I was surprised at how much neuroscientists had figured out, because I certainly didn't know of a lot of this stuff until I started this major. But basically there's nothing that your conscious mind can choose; we are all nothing more than a product of experience. That's not to say people shouldn't be held accountable for actions. The way I have always seen it is to judge from a purely pragmatic perspective (i.e. we are putting you in jail because you are unfit for society, not to satisfy a thirst of revenge), and when possible, I prefer using this information to learn how to raise people better and rehabilitate those who need it. It's not as bleak a position as it seems at first glance. I really like the idea of instead of playing the blame game, looking at what the underlying causes of things from a scientific-deterministic outlook allows us to fix the causes that are easier to fix, rather than simply looking at the cause that immediately preceeded the negative result. Revenge for the sake of it only builds more distrust; it's bad karma. I'm pretty much a collectivist utilitarian at heart.

This topic delves into both philosophy and science. Although personally, I have a strong distaste for philosophy. I think science as it is now is more than enough to prove the point of determinism. After that point you have to define "free will" which is where I argued explicitly against a "compatibilist" in the other forum. In the end it just depends on your definition of free will. I've always thought of it as the metaphysical kind and not sheer "willpower." Animals have basic willpower such as we do, it's the language they lack in allowing them to make novel ideas as we can.

You have summed up the position very incisively. Belief in "Free Will" in the metaphysical sense is attractive to a lot of constituencies. For those of a religious cast it is the sine qua non on which to ground their grisly notions of sin and eternal damnation. For society, it justifies punishing people for wrongdoing, even killing them if  deemed appropriate. For us as individuals, it also justifies notions such as revenge and allows us to play the blame game.