One might ask if so, responsible to whom? But it seems to me the answer in any event can only be no. We are born with genes we did not select into an environment, including the pre-natal environment, over which we could exercise no control. Even if we could have controlled it the extent we could do so would have been determined by the interplay of our genes with that environment. So if we believe our actions can be traced back to a cause or causes the chain of causation leads back inexorably to factors and events which were not of our making.If Alternatively you believe that our actions are uncaused and unrelated to the all the life-events which preceded it, mimicking quantum level indeterminacy, then you cannot be responsible for behaviour which is random and unrelated to the sum of your previous being. The notion of free will is therefore an invention which is used to justify blame and punishment and retribution generally. It also allows the God who was the ultimate cause of your being in Christian mythology to justify consigning you to eternal hellfire if he deems it appropriate. This repudiation of free will does not vindicate fatalism or suggest wrongdoers should not be punished. We are capable of making choices and most of us are capable of appreciating that fatalism is not a beneficial philosophy. SImilarly most of us internalise some form of social morality and we may be deterred by the fact that breaking the law may incur disagreeable consequences, so we modify our behaviour accordingly. No stable society could abandon the moral fiction that we are to blame for our transgressions and deserve to be punished for them. But in the end free will is another unobservable chimeras, a ghost in the machine like the soul, and our faith in its existence is as blind and non-empirical as the theist's in God
E
You should have been a defense lawyer instead. :D
But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Responsible to who? To ourselves, of course. If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down.
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 12:53:28 PM
One might ask if so, responsible to whom? But it seems to me the answer in any event can only be no. We are born with genes we did not select into an environment, including the pre-natal environment, over which we could exercise no control.
We are the result of all that, big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, bad parents, it is what we are. I'm not a turtle or a fish, perhaps I may be a flawed human whose car squashes a duck because I'm lighting a cigarette. It seems odd saying the car was responsible. Saying rock falls were responsible for twelve deaths last year sounds sort of OK. I think a definition of responsible is required, is it supposed to imply a duty of care, can only beings capable of conscious choice be responsible?
Responsible
1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.
I usually think of pool tables when thinking of determinism, I'm going to try dice for a change. Roll 12 and you're a saint (secular of course) 2 and you're off to jail. I'm of the mind you are your number, I'm sorry for you and your victims the universe created you as a 2, but alas it's jail for you. If you'd chosen differently you would be a three, but you're not. Maybe you were a seven before someone hit you on the head, vandalised your brain function and stole your wallet, that is sad perhaps we can get you into a medical wing.
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 03:12:53 PM
You should have been a defense lawyer instead. :D
But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Responsible to who? To ourselves, of course. If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down.
So what didn't you do that could have led to better decisions and for which you feel culpable?
And don't forget bad outcomes don't necessarily imply bad decisions (that's another topic but ex post facto judgements suffer from inherent bias). And self-laceration is psychologically detrimental (and rather Christian too if you want a clinching refutation). Take it from me, it was not your fault, whatever it was you did.
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 04:11:06 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 03:12:53 PM
You should have been a defense lawyer instead. :D
But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Responsible to who? To ourselves, of course. If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down.
So what didn't you do that could have led to better decisions and for which you feel culpable?
And don't forget bad outcomes don't necessarily imply bad decisions (that's another topic but ex post facto judgements suffer from inherent bias). And self-laceration is psychologically detrimental (and rather Christian too if you want a clinching refutation). Take it from me, it was not your fault, whatever it was you did.
I wouldn't call acknowledging the part that you played in your own misfortune "self laceration." How else would a person learn to make a better decision next time?
The only decisions that I've made that I truly regret were the ones that resulted in hurting other people. I have a few of those on my conscience, I'm afraid. But the good news is that carrying that around is a good reminder to be more honest, more compassionate, more kind. If I didn't accept the blame for these decisions, if I thought that I'm incapable of being better than that, wouldn't that be a self fulfilling prophecy?
In spite of any genes we may have gotten from our parents, we grow up to be our own person. Blaming anyone but ourselves for our own mistakes is pathetic.
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 04:11:06 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 03:12:53 PM
You should have been a defense lawyer instead. :D
But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Responsible to who? To ourselves, of course. If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down.
So what didn't you do that could have led to better decisions and for which you feel culpable?
And don't forget bad outcomes don't necessarily imply bad decisions (that's another topic but ex post facto judgements suffer from inherent bias). And self-laceration is psychologically detrimental (and rather Christian too if you want a clinching refutation). Take it from me, it was not your fault, whatever it was you did.
I wouldn't call acknowledging the part that you played in your own misfortune "self laceration." How else would a person learn to make a better decision next time?
The only decisions that I've made that I truly regret were the ones that resulted in hurting other people. I have a few of those on my conscience, I'm afraid. But the good news is that carrying that around is a good reminder to be more honest, more compassionate, more kind. If I didn't accept the blame for these decisions, if I thought that I'm incapable of being better than that, wouldn't that be a self fulfilling prophecy?
You can learn from your mistakes without feeling bad about them.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 04, 2012, 04:23:07 PM
In spite of any genes we may have gotten from our parents, we grow up to be our own person. Blaming anyone but ourselves for our own mistakes is pathetic.
With respection, this is just an assertion and doesn't really address the arguments. . Ironically this idea of blame is rooted in the Western Christian tradition.
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 04:11:06 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 03:12:53 PM
You should have been a defense lawyer instead. :D
But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Responsible to who? To ourselves, of course. If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down.
So what didn't you do that could have led to better decisions and for which you feel culpable?
And don't forget bad outcomes don't necessarily imply bad decisions (that's another topic but ex post facto judgements suffer from inherent bias). And self-laceration is psychologically detrimental (and rather Christian too if you want a clinching refutation). Take it from me, it was not your fault, whatever it was you did.
I wouldn't call acknowledging the part that you played in your own misfortune "self laceration." How else would a person learn to make a better decision next time?
The only decisions that I've made that I truly regret were the ones that resulted in hurting other people. I have a few of those on my conscience, I'm afraid. But the good news is that carrying that around is a good reminder to be more honest, more compassionate, more kind. If I didn't accept the blame for these decisions, if I thought that I'm incapable of being better than that, wouldn't that be a self fulfilling prophecy?
You can learn from your mistakes without feeling bad about them.
I don't know. I feel bad about my mistakes because they made someone else feel bad. If I was indifferent their hurt, would I really care to try to be better next time?
Empathy is one of the most civilising of human emotions. The point is that your resolve to avoid repeating behaviours that cause pain to others need not depend on feeling bad about yourself. Such feelings are (in my view) philosophically untenable and psychologically damaging.
I've thought about it, and I reject the notion that blame is rooted in Christian tradition. People who grow up in non-Christian parts of the world don't feel regret?
I think it's possible to forgive yourself for your mistakes, to accept that you did what you did, and next time you'll do better. But that's a different thing from just simply not ever feeling regret or blame in the first place. The latter seems a bit...sociopathic, to be honest.
I was thinking of posting in the what are you listening to thread but...
QuoteYou're going to reap just what you sow,
You're going to reap just what you sow,
You're going to reap just what you sow,
You're going to reap just what you sow...
Song lyrics weren't always so easy to grab.
I thought I heard or I imagined I heard a just watch your soul in there.
Not an immortal soul.
Soul sounds so much better than self.
I kinda thought taking more than you give would/
should cause one an imbalance.
Well it seems many get by quite well in total ignorance of this principle.
But as Bob says "We're not those kind of men." He should have said people.
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 04:49:19 PM
I've thought about it, and I reject the notion that blame is rooted in Christian tradition. People who grow up in non-Christian parts of the world don't feel regret?
I think it's possible to forgive yourself for your mistakes, to accept that you did what you did, and next time you'll do better. But that's a different thing from just simply not ever feeling regret or blame in the first place. The latter seems a bit...sociopathic, to be honest.
Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 07:19:39 PM
Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.
I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions. If I can control them, I am responsible for them. If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting. If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 04, 2012, 04:23:07 PM
In spite of any genes we may have gotten from our parents, we grow up to be our own person. Blaming anyone but ourselves for our own mistakes is pathetic.
It is much more complex than that.
We learn a lot of our life habits in our informative early years.
I have many habits that are similar to my parents that I am consciously trying very hard to break. At my age it is very difficult. These habits are subconscious, to change the subconscious is a very lengthy and difficult process.
I don't blame my parents, but I do recognise the situation and the possible cause, I do try to put myself in the control seat. But i also do forgive myself when I slip up. If I can't forgive myself then I would be a mess.
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 03:12:53 PM
But to answer your question, yes, I feel that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Responsible to who? To ourselves, of course. If I make no end of bad decisions, I am letting myself down.
I agree with this and I feel we're also responsible to others, the people whose lives interact with ours either directly or indirectly, and that's quite a lot of people. And I see nothing wrong with feeling bad when you've done something wrong, any more than feeling good when you've done something right. Guilt is an extremely useful and wrongly abused emotion. Excessive guilt, and guilt assumed for no reason, are wrong but then excess and pointlessness usually are.
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 07:19:39 PM
Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.
I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions. If I can control them, I am responsible for them. If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting. If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.
Many people would say they feel far less happy and hopeful if they believed God did not exist, but that is not an argument. Further, the fact that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions, does not deny the possibility of positive change. The mind is a learning organism.
Quote from: En_Route on February 05, 2012, 01:46:12 AM
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 07:19:39 PM
Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.
I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions. If I can control them, I am responsible for them. If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting. If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.
Many people would say they feel far less happy and hopeful if they believed God did not exist, but that is not an argument. Further, the fact that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions, does not deny the possibility of positive change. The mind is a learning organism.
Well, you were arguing that regret and guilt are harmful to the psyche, so I was just pointing out for me personally that feeling a total lack of control over my own actions is more disturbing to my psyche than guilt. Context. :)
I still don't think that it's a "fact" that I am not ultimately responsible for my own actions. Certainly both biology and upbringing predispose one to certain tendencies, but I'm just not buying that that is all she wrote. For example, a person may have both the genetic predisposition towards gaining weight easily, and may have grown up in a home where healthy habits weren't modeled, but as an adult still choose to actively work on maintaining a healthy weight.
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 02:24:10 AM
Quote from: En_Route on February 05, 2012, 01:46:12 AM
Quote from: Ali on February 04, 2012, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 04, 2012, 07:19:39 PM
Christianity has certainly played the blame game par excellence with its notions of sin and penance, and there are certainly Eastern philosophies which seem to me to pretty well free of these bogeymen. I think to blame yourself and then forgive yourself is far more healthy than simply festering in self-recrimination but you can save time and get to the desired end-result by cutting out blame in the first instance.
I actually think I would feel far less happy and hopeful if I believed that I had no control over my actions/decisions. If I can control them, I am responsible for them. If I can't, I suppose I am blame free, but frankly that idea is more frightening than comforting. If I can control my decisions, I can have faith in my ability to learn, change, get better, do better.
Many people would say they feel far less happy and hopeful if they believed God did not exist, but that is not an argument. Further, the fact that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions, does not deny the possibility of positive change. The mind is a learning organism.
Well, you were arguing that regret and guilt are harmful to the psyche, so I was just pointing out for me personally that feeling a total lack of control over my own actions is more disturbing to my psyche than guilt. Context. :)
I still don't think that it's a "fact" that I am not ultimately responsible for my own actions. Certainly both biology and upbringing predispose one to certain tendencies, but I'm just not buying that that is all she wrote. For example, a person may have both the genetic predisposition towards gaining weight easily, and may have grown up in a home where healthy habits weren't modeled, but as an adult still choose to actively work on maintaining a healthy weight.
Fair point re context, but I'm not denying the possibility of self-control. I'm saying you can't logically take credit for successfully exercising it or vice versa. With respect, the example you give proves nothing. The interaction between nature and nature is so complex that even if you accept that all behaviour is caused by those factors then we still cannot predict that any particular outcome is inevitable.
Quote from: En_Route on February 05, 2012, 02:33:13 AM
Fair point re context, but I'm not denying the possibility of self-control. I'm saying you can't logically take credit for successfully exercising it or vice versa. With respect, the example you give proves nothing. The interaction between nature and nature is so complex that even if you accept that all behaviour is caused by those factors then we still cannot predict that any particular outcome is inevitable.
If you concede that we cannot predict that any particular outcome is inevitable, what is your proof that all of our actions are predetermined and choice is an illusion?
I set out my stall in my first post. In summary, behaviour is either caused or uncaused. If the latter, game over. In the former, the chain of causation traces back to your genes and earliest environment and experiences. You can't invent yourself from scratch in other words.
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 02:24:10 AM
I still don't think that it's a "fact" that I am not ultimately responsible for my own actions. Certainly both biology and upbringing predispose one to certain tendencies, but I'm just not buying that that is all she wrote. For example, a person may have both the genetic predisposition towards gaining weight easily, and may have grown up in a home where healthy habits weren't modeled, but as an adult still choose to actively work on maintaining a healthy weight.
Do you think that
you exist as something discretely abstract from the sum total of your physical parts?
Do you think that there is more to
you than your physicality and your memories of the physical events of your physical life thus far?
From what is it that you are making your decisions on, if not the above?
Do you think there is such a thing as a soul (for lack of a better word), which is the self, which can rise above the experiences and physicality from which your body is based on?
Do you think that you can make decisions outside of your physical nature, do you think that you can be judged as a soul which has absolute freedom of choice? What is it that this soul brings to the equation? Does it have an inherent goodness, or an inherent ability to rise above temptation, to not be susceptible to vices?
If we could some how transfer the essence that is Ali and place it into another person's body along with the memories of that other person, losing the memories of yourself in the process, do you think that the "Ali" in this other body would drive that body to make decisions differently to the decisions being made by the current owner of that body?
No, I don't think that I'm greater than the sum of my parts or that I have a supernatural side, or anything like that. I just think that upbringing and biology = predisposition, not "destiny." I have a brain, and with it, I am able to think and make decisions. It's hard for me to swallow that when I'm standing in front of a counter at my local Mexican fast foodery, and I decide between the bean and cheese burrito and the seven layer burrito, my decision can be traced all the way back to when I was in utero. And if I have free will to make throwaway decisions like "seven layer burrito" or "I think I'll wear my flats today instead of my heels" then why would I not have free will over my larger decisions as well? Where do we draw the line?
I guess what I really think is that I don't think it's as black and white as "totally random action" vs "totally predestined reaction." I think it's somewhere in between, where all of my biology and life experiences up to this point may predispose me towards certain actions, but they're not writ in some cosmic stone somewhere either. I may be more likely to choose A, but that doesn't mean that B is completely off the table.
The illusion of free will is a great concept. I whole heartedly agree with it, but understand why others don't.
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 05:38:15 AM
No, I don't think that I'm greater than the sum of my parts or that I have a supernatural side, or anything like that. I just think that upbringing and biology = predisposition, not "destiny." I have a brain, and with it, I am able to think and make decisions. It's hard for me to swallow that when I'm standing in front of a counter at my local Mexican fast foodery, and I decide between the bean and cheese burrito and the seven layer burrito, my decision can be traced all the way back to when I was in utero. And if I have free will to make throwaway decisions like "seven layer burrito" or "I think I'll wear my flats today instead of my heels" then why would I not have free will over my larger decisions as well? Where do we draw the line?
I guess what I really think is that I don't think it's as black and white as "totally random action" vs "totally predestined reaction." I think it's somewhere in between, where all of my biology and life experiences up to this point may predispose me towards certain actions, but they're not writ in some cosmic stone somewhere either. I may be more likely to choose A, but that doesn't mean that B is completely off the table.
I don't agree of course re the burrito. Every decision can either be traced back to the chain of antecedents that led up to it or not (in which case indeterminacy applies). The magnitude of the decision does not affect the principles involved.Of course there are the vagaries and contingencies of external circumstances too; in a society where burritos are unheard of (that's my kind of society) that choice is not possible. I think if you disregard biology and environment and do not allow pure randomness to be in play then you are introducing that extra magical ingredient which cannot be inferred logically or philosophically and for which there is no form of empirical evidence. You can call it the ghost in the machine or if you are religious the soul. It's a mysterious, numinous presence which transcends everything that has shaped your mind to date.Those who buy into the notion of free will do so as an act of faith.
^
I agree with chain of actions that lead to events. Ever been woken up and cant think/do things rationally? The brain is amazing, but on less than 5 hours sleep, it can be dangerous.
Quote from: En_Route on February 05, 2012, 02:37:28 PM
I don't agree of course re the burrito. Every decision can either be traced back to the chain of antecedents that led up to it or not (in which case indeterminacy applies). The magnitude of the decision does not affect the principles involved.Of course there are the vagaries and contingencies of external circumstances too; in a society where burritos are unheard of (that's my kind of society) that choice is not possible. I think if you disregard biology and environment and do not allow pure randomness to be in play then you are introducing that extra magical ingredient which cannot be inferred logically or philosophically and for which there is no form of empirical evidence. You can call it the ghost in the machine or if you are religious the soul. It's a mysterious, numinous presence which transcends everything that has shaped your mind to date.Those who buy into the notion of free will do so as an act of faith.
Okay, so if our actions are not of our own choosing, what is the point (or even the ethics) of having a criminal justice system? If a criminal could not have chosen otherwise, why punish them for their crimes?
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 05:42:32 PM
Okay, so if our actions are not of our own choosing, what is the point (or even the ethics) of having a criminal justice system? If a criminal could not have chosen otherwise, why punish them for their crimes?
The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to judge the ethics of the choices people make.
The purpose of the criminal justice system is towards a functioning and stable society. It acts as a deterrent for certain behaviors, and gives law enforcers the legal ability to intervene in certain circumstances and allows dangerous people to be removed from society and hence removing the threat.
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 07:10:24 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 05:42:32 PM
Okay, so if our actions are not of our own choosing, what is the point (or even the ethics) of having a criminal justice system? If a criminal could not have chosen otherwise, why punish them for their crimes?
The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to judge the ethics of the choices people make.
The purpose of the criminal justice system is towards a functioning and stable society. It acts as a deterrent for certain behaviors, and gives law enforcers the legal ability to intervene in certain circumstances and allows dangerous people to be removed from society and hence removing the threat.
How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?
You are taking it too far. To a strawman extreme.
People do have choices, but decision is ultimately made based on the physics of what is available. Part of that are the rules that are in play.
Without rules people can be horrific in their actions, ever heard of the saying "absolute power corrupts". You can also look to what people do in times of war. Many stories from Vietnam of what soldiers got up to.
But when you put laws and repercussions into play then these influence the decision making process, they change the game and change the outcome. An unconstrained person makes one decision but with rules and repurcussions they make a different decision.
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 07:23:51 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?
You are taking it too far. To a strawman extreme.
People do have choices, but decision is ultimately made based on the physics of what is available. Part of that are the rules that are in play.
Without rules people can be horrific in their actions, ever heard of the saying "absolute power corrupts". You can also look to what people do in times of war. Many stories from Vietnam of what soldiers got up to.
But when you put laws and repercussions into play then these influence the decision making process, they change the game and change the outcome. An unconstrained person makes one decision but with rules and repurcussions they make a different decision.
I'm not taking it too far! I think people have choices too. En_Route was arguing that free will is an illusion. If we have no free will, we have no choices, right?
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 07:23:51 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:16:31 PM
How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?
You are taking it too far. To a strawman extreme.
People do have choices, but decision is ultimately made based on the physics of what is available. Part of that are the rules that are in play.
Without rules people can be horrific in their actions, ever heard of the saying "absolute power corrupts". You can also look to what people do in times of war. Many stories from Vietnam of what soldiers got up to.
But when you put laws and repercussions into play then these influence the decision making process, they change the game and change the outcome. An unconstrained person makes one decision but with rules and repurcussions they make a different decision.
I'm not taking it too far! I think people have choices too. En_Route was arguing that free will is an illusion. If we have no free will, we have no choices, right?
People make decisions and exercise choices all the time. The issue is whether or not they can be said to be ultimately responsible for them. If their actions rely on a chain of cause and effect then because nob ody can be the cause of themselves they are not responsible. If uncaused, their choices are random and unrelated to any responsible agent. In everyday life we treat people as responsible for their actions because that understanding is necessary for a functioning society. The rules based on this everyday convention will ideally change the environment in which people operate so as to influence their behaviour in socially beneficial ways.
Quote from: AliI just think that upbringing and biology = predisposition, not "destiny." I have a brain, and with it, I am able to think and make decisions.
I suppose we can't help that language - "I have a brain and with it..." - is innately dualist. But without accepting dualism you don't have a brain, you
are a brain. If we're going to say that "you" are anything at all, it'd be that - a biological machine. All of the decisions you make, as well as the thoughts on which you base those decisions (or rationalise them after the fact, more realistically), are rolled out like clockwork according to automatic chemical processes.
It's interesting you talk about scales of choice though...
Quote from: AliIt's hard for me to swallow that when I'm standing in front of a counter at my local Mexican fast foodery, and I decide between the bean and cheese burrito and the seven layer burrito, my decision can be traced all the way back to when I was in utero. And if I have free will to make throwaway decisions like "seven layer burrito" or "I think I'll wear my flats today instead of my heels" then why would I not have free will over my larger decisions as well? Where do we draw the line?
Suppose we do have free will, then. If you can choose what burrito you want then why not have free reign over the larger things in life, like what to believe and what not to believe, what
paradigm to view the world through, what is right and wrong and which one will you act upon? That still leaves you with the problem of choice itself, the external substance of choice that presents itself in the world around us, and whether or not it can have any meaning. I emphasis your own choice of words here: "throwaway."
I come to a crossroads where I can go north or south. Both paths look identical and I have no way of knowing what lies at the end of either one. Any decision I make is therefore
throwaway, arbitrary, lacking any thoughtful justification. Since it is not a meaningful decision, whether I end up in heaven or hell has nothing to do with my own will - only random chance. Whether or not the burrito your ordered satisfies you is also down to random chance. You could just as easily have ordered anything else on the menu and it wouldn't matter, you say yourself that the decision is arbitrary.
Ok, I hear you say, but what if I
do know. What if I have a map. This is all good and well but where did this map come from?
Extend this thinking to the greater things in life, for a moment. The paradigm through which you view the world is not imposed upon you by culture and upbringing, or by biology - you get to choose. So how do you justify a decision here? It's tempting to say you'd base it on your education and experience (and rightly so!) but unfortunately that falls under culture and upbringing - these are external factors that you have no control over. Remember, you have to
decide what to believe and what not to believe, what is true and what isn't, with reasons to back up that decision, or else it is either meaningless or imposed upon you.
Now herein lies the real conundrum - that truth can only be weighed against itself. In other words, to assess the truth of something, you have to corroborate it with other truths that you have already established. If B contradicts A, then it is false. You, with your free will intact, must hold the deciding verdict on everything you believe - you therefore begin at a position of total, Soctratic agnosticism. You have nothing with which to assess new information, no way of gauging it's truth, no weigh of even weighing a probability.
Your starting point, the primal truths that you choose to base all other knowledge upon, must either be arbitrarily (meaninglessly) decided or imposed upon you by your environment. Everything else you believe and trust will unravel in a kaleidoscopic chain-reaction of facts weighed up against each other, with no meaningful basis.
The same goes for morality, of course. Moral truths, too, can only be weighed against each other. To say that you have any control over it starts you in the quick-sand of amorality, from which you have no escape without arbitrarily setting some values, or without allowing society to set them for you.
All right. I give. Melmoth, you have reasoned me into submission. ;) My brain just exploded, and my only retort is "Your MOM's a dualist." ;D
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
I'm not taking it too far!
You are if you are suggesting that people are arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
I'm not taking it too far!
You are if you are suggesting that people are arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
That's a bit of a quote mine there. Ali continued to say, "I think people have choices too." which would include not doing something because it's against the law.
Quote from: AliAll right. I give. Melmoth, you have reasoned me into submission. ;) My brain just exploded, and my only retort is "Your MOM's a dualist." ;D
Hahaha! :D Might even be true, I've never been able to get much sense out of her.
"Mum, a lady on the internet says you're a dualist. Is that true?"
"The internet's FACE"
"But-"
"
Is it's MUM."
"I see. I shall relay your message."
Quote from: Tank on February 05, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
I'm not taking it too far!
You are if you are suggesting that people are arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
That's a bit of a quote mine there. Ali continued to say, "I think people have choices too." which would include not doing something because it's against the law.
Not a quote mine, not taking Ali's words out of context. She has been consistently stating that people have choice. She argued "How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?"
Which I stated was taking it too far, into a strawman argument, because no-one is arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
I think I have acted honestly here in quoting her relevant response "I'm not taking it too far!"
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 05, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
I'm not taking it too far!
You are if you are suggesting that people are arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
That's a bit of a quote mine there. Ali continued to say, "I think people have choices too." which would include not doing something because it's against the law.
Not a quote mine, not taking Ali's words out of context. She has been consistently stating that people have choice. She argued "How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?"
Which I stated was taking it too far, into a strawman argument, because no-one is arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
I think I have acted honestly here in quoting her relevant response "I'm not taking it too far!"
Hmmmm, I'm not sure that Ali wasn't actually agreeing with you about the law influence.
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 05, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: Stevil on February 05, 2012, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 05, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
I'm not taking it too far!
You are if you are suggesting that people are arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
That's a bit of a quote mine there. Ali continued to say, "I think people have choices too." which would include not doing something because it's against the law.
Not a quote mine, not taking Ali's words out of context. She has been consistently stating that people have choice. She argued "How can it act as a deterrent if people don't have any choice about whether to commit the crime?"
Which I stated was taking it too far, into a strawman argument, because no-one is arguing that actions cannot be influenced by law.
I think I have acted honestly here in quoting her relevant response "I'm not taking it too far!"
In fairness, I wasn't trying to argue a strawman, I just misunderstood En_Route's position. I thought he was stating that we don't have choices, which is why I said that. Now I think he's saying that we do have choices, but we can't be held responsible if we make bad ones.
Quote from: Ali on February 06, 2012, 02:25:06 AM
In fairness, I wasn't trying to argue a strawman, I just misunderstood En_Route's position. I thought he was stating that we don't have choices, which is why I said that. Now I think he's saying that we do have choices, but we can't be held responsible if we make bad ones.
I think most disagreements boil down to strawman, it is truly difficult to understand both sides of an argument.
I think this particular discussion is about the decision making process and whether it is purely physical or whether there is an element of metaphysical, a self abstract from the physical constraints.
If you could recreate the exact same physical conditions would you get the exact same decision being made, regardless of whether the metaphysical self is "Ali", "En_Route", "Stevil", etc.
If you believe that the metaphysical self provides input into the decision making process, then what would this self add to the equation? Its own set of morality which is distinct from the physical experiences this "self" has had?
Quote from: Ali on February 06, 2012, 02:25:06 AM
In fairness, I wasn't trying to argue a strawman, I just misunderstood En_Route's position. I thought he was stating that we don't have choices, which is why I said that. Now I think he's saying that we do have choices, but we can't be held responsible if we make bad ones.
The thread title says ultimately responsible.
The ultimate word makes a big difference.
The dog is responsible for biting a granny,
a boy is responsible for unlocking the gate,
parents are responsible for not teaching him better...
Quote from: Ali on February 06, 2012, 02:25:06 AM
In fairness, I wasn't trying to argue a strawman, I just misunderstood En_Route's position. I thought he was stating that we don't have choices, which is why I said that. Now I think he's saying that we do have choices, but we can't be held responsible if we make bad ones.
Which I would still disagree with, but I'm way out of my depth in philosophical discussions.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 06, 2012, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: Ali on February 06, 2012, 02:25:06 AM
In fairness, I wasn't trying to argue a strawman, I just misunderstood En_Route's position. I thought he was stating that we don't have choices, which is why I said that. Now I think he's saying that we do have choices, but we can't be held responsible if we make bad ones.
Which I would still disagree with, but I'm way out of my depth in philosophical discussions.
You and me both, sister! I think I'm going to limit my activities to the Laid Back Lounge. ;)
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.
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 05:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 05:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 05:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 05:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 09:03:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 05:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: En_RouteEven 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?
Quote from: En_RoutePragmatically, 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.
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 09:03:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 05:54:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
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.
Quote from: En_RouteEven 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?
Quote from: En_RoutePragmatically, 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).
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 06, 2012, 09:03:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 06, 2012, 04:58:04 PMIn 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.
Quote from: En_RouteEven 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?
Quote from: En_RoutePragmatically, 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.
Quote from: En_RouteOf 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.
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.
Quote from: pytheas on February 07, 2012, 06:47:58 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on February 07, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
Quote from: pytheas on February 07, 2012, 06:47:58 PM
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_neurologyhttp://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
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.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on February 07, 2012, 11:58:08 PM
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.