User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-01-25 at 10:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Your entire argument is built off having no definition and asserting, with no evidence or reasoning, that the problem of free will is something no intellectual discussion of free will has ever revolved around i.e. a magic idea of being magic.
No it is not. Free will is an incoherent idea, period. People generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions, they feel like they could have acted differently than they did in the past, and that feeling is called free will. Free will is the illusion that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined.
You are not talking about free will. You are talking about freedom to exert your will. Different topics, you're just re-labeling yours as free will. -
2018-01-25 at 10:51 PM UTCSo obbe, do you think we should be held accountable for our actions?
-
2018-01-25 at 11:04 PM UTC
-
2018-01-25 at 11:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So obbe, do you think we should be held accountable for our actions?
I don't think society accepting that individuals lack free will would really change much about how society deals with criminals. Whether or not we have free will is a topic I find interesting but it's not really that important, we are still living the same life doing the same things either way. If someone is a psychopathic murderer, they should probably be separated from the rest of the population.
But I do think this realization could help society. Once we understand the root causes of behaviors we find criminal or immoral that understanding could be used to help us to create a better society moving forward. -
2018-01-25 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind The popular conception of free will rests on a few assumptions. One assumption is that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past. Another is that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts and actions. Both these assumptions are false.
Our wills are not our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes which we are unaware of and over which we exert no control. Free will cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.
i dunno if maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're getting at exactly coz you obviously high as fuck. but is the jist of it that no one is basically responsible for our thoughts? coz that would equal no one being responsible for their actions. in that case we shouldn't be having laws and punishments. i mean what do those judges think they're doing putting people in prison and even executing people for doing things that wasn't their fault? i mean, what a fucking diabolical liberty those sick fuckers are taking or what?
ya get me fam?
. -
2018-01-25 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon What is this free will that you think is an incoherent idea? What does that mean?
Free will is the illusion that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined. People generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions, they feel like they could have acted differently than they did in the past, and that feeling is called free will. -
2018-01-25 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I don't think society accepting that individuals lack free will would really change much about how society deals with criminals. Whether or not we have free will is a topic I find interesting but it's not really that important, we are still living the same life doing the same things either way. If someone is a psychopathic murderer, they should probably be separated from the rest of the population.
But I do think this realization could help society. Once we understand the root causes of behaviors we find criminal or immoral that understanding could be used to help us to create a better society moving forward.
You're not even answering his question
You're so shit faggot -
2018-01-25 at 11:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i dunno if maybe i'm misunderstanding what you're getting at exactly coz you obviously high as fuck. but is the jist of it that no one is basically responsible for our thoughts? coz that would equal no one being responsible for their actions. in that case we shouldn't be having laws and punishments. i mean what do those judges think they're doing putting people in prison and even executing people for doing things that wasn't their fault? i mean, what a fucking diabolical liberty those sick fuckers are taking or what?
ya get me fam?
.
What does it mean to take moral responsibility for an action? Consider the following:
1. A 4 year old kills a woman after playing with his father's gun, which had been left loaded and unsecure.
2. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it."
3. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it." A brain scan reveals a tumor the size of a golf ball in a region of his brain responsible for the control of emotion and behavioral impulses.
In each case a young woman died. Each death, the result of events arising in the mind of another human. But the degree of moral outrage you feel probably depends on the situation described in each case.
We consider the brain of killer 1 is not fully matured or ready for the responsibilities of personhood. Killer number 2 appears to be a psychopath. Killer number 3 involves the same psychopathic motive and behavior, but somehow the brain tumor seems to clear the killer of all responsibility for his crime. We cannot help but see him as a victim of his own biology.
Despite our attachment to the notion of freewill most of us know that disorders of the brain trump the best intentions of the mind. And the men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments and bad luck. Which of these were they responsible for? No person is responsible for his genes or upbringing, yet we have every reason to believe these factors determine his character. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize how much luck is involved in morality itself.
Imagine if we discover a cure for evil. Imagine every relevant change in any individuals brain could be made cheaply, painlessly and safely. Imagine if the cure could be put into the food supply, like a vitamin… evil would become nothing more than a nutritional deficiency.
To say that someone freely chose to squander their life savings at a poker table is to say he had every opportunity to do otherwise and that nothing about what he did was inadvertent. He did not play poker by accident or while in the grip of a delusion. He played because he wanted to, intended to and decided to, over and over. Most of the time it makes sense to just ignore the deeper causes of desires and intentions, like genes, synatipic potentials etc. We do this because it's easier to organize our thoughts and actions. Why did I drink water instead of beer? Because I desired water. Why did I desire water? I don't know, but generally I don't bother asking. Knowing that I want water is all I ever need to know to function in this world. Whatever the reason I prefered one option over the other. Is there freedom in this? None whatsoever. Would I magically reclaim my freedom if I suddenly decided to spite my desire and drink beer instead of water? No, because the roots of such an intention would be as obscure as the desire itself. -
2018-01-25 at 11:08 PM UTC
-
2018-01-25 at 11:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Free will is the illusion that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined. People generally feel like they are the conscious source of all their thoughts and actions, they feel like they could have acted differently than they did in the past, and that feeling is called free will.
If used a QRNG to make a decision, would that count as free will? -
2018-01-25 at 11:21 PM UTC
-
2018-01-25 at 11:23 PM UTC
-
2018-01-25 at 11:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon If used a QRNG to make a decision, would that count as free will?
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Why? A choice made from a QRNG is not a product of prior causal change, and are undetermined. It fits your definition exactly.
The QRNG would give you a truly random number associated with one action of many that you chose as a result of causality.
Also it isn't free will because you aren't actually choosing anything, the QRNG is doing all the deciding. :OThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-25 at 11:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Why? A choice made from a QRNG is not a product of prior causal change, and are undetermined. It fits your definition exactly.
Because it's random. I don't understand how you could attribute your will or your sense of self to randomness. Imagine if all your actions, intentions beliefs and desires were generated randomly. If your "free will" was due to truly random events wouldn't you behave in an unpredictable and erratic way? You would scarcely seem to have a mind at all. You would live as if you were blown about by the wind. Actions, intentions, beliefs and desires can exist only in a system that is significantly constrained by patterns of behavior and the laws of stimulus-response. While I agree that the universe is not entirely deterministic, it is in every sense relevant to human behavior. -
2018-01-25 at 11:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS The QRNG would give you a truly random number associated with one action of many that you chose as a result of causality.
There is no causal link between the decision made by the QRNG and the decision to roll the QRNG.Also it isn't free will because you aren't actually choosing anything, the QRNG is doing all the deciding. :O
You are choosing to commit to the decision by the QRNG. Why is this not "you" deciding it, if you want to argue that that's also a result of you choosing to do it due to causality? -
2018-01-26 at 12:11 AM UTC
-
2018-01-26 at 12:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon There is no causal link between the decision made by the QRNG and the decision to roll the QRNG.
You are choosing to commit to the decision by the QRNG. Why is this not "you" deciding it, if you want to argue that that's also a result of you choosing to do it due to causality?
I suppose that works, yeah. I can't think of a good argument to the contrary anyway, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. 🤗 -
2018-01-26 at 12:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind What does it mean to take moral responsibility for an action? Consider the following:
1. A 4 year old kills a woman after playing with his father's gun, which had been left loaded and unsecure.
2. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it."
3. A 25 year old man raised by wonderful parents and never abused intentionally shot and killed a woman "for the fun of it." A brain scan reveals a tumor the size of a golf ball in a region of his brain responsible for the control of emotion and behavioral impulses.
In each case a young woman died. Each death, the result of events arising in the mind of another human. But the degree of moral outrage you feel probably depends on the situation described in each case.
We consider the brain of killer 1 is not fully matured or ready for the responsibilities of personhood. Killer number 2 appears to be a psychopath. Killer number 3 involves the same psychopathic motive and behavior, but somehow the brain tumor seems to clear the killer of all responsibility for his crime. We cannot help but see him as a victim of his own biology.
Despite our attachment to the notion of freewill most of us know that disorders of the brain trump the best intentions of the mind. And the men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments and bad luck. Which of these were they responsible for? No person is responsible for his genes or upbringing, yet we have every reason to believe these factors determine his character. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize how much luck is involved in morality itself.
Imagine if we discover a cure for evil. Imagine every relevant change in any individuals brain could be made cheaply, painlessly and safely. Imagine if the cure could be put into the food supply, like a vitamin… evil would become nothing more than a nutritional deficiency.
To say that someone freely chose to squander their life savings at a poker table is to say he had every opportunity to do otherwise and that nothing about what he did was inadvertent. He did not play poker by accident or while in the grip of a delusion. He played because he wanted to, intended to and decided to, over and over. Most of the time it makes sense to just ignore the deeper causes of desires and intentions, like genes, synatipic potentials etc. We do this because it's easier to organize our thoughts and actions. Why did I drink water instead of beer? Because I desired water. Why did I desire water? I don't know, but generally I don't bother asking. Knowing that I want water is all I ever need to know to function in this world. Whatever the reason I prefered one option over the other. Is there freedom in this? None whatsoever. Would I magically reclaim my freedom if I suddenly decided to spite my desire and drink beer instead of water? No, because the roots of such an intention would be as obscure as the desire itself.
so just to clarify, your stance is that no criminal is responsible for their behavior and the judges have no right to punish them? would that be correct obbe?
. -
2018-01-26 at 12:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist so just to clarify, your stance is that no criminal is responsible for their behavior and the judges have no right to punish them? would that be correct obbe?
.
His stance is nothing, he copypasted it from a Sam Harris book. Obbe is even lower than a p-zombie; he has no capacity for his own reasoning. -
2018-01-26 at 1:17 AM UTC
