9 of 11
9
Did Your Brain Make You Do It? (NYT 7/29)
Posted: 20 August 2012 10:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4519
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 20 August 2012 04:05 PM

Obviously like GdB, you profess to understand that just deserts is an innate natural behavior, but then turn around and Constantly use the term and concept as if it were something humans choose to use.
Is kissing a belief?  Is grooming a belief? Is deference a belief?

Kissing is a heavily cultural loaded activity. The drive is biological, no doubt about that. But how it is done, in which situations, how it is often done without the drive, is highly cultural determined. And rational discourse is also an element of culture. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy, VYAZMA.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 10:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 20 August 2012 10:18 PM
VYAZMA - 20 August 2012 04:05 PM

Obviously like GdB, you profess to understand that just deserts is an innate natural behavior, but then turn around and Constantly use the term and concept as if it were something humans choose to use.
Is kissing a belief?  Is grooming a belief? Is deference a belief?

Kissing is a heavily cultural loaded activity. The drive is biological, no doubt about that. But how it is done, in which situations, how it is often done without the drive, is highly cultural determined. And rational discourse is also an element of culture. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy, VYAZMA.

Ich hab’ kein mehr lust fuer dies scheiss.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 10:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4519
Joined  2007-08-31
VYAZMA - 20 August 2012 10:27 PM

Ich hab’ kein mehr Lust auf diesem Scheiss.

Es ist auch mal gut los zu lassen.

Aber scheissen musst du: das ist auch ein natürlicher Trieb… Aber selbst dieser Trieb ist kulturell umgesetzt.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2012 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
VYAZMA - 20 August 2012 04:05 PM

Just deserts isn’t an addition.

Then we don’t need it.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2012 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 20 August 2012 10:53 PM
VYAZMA - 20 August 2012 10:27 PM

Ich hab’ kein mehr Lust auf diesem Scheiss.

Es ist auch mal gut los zu lassen.

Aber scheissen musst du: das ist auch ein natürlicher Trieb… Aber selbst dieser Trieb ist kulturell umgesetzt.

Ich gebe auf nicht. Wann ich sage “scheiss” ich meine diesem besprechen, nicht ka ka.
Du kanst deine abgedrehte glauber festhalten. Wir sehen uns spaeter.

[ Edited: 21 August 2012 02:59 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2013 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21

The justice system is designed around the idea that we have free-will and that because we have control over our actions under this idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions. So when you break a law you are held responsible and must face the consequences. The consequences are designed to deter to you from performing the same act again. However, even in a deterministic environment as we understand it, where it is understood that we are not in control, that were are merely gears of causation, I believe consequences for ones actions would still be enforced. That is, if the justice system was designed around an understanding of determinism, then when you broke a law, murdered somebody, whatever, the consequence would remain even though you could have not done otherwise. The consequence would remain in attempt to deter\determine others from performing the same action. You would be a casualty for the sake of saving others from acting in a way society has deemed inappropriate.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2013 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
morgantj - 02 January 2013 12:13 PM

The justice system is designed around the idea that we have free-will and that because we have control over our actions under this idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions. So when you break a law you are held responsible and must face the consequences. The consequences are designed to deter to you from performing the same act again. However, even in a deterministic environment as we understand it, where it is understood that we are not in control, that were are merely gears of causation, I believe consequences for ones actions would still be enforced. That is, if the justice system was designed around an understanding of determinism, then when you broke a law, murdered somebody, whatever, the consequence would remain even though you could have not done otherwise. The consequence would remain in attempt to deter\determine others from performing the same action. You would be a casualty for the sake of saving others from acting in a way society has deemed inappropriate.

I think there would be a very big difference morgantj.

The desire to keep the suffering to a minimum would be greater and the wish to find better ways to control behaviour than harming people would be greater.

And it’s about much more than the justice system, it’s about every moral judgement, everyday, between every individual and groups of individuals.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2013 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
StephenLawrence - 02 January 2013 01:55 PM
morgantj - 02 January 2013 12:13 PM

The justice system is designed around the idea that we have free-will and that because we have control over our actions under this idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions. So when you break a law you are held responsible and must face the consequences. The consequences are designed to deter to you from performing the same act again. However, even in a deterministic environment as we understand it, where it is understood that we are not in control, that were are merely gears of causation, I believe consequences for ones actions would still be enforced. That is, if the justice system was designed around an understanding of determinism, then when you broke a law, murdered somebody, whatever, the consequence would remain even though you could have not done otherwise. The consequence would remain in attempt to deter\determine others from performing the same action. You would be a casualty for the sake of saving others from acting in a way society has deemed inappropriate.

I think there would be a very big difference morgantj.

The desire to keep the suffering to a minimum would be greater and the wish to find better ways to control behaviour than harming people would be greater.

And it’s about much more than the justice system, it’s about every moral judgement, everyday, between every individual and groups of individuals.

Stephen

That would be great, but difficult. If people around the world came to the realization that they are not in control, that they are not free to do otherwise, this awareness of not having free-will may cause some to behave in less than acceptable manners. You will have those that use it as an excuse to get away with crimes. “I had no choice your honor!” It would be a different world, it is hard to fathom.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2013 05:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2012-12-01

did your brain make you do it   what do you want to know about     your brain or you

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2013 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
arnoldg - 02 January 2013 05:53 PM

your brain or you

are they different? Are “you” not your brain?

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2013 12:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2012-12-01

is difference   separation or connection   by what means

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2013 04:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
morgantj - 02 January 2013 02:33 PM

That would be great, but difficult. If people around the world came to the realization that they are not in control, that they are not free to do otherwise, this awareness of not having free-will may cause some to behave in less than acceptable manners. You will have those that use it as an excuse to get away with crimes. “I had no choice your honor!” It would be a different world, it is hard to fathom.

Yes, I accept it could go either way, the same as not believing in heaven and hell could go either way. But we can get it right and then it’s tremendously beneficial.

One of the problems is there is so much confusion over this. Assuming determinism the bases of assigning praise and blame is still could have done otherwise. It’s just we realise that in order for the person to have done otherwise they would have needed to be in slightly different internal and/or external circumstances to have done it.

It’s about being clear that “could have” means “could have if”

A lot of people here get this right, like Doug and GdB and I think they are all the better for getting it right.

But somehow they don’t seem to realise that most people don’t and it is a problem. This philosophy does make a difference, I expect it is to you and your relationships.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2013 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4519
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 03 January 2013 04:33 AM

But somehow they don’t seem to realise that most people don’t and it is a problem. This philosophy does make a difference, I expect it is to you and your relationships.

I do realise it. Why do you think I don’t?

But as I said many times: if people have wrong ideas, we should correct them. That takes time of course. But we should not take false ideas that a majority of the people has as starting point. Such a standpoint would not have brought much scientific progress, don’t you think?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2013 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
StephenLawrence - 03 January 2013 04:33 AM
morgantj - 02 January 2013 02:33 PM

That would be great, but difficult. If people around the world came to the realization that they are not in control, that they are not free to do otherwise, this awareness of not having free-will may cause some to behave in less than acceptable manners. You will have those that use it as an excuse to get away with crimes. “I had no choice your honor!” It would be a different world, it is hard to fathom.

One of the problems is there is so much confusion over this. Assuming determinism the bases of assigning praise and blame is still could have done otherwise. It’s just we realise that in order for the person to have done otherwise they would have needed to be in slightly different internal and/or external circumstances to have done it.

It’s about being clear that “could have” means “could have if”

Absolutely. I guess for those of us that have been participating in the discussion for dare I say, years! It is “understood,” that when we speak of free-will, one could do otherwise in the exact same conditions, and when speaking of determinism, one would only do otherwise if the conditions that led up to that event were different. Which I hate to really call “otherwise” given the “other” actions would not even be in the same reality but would only occur in a reality with a different chain of events. Why even bother with statements of “could have if” in a deterministic environment? There are no “if only things would have been different” cases. There is only on path. So I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2013 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4519
Joined  2007-08-31
morgantj - 03 January 2013 07:55 AM

Why even bother with statements of “could have if” in a deterministic environment?

Because part of the way to make sense of causality is the use of such statements. And without causality there is no naturalistic way to speak about determinism.

See counter factuals.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 11
9
 
‹‹ Prime mover      Empathy? ››