GdB - 04 November 2012 11:03 PM

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 01:46 PM

Still seems much simpler and effective to argue that than get into free will.

Unless somebody says we are not responsible because we have no free will, because that is proven by neurology.

I disagree, again it’s just adding confusion, we are and we aren’t responsible depending upon what you mean, we aren’t ultimately responsible which is what the scientists mean and they are right, of course.

Does anybody really think we don’t need rules with penalties? And if so the best thing to do is argue, for consequential reasons, that would be a bad idea. Start by asking if they don’t want speed limits enforced on the roads.

Did you see this b.t.w.

http://www.naturalism.org/DCDWallerreview.htm

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 11:27 PM

I disagree, again it’s just adding confusion, we are and we aren’t responsible depending upon what you mean, we aren’t ultimately responsible which is what the scientists mean and they are right, of course.

Yes. No question about ultimate responsibility: we agree that that does not exist. And one of the arguments you can bring into the field against it is that its metaphysical presumption, that of libertarian free will, does not exist.

The confusion comes in when people say that for (normal, daily) responsibility we need to be free, but that neurology has proven that we are not free.

We know this is wrong.

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 11:27 PM

Does anybody really think we don’t need rules with penalties? And if so the best thing to do is argue, for consequential reasons, that would be a bad idea.

Well, Skinner and Waller seem to do so. (Yes I, read your link yesterday). Assigning responsibility is the cement of our culture, we can’t do without. Of course you also saw Dennett’s ‘Free will as moral competence’ on youtube?

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 11:27 PM

Start by asking if they don’t want speed limits enforced on the roads.

That is a good start. But what does ‘enforced’ mean? Threaten with punishments. Which also means: actually execute the punishments, when somebody does not obey the speed limit.

GdB - 04 November 2012 11:51 PM

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 11:27 PM

Start by asking if they don’t want speed limits enforced on the roads.

That is a good start. But what does ‘enforced’ mean? Threaten with punishments. Which also means: actually execute the punishments, when somebody does not obey the speed limit.

Yep and this is my point. Start here rather than start with we are responsible or we have free will.

Stephen

GdB - 04 November 2012 11:51 PM

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 11:27 PM

I disagree, again it’s just adding confusion, we are and we aren’t responsible depending upon what you mean, we aren’t ultimately responsible which is what the scientists mean and they are right, of course.

Yes. No question about ultimate responsibility: we agree that that does not exist. And one of the arguments you can bring into the field against it is that its metaphysical presumption, that of libertarian free will, does not exist.

The confusion comes in when people say that for (normal, daily) responsibility we need to be free, but that neurology has proven that we are not free.

We know this is wrong.

StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 11:27 PM

Does anybody really think we don’t need rules with penalties? And if so the best thing to do is argue, for consequential reasons, that would be a bad idea.

Well, Skinner and Waller seem to do so. (Yes I, read your link yesterday).

Yes.

Assigning responsibility is the cement of our culture, we can’t do without.

I wouldn’t say never but I agree. Still, how much better can we do than we are now and how much is belief in ultimate responsibility impeding that progress? That’s what interests me.

Of course you also saw Dennett’s ‘Free will as moral competence’ on youtube?

Yep.

Stephen