4 ms·

Well, I'm proclaiming free will doesn't exist. Neuroscience exhibits supporting evidence that we don't have free will. There hasn't been anything exhibiting tha

by sysbin 7y ago

Well, I'm proclaiming free will doesn't exist. Neuroscience exhibits supporting evidence that we don't have free will. There hasn't been anything exhibiting that we have free will. Your rhetoric that nothing matters could have been used when people assumed the world was flat and others were challenging that popular assumption. Nonetheless, the world gets better overtime and when people have a realistic understanding of reality. So change does happen but yes it's going to happen whether we like it to or not. That's a thrilling thing to observe and to be aware of that nature of reality is a good thing. > murderers should be punished. No, they should be rehabilitated and educated of the cause & effect for their actions. Otherwise humanity is failing the unfortunate that didn't have any real control.

icebraining 7y ago
If there's no free will, the people punishing murderers have no choice to rehabilitate instead. Choosing between punishing or rehabilitating requires free will.
- syssbin 7y ago
  I'm writing from a cause & effect mindset. So it definitely makes sense that rehabilitation is better than punishment. To answer what you're trying to point out that has already been answered by me in another post.. Yes, everything is fated to happen. The majority consensus is how society is structured to be and yes the outcome is by fate. Everything may change in the future if fate allows enough people being educated of cause & effect and where the current majority consensus is overcome by understanding of cause & effect. I assume this will happen as technology creates the bridge of data from & to the brain.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    My objection is with the word "should", because (and maybe I'm wrong) it implies choice. Nobody says a falling rock should avoid hitting a child - the lack of agency of the rock makes that statement meaningless. Similarly, if you posit that we have no free will, saying that humanity should rehabilitate and not punish is meaningless.
    - syssbin 7y ago
      I understand your objection. Should is just a word for human expression to be shared from me to you. Maybe, not the best word. Although, I thought as a whole the post answered your original point. Yes, we're similar as the rock because of no agency that's truly our own. We assume typically the rock has no individual conscious and for all we know panpsychism exists contrary to our assumption. Basically, we cannot know what's right or wrong and if a rock should avoid hitting a child. It all factors into fate in the end. Might be favourable for being hit by the rock or not. One could argue, except that's a rock & a human. I think (human & human) could be treated the same as (rock & a human) but we're dealing with equation of humanity and the emotions of deeper similarity shared. The majority consensus favour our deeper similarities for connection. So the majority consensus doesn't want (human & rock) treatment to be the same like throw the rock away like a piece of trash that's been used up. Anyway, Fate will decide in the end if we should treat all other objects equally and even while knowing cause & effect. I think cause & effect and with our humanity connection thus favours the rehabilitation modal if the majority consensus ever updates by fate.
- ericb 7y ago
  No, I think the point made above is that you can still choose punishment because even with no free will involved, the future decision calculations need to observe a strong penalty to deciding yes for murder. This doesn't require free will any more than an if-then I write in code requires it.
  - bena 7y ago
    But your if-then exhibits no independent action. It just is. It can't "choose", it just takes input and gives a predetermined output based on that input. If free will does not exist, you do not have a choice. It's disingenuous to both argue that free will does not exist and to proclaim that we should do anything. Or that we can make any sort of choice.
    - ericb 7y ago
      > It's disingenuous to both argue that free will does not exist and to proclaim that we should do anything. Not at all. Maybe you are a free-will-lacking if-then bot that takes whatever suggestions someone says we should do and executes them, and maybe I am a free will lacking robot that periodically burps out suggestions. No disenguity or "true choice" required.
      - bena 7y ago
        But if free will does not exist and you believe that, then you would know that whomever you're making the suggestion to is incapable of changing whatever path they were going on in the first place. By suggesting a course of action, you are implying there is an actor with agency out there. Now, while the actor itself may not actually have agency, that does not absolve you. Any attempt to persuade is an implicit acknowledgement of free will.
        ericb 7y ago
        > Any attempt to persuade is an implicit acknowledgement of free will. > But your if-then exhibits no independent action. Attempts at persuasion don't imply free will, they just change the input to the if-then in a downstream deterministic process. If bash script A calls bash script B with a command line flag to make it follow an alternate behavior, nothing is implied about the free will of either bash script.
- traderjane 7y ago
  Yes, the argument would be that someone was forced by circumstance to rehabilitate.
bena 7y ago
And then, if free will does not exist, you are predetermined to believe that murderers should be rehabilitated. You took one snippet out of context. The point of the statement wasn't that "murderers should be punished". The point of the post was to highlight that if free will does not exist, then agency is not something that exists. You don't get the choice. Morality does not exist because like someone else's rock example, you don't ascribe motive to the rock. So if our actions are entirely preprogrammed, and all of our reasoning is post-hoc rationalizations, then you can't really ascribe motive to us either. Because none of us have any real control. We're either people who do A or people who don't do A. And no matter how much your belief that murderers can rehabilitated, there will be a segment who are just predetermined to not be swayed by such arguments. You can't simultaneously say free will does not exist and say that we have any kind of control.
- sysbinn 7y ago
  Yes, like I said fate decides. I'm not saying we have control and I wrote responses but they're dead. I think they're still good responses and even if fate decided.
  - bena 7y ago
    The issue is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Free will's existence not mattering doesn't do anything for the "thrilling observations" or whatever. It says nothing to whether things get better or worse. Not to mention, you have no choice whether you find it thrilling or not. So trying to convince someone else that it is thrilling is also implicitly figuring people have some sort of free will or discretion. And you're assuming that you're right and that people need to get on board because "being aware of the nature of reality is a good thing". Well, the nature of reality is that whether free will exists is pointless. You don't even address your cherry-picking of my other comment.
    - syssbinn 7y ago
      I don't think there is a disagreement here. I agree with your long post conveying it's all fate in the end. I can still write about what I think while observing everything and knowing fate has made my impression. I just like the discussion because who knows if today will be the day to read something thought provoking around it. Anyways, I'm not trying to convince anyone something is thrilling. I just find it thrilling and even while knowing I don't have free will in any regard of my life. I think nobody can be right in the traditional sense (traditionally assuming free will exists and one person can be right). My views are just of how I wish society functioned because I think I would prefer to live in a society that cared about the misfortunate by fate. Maybe that's how the multiverse would work for people moving (after death) to a universe more suited for how they turned out. Still wouldn't bring free will but would be cool. Anyway I'm not trying to cherry pick. I just thought I would express myself best with what I pulled out to write more. Thanks very much for the discussion!

by sysbin 7y ago

icebraining 7y ago

If there's no free will, the people punishing murderers have no choice to rehabilitate instead. Choosing between punishing or rehabilitating requires free will.

syssbin 7y ago
I'm writing from a cause & effect mindset. So it definitely makes sense that rehabilitation is better than punishment. To answer what you're trying to point out that has already been answered by me in another post.. Yes, everything is fated to happen. The majority consensus is how society is structured to be and yes the outcome is by fate. Everything may change in the future if fate allows enough people being educated of cause & effect and where the current majority consensus is overcome by understanding of cause & effect. I assume this will happen as technology creates the bridge of data from & to the brain.
- icebraining 7y ago
  My objection is with the word "should", because (and maybe I'm wrong) it implies choice. Nobody says a falling rock should avoid hitting a child - the lack of agency of the rock makes that statement meaningless. Similarly, if you posit that we have no free will, saying that humanity should rehabilitate and not punish is meaningless.
  - syssbin 7y ago
    I understand your objection. Should is just a word for human expression to be shared from me to you. Maybe, not the best word. Although, I thought as a whole the post answered your original point. Yes, we're similar as the rock because of no agency that's truly our own. We assume typically the rock has no individual conscious and for all we know panpsychism exists contrary to our assumption. Basically, we cannot know what's right or wrong and if a rock should avoid hitting a child. It all factors into fate in the end. Might be favourable for being hit by the rock or not. One could argue, except that's a rock & a human. I think (human & human) could be treated the same as (rock & a human) but we're dealing with equation of humanity and the emotions of deeper similarity shared. The majority consensus favour our deeper similarities for connection. So the majority consensus doesn't want (human & rock) treatment to be the same like throw the rock away like a piece of trash that's been used up. Anyway, Fate will decide in the end if we should treat all other objects equally and even while knowing cause & effect. I think cause & effect and with our humanity connection thus favours the rehabilitation modal if the majority consensus ever updates by fate.
ericb 7y ago
No, I think the point made above is that you can still choose punishment because even with no free will involved, the future decision calculations need to observe a strong penalty to deciding yes for murder. This doesn't require free will any more than an if-then I write in code requires it.
- bena 7y ago
  But your if-then exhibits no independent action. It just is. It can't "choose", it just takes input and gives a predetermined output based on that input. If free will does not exist, you do not have a choice. It's disingenuous to both argue that free will does not exist and to proclaim that we should do anything. Or that we can make any sort of choice.
  - ericb 7y ago
    > It's disingenuous to both argue that free will does not exist and to proclaim that we should do anything. Not at all. Maybe you are a free-will-lacking if-then bot that takes whatever suggestions someone says we should do and executes them, and maybe I am a free will lacking robot that periodically burps out suggestions. No disenguity or "true choice" required.
    - bena 7y ago
      But if free will does not exist and you believe that, then you would know that whomever you're making the suggestion to is incapable of changing whatever path they were going on in the first place. By suggesting a course of action, you are implying there is an actor with agency out there. Now, while the actor itself may not actually have agency, that does not absolve you. Any attempt to persuade is an implicit acknowledgement of free will.
      - ericb 7y ago
        > Any attempt to persuade is an implicit acknowledgement of free will. > But your if-then exhibits no independent action. Attempts at persuasion don't imply free will, they just change the input to the if-then in a downstream deterministic process. If bash script A calls bash script B with a command line flag to make it follow an alternate behavior, nothing is implied about the free will of either bash script.
traderjane 7y ago
Yes, the argument would be that someone was forced by circumstance to rehabilitate.

bena 7y ago

And then, if free will does not exist, you are predetermined to believe that murderers should be rehabilitated. You took one snippet out of context. The point of the statement wasn't that "murderers should be punished". The point of the post was to highlight that if free will does not exist, then agency is not something that exists. You don't get the choice. Morality does not exist because like someone else's rock example, you don't ascribe motive to the rock. So if our actions are entirely preprogrammed, and all of our reasoning is post-hoc rationalizations, then you can't really ascribe motive to us either. Because none of us have any real control. We're either people who do A or people who don't do A. And no matter how much your belief that murderers can rehabilitated, there will be a segment who are just predetermined to not be swayed by such arguments. You can't simultaneously say free will does not exist and say that we have any kind of control.

sysbinn 7y ago
Yes, like I said fate decides. I'm not saying we have control and I wrote responses but they're dead. I think they're still good responses and even if fate decided.
- bena 7y ago
  The issue is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Free will's existence not mattering doesn't do anything for the "thrilling observations" or whatever. It says nothing to whether things get better or worse. Not to mention, you have no choice whether you find it thrilling or not. So trying to convince someone else that it is thrilling is also implicitly figuring people have some sort of free will or discretion. And you're assuming that you're right and that people need to get on board because "being aware of the nature of reality is a good thing". Well, the nature of reality is that whether free will exists is pointless. You don't even address your cherry-picking of my other comment.
  - syssbinn 7y ago
    I don't think there is a disagreement here. I agree with your long post conveying it's all fate in the end. I can still write about what I think while observing everything and knowing fate has made my impression. I just like the discussion because who knows if today will be the day to read something thought provoking around it. Anyways, I'm not trying to convince anyone something is thrilling. I just find it thrilling and even while knowing I don't have free will in any regard of my life. I think nobody can be right in the traditional sense (traditionally assuming free will exists and one person can be right). My views are just of how I wish society functioned because I think I would prefer to live in a society that cared about the misfortunate by fate. Maybe that's how the multiverse would work for people moving (after death) to a universe more suited for how they turned out. Still wouldn't bring free will but would be cool. Anyway I'm not trying to cherry pick. I just thought I would express myself best with what I pulled out to write more. Thanks very much for the discussion!