4 ms·

Freewill is a semantic discussion. It either exists or it doesn't depending on what exactly we're talking about. That said, it is tangential to moral and ethica

by proc0 3y ago

Freewill is a semantic discussion. It either exists or it doesn't depending on what exactly we're talking about. That said, it is tangential to moral and ethical considerations. For example, we consider animals to be controlled by their instincts, having no freewill of their own (Sapolsky's argument describes this), therefore we absolve them of any wrongdoing. A shark is not to be blamed for biting someone's leg. What are the implications for applying this perspective on humans? Freewill deniers will often empathize with people who steal and hurt others precisely because they believe they had no choice... so what about brutal dictators that kill millions? Are they to be absolved of their wrongdoings because there is no freewill? What happens to accountability in a world without freewill? These moral questions are important and depend on freewill, and because it's ultimately a semantic argument, it's better to define it in a way that takes into account the fact that some people are consciously making decisions, despite the fact that they were "destined" to do so.

burnished 3y ago
What 'freewill deniers' are you talking about? Feels like you're making something up to be upset about (or to be fair, reading things some one wrote for that purpose). Because the position you are describing is incoherent. Frankly, it sounds like you misunderstood a conversation about socioeconomic factors in violent crime
- proc0 3y ago
  That was probably the wrong term to use. I just mean people who don't think freewill exists. If I misunderstood something feel free to correct me. My specific contention is how exactly you can hold someone accountable if freewill does not exist, because that necessarily means they had no choice. On what grounds are they being held responsible? Assuming they should be.
  - burnished 3y ago
    Yes, I think you have. Got a couple rhetorical questions for you What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? The reason I'm asking is I'm under the impression you have a couple key things sort of mixed up together. Maybe another angle is to try answering the inverse of your own questions, I think you'll see free will doesn't really factor in much. Not just playing devil's advocate either, I am personally pretty sure free will is an illusion. Happy to explore the topic further too.
    - proc0 3y ago
      > What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? People have the capacity to process information, simulate the future, and act according to that intent. in other words, my definition of freewill is precisely the information processing the brain does which results in actions and beliefs. Accountability is a mechanism for groups of people to correct this process, in which ever way they agreed is the correct direction. Accountability isn't just to punish bad people... bad people hold their own accountable for doing what many would consider morally correct. So perhaps it's a way to align the thinking of groups of people. > Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? Because without intent, we can rest assured it's not a pattern, and instead an accident. In current society, accidental damages are more likely to be forgiven. I'm a computationalist, so to me freewill is a computation that in practice is attributed to the individual with the brain. If that computation results in horrible actions i.e., murder, we hold the person accountable because we do not want those kinds of decisions in society. I understand this is compatibilism so my main argument against absolute determinists is that if you say there is no such thing as freewill it implies that this computation is not taking place in your brain but as a shared computation between the individual, the environment, and the rest of the universe. It's diluting where and how the information processing is taking place, and as a result it becomes possible to justify horrible actions.
      - burnished 3y ago
        Thank you for clarifying, I believe we actually see eye to eye on most topics here. However, I am of the opinion that our conscious life being a purely material (not spiritual, metaphysical etc) computation leaves little room for a 'free will', any more than you would ascribe free will to any other chaotic physical phenomena. What you would call an absolute determinism position. I'm not quite tracking what you mean by 'shared computation' and the following, that does not seem to follow at all. Did you understand what I meant about free will being illusionary? The position you described seems to me to be narcissism, or alternatively solipsism. It is solipsistic to pity others for their lack of free will (as if it wasn't also their condition), and narcissistic to suggest others should have no opinion about your behaviors because they were out of your control. I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing these positions, though that could be blessed ignorance :)
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    This question seems to make a lot of sense, but I think you should reconsider your assumptions ie. hidden ones. If a lion eats your wife, do you hold it "responsible"? I think the answer is probably no. However you would get angry and shoot it (assuming you're a normal person). So this doesn't mean very much: "responsible", "not responsible". In fact if it's a lion we use lack of free will as a REASON to use deadly force to kill (without trial). Perhaps we're not holding it "responsible", but then who cares? Do you really care about "the principle" of being able to BLAME people for their actions, even though the outcome is pretty clearly not tied to it. Lion, blameless, shoot it to be safe. Person, blameless, better give a reduced sentence, or perhaps let off entirely. So there's stuff going on here that we're closing our eyes and ignoring. How do we hold PEOPLE accountable? We just do. Like the Lion. You know the weird thing? Believe it or not, you would likely actually get angry at the Lion, even though it didn't really "do" anything to you. In any case, our reasoning for acting in the face of injustices, goes further than someone did something wrong, they get punished because of their bad actions. Some aspects I can explain, but part of human nature is a little mysterious. P.S. Here's a side theory. This philosophy exposes our privileges and this is why you get uncomfortable. Why do we kill the Lion and why do we get a trial, and maybe even let off (for not having free will, or for free will "malfunction"). Could it be because our culture and society aren't fair? Is that why this makes you feel bad? What if you replaced the Lion with a racial minority? It's correct that our morals now say that black people count as human, but perhaps there's more going on here than we realize. Perhaps our entire way of thinking is more warped than we realize.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      I am reminded of a South African court case I read a while back (which I can't seem to find now) where there was some confusion when a Japanese man was thought to be Chinese. Chinese people were not considered "white" but Japanese people were. If I remember correctly, he was trying to board a bus (or a taxi?) and was denied because of Apartheid laws but was later able to "prove" his "whiteness" by showing he was Japanese. Humans suck at recognizing the human-ness of other humans.

by proc0 3y ago

burnished 3y ago

What 'freewill deniers' are you talking about? Feels like you're making something up to be upset about (or to be fair, reading things some one wrote for that purpose). Because the position you are describing is incoherent. Frankly, it sounds like you misunderstood a conversation about socioeconomic factors in violent crime

proc0 3y ago
That was probably the wrong term to use. I just mean people who don't think freewill exists. If I misunderstood something feel free to correct me. My specific contention is how exactly you can hold someone accountable if freewill does not exist, because that necessarily means they had no choice. On what grounds are they being held responsible? Assuming they should be.
- burnished 3y ago
  Yes, I think you have. Got a couple rhetorical questions for you What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? The reason I'm asking is I'm under the impression you have a couple key things sort of mixed up together. Maybe another angle is to try answering the inverse of your own questions, I think you'll see free will doesn't really factor in much. Not just playing devil's advocate either, I am personally pretty sure free will is an illusion. Happy to explore the topic further too.
  - proc0 3y ago
    > What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? People have the capacity to process information, simulate the future, and act according to that intent. in other words, my definition of freewill is precisely the information processing the brain does which results in actions and beliefs. Accountability is a mechanism for groups of people to correct this process, in which ever way they agreed is the correct direction. Accountability isn't just to punish bad people... bad people hold their own accountable for doing what many would consider morally correct. So perhaps it's a way to align the thinking of groups of people. > Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? Because without intent, we can rest assured it's not a pattern, and instead an accident. In current society, accidental damages are more likely to be forgiven. I'm a computationalist, so to me freewill is a computation that in practice is attributed to the individual with the brain. If that computation results in horrible actions i.e., murder, we hold the person accountable because we do not want those kinds of decisions in society. I understand this is compatibilism so my main argument against absolute determinists is that if you say there is no such thing as freewill it implies that this computation is not taking place in your brain but as a shared computation between the individual, the environment, and the rest of the universe. It's diluting where and how the information processing is taking place, and as a result it becomes possible to justify horrible actions.
    - burnished 3y ago
      Thank you for clarifying, I believe we actually see eye to eye on most topics here. However, I am of the opinion that our conscious life being a purely material (not spiritual, metaphysical etc) computation leaves little room for a 'free will', any more than you would ascribe free will to any other chaotic physical phenomena. What you would call an absolute determinism position. I'm not quite tracking what you mean by 'shared computation' and the following, that does not seem to follow at all. Did you understand what I meant about free will being illusionary? The position you described seems to me to be narcissism, or alternatively solipsism. It is solipsistic to pity others for their lack of free will (as if it wasn't also their condition), and narcissistic to suggest others should have no opinion about your behaviors because they were out of your control. I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing these positions, though that could be blessed ignorance :)
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  This question seems to make a lot of sense, but I think you should reconsider your assumptions ie. hidden ones. If a lion eats your wife, do you hold it "responsible"? I think the answer is probably no. However you would get angry and shoot it (assuming you're a normal person). So this doesn't mean very much: "responsible", "not responsible". In fact if it's a lion we use lack of free will as a REASON to use deadly force to kill (without trial). Perhaps we're not holding it "responsible", but then who cares? Do you really care about "the principle" of being able to BLAME people for their actions, even though the outcome is pretty clearly not tied to it. Lion, blameless, shoot it to be safe. Person, blameless, better give a reduced sentence, or perhaps let off entirely. So there's stuff going on here that we're closing our eyes and ignoring. How do we hold PEOPLE accountable? We just do. Like the Lion. You know the weird thing? Believe it or not, you would likely actually get angry at the Lion, even though it didn't really "do" anything to you. In any case, our reasoning for acting in the face of injustices, goes further than someone did something wrong, they get punished because of their bad actions. Some aspects I can explain, but part of human nature is a little mysterious. P.S. Here's a side theory. This philosophy exposes our privileges and this is why you get uncomfortable. Why do we kill the Lion and why do we get a trial, and maybe even let off (for not having free will, or for free will "malfunction"). Could it be because our culture and society aren't fair? Is that why this makes you feel bad? What if you replaced the Lion with a racial minority? It's correct that our morals now say that black people count as human, but perhaps there's more going on here than we realize. Perhaps our entire way of thinking is more warped than we realize.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    I am reminded of a South African court case I read a while back (which I can't seem to find now) where there was some confusion when a Japanese man was thought to be Chinese. Chinese people were not considered "white" but Japanese people were. If I remember correctly, he was trying to board a bus (or a taxi?) and was denied because of Apartheid laws but was later able to "prove" his "whiteness" by showing he was Japanese. Humans suck at recognizing the human-ness of other humans.