4 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoThank 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 :)
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago>I'm not quite tracking what you mean by 'shared computation' I think they are trying to say that depending on where you believe the determination for will occurs, it might affect how much "blame" you place on someone performing wrong actions. If you believe they gathered external information and made an internal calculation to perform an action themselves, you might call that free will even if the final decision to act was affected by the external factors. On the other end of the spectrum, I believe they were trying to say if you argue that an individual's computation of external information is not a free will action, then you must zoom out and incorporate the externalities which determined that individual computation/resulting action to start to discuss blame. This would essentially make the "free will computation" a shared computation in that deterministic externalities combine to remove individual free will and impose a sort of "cosmic will" where you blame the cosmic will for your bad actions, and try to excuse yourself as a result. I believe this is what they meant by "as a result it becomes possible to justify horrible actions."
- proc0 3y agoFreewill is an illusion if you define it as at the total product or sum of all particles colliding that led to a particular decision. I'm saying is the entire universe and sum of particles is the wrong level of analysis if you want to properly hold individuals accountable. By 'shared comuptation" i just mean that broader framing of taking into account the physics of all particles. That framing is too broad and in theory can be used to justify anything. If instead we limit freewill as a computation of the brain, we can properly address the problem by holding the individual responsible for their own "computation", so to speak. To further illustrate, imagine a room of computers that act on the world. If one computer starts going rogue, it is better to say that computer has something wrong with its software, as oppose to attributing the problem to the development process and the work ethics of the developers. Both are correct, but one is more specific and relevant.