And where does that leave more proximal conditioners and triggers?Controlling your temper, with a loaded gun in your hand, seems a big thing to hang on your distant relative, even if that relative put a fiery temper into your blood. Do you think it's realistic to hang Armand Martin's] actions on his grandfather?What's realistic is that was the only thing he could do given his distant past and so he was unfortunate to have the distant past he had. To have controlled his temper he would have needed to have been fortunate enough to have an appropriately different distant past No I don't think it's realistic to hang his actions on his grandfather.
Sorry but that sort of world makes no sense, we are back to the clock-maker with everything just being cogs ticking away endlessly.Ah but see how you think we would lose control in that sort of world.
What's the point of an introspective life of trying to be the best one can with what we got? or guess the point is there is no point?There is every point because there are good consequences of doing so. :-) But when you succeed it's sheer luck that the distant past was the way it had to be for you to succeed and visa versa.
And where does that leave more proximal conditioners and triggers?Still there, it's just the triggers won't fire unless that's the only thing they can do given the distant past. That's assuming determinism and do remember the reason to assume determinism, it's because indeterminism can't make a difference because it can't gain us control, it's just a luck factor.
If people were generally determinists they wouldn't have the negative influence of belief in libertarian free will which could lead to them being more compassionate, less hateful, fairer and so there would be less aggressive people.Seriously? The negative influence of belief in libertarian free-will? I really don't even know where to start with this. "....there would be less aggressive people." Do you have any frame of reference here?
It's the benefits of disbelief in libertarian free will and moral responsibility as it's commonly understood that need to be got at.You have no idea how Determinism juxtaposes with reality and the mind Stephen. Absolutely no idea at all. To you it's an ideology. That's incorrect on every level. If you wish to use the default "Philosophy" here, this philosophy is not even balanced. The concept of trying to reason out a correct way to be deterministic is ridiculous. The concept of trying to override nature to accommodate an ideological idea of determinism or free-will is ridiculous.
If people were generally determinists they wouldn't have the negative influence of belief in libertarian free will which could lead to them being more compassionate, less hateful, fairer and so there would be less aggressive people.Seriously? The negative influence of belief in libertarian free-will? It's an empirical matter Vyazma. You have no good reason to think the belief isn't influencing people and it seems reasonable to believe it is as that's the norm re erroneous beliefs. It would be odd for people on mass to believe in something which isn't true about such an important subject (moral responsibility) and for it to be doing no harm. Youd need good reason to believe that. The consensus amongst philosophers is that belief in ultimate responsibility is harmful for what it's worth. So really you're arguing without any rational basis at all, not much point in that.
Yes, I agree that taking a determinist approach would lead to more compassionate and effective responses. There has to be a better way than assuming that people are deliberately "bad" and need to be punished into compliance.Yep.
But I disagree with GdB that we need a "concept of free will compatible with determinism.I know that is because you won't accept the term free will can be and is used to mean more than one thing. What does it mean other than having conscious control over our actions? You may be defining free will differently than I am. Lois
OK, the argument seems over my head - now how about the implications of that argument?
Yes I know. And the thing is the implications of being a determinist go right over most peoples heads.What are the implications?
If people were generally determinists they wouldn't have the negative influence of belief in libertarian free will which could lead to them being more compassionate, less hateful, fairer and so there would be less aggressive people.Seriously? The negative influence of belief in libertarian free-will? I really don't even know where to start with this. "....there would be less aggressive people." Do you have any frame of reference here?
It's the benefits of disbelief in libertarian free will and moral responsibility as it's commonly understood that need to be got at.You have no idea how Determinism juxtaposes with reality and the mind Stephen. Absolutely no idea at all. To you it's an ideology. That's incorrect on every level. If you wish to use the default "Philosophy" here, this philosophy is not even balanced. The concept of trying to reason out a correct way to be deterministic is ridiculous. The concept of trying to override nature to accommodate an ideological idea of determinism or free-will is ridiculous.d We know for a fact that human actions are determined. There have even been brainscans done under scientific conditions that show that people make decisons before they are consciously aware of them. Yet there is no scientific evidence that we have free will. We all imagine we have it and generally speak as if we have it (even determinists do that) but there is no evidence that free will is anything but an imaginary concept. Until free will can be proven to exist determinism is the default. Tracking the unconscious generation of free decisions using ultra-high field fMRI. Bode S, He AH, Soon CS, Trampel R, Turner R, Haynes JD. Published in PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21612. Recently, we demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness. Activity patterns in anterior frontopolar cortex (BA 10) were temporally the first to carry intention-related information and thus a candidate region for the unconscious generation of free decisions. In the present study, the original paradigm was replicated and multivariate pattern classification was applied to functional images of frontopolar cortex, acquired using ultra-high field fMRI at 7 Tesla. Here, we show that predictive activity patterns recorded before a decision was made became increasingly stable with increasing temporal proximity to the time point of the conscious decision. Furthermore, detailed questionnaires exploring subjects' thoughts before and during the decision confirmed that decisions were made spontaneously and subjects were unaware of the evolution of their decision outcomes. These results give further evidence that FPC stands at the top of the prefrontal executive hierarchy in the unconscious generation of free decisions. https://sites.google.com/site/hayneslab/projects/volition-intentions-and-free-will Lois
What does it mean other than having conscious control over our actions? You may be defining free will differentlt than I am. LoisLois the thing is we use the term free will to mean more than one thing. Unless you accept we do that we will get no where regarding compatibilism and it will be quite tough for you to back down on that, it was for me. Your definition of libertarian free will isn't enough, what problem would determinism be for that and what does conscious control mean? Clearly it's all about the interpretation of could have done otherwise. I've defined libertarian free will many many times, I will again. When we look back at what people could have done we imagine we mean could in the actual situation. That combined with the concept of the choice being up to us gives us the illusion that the choice was entirely up to us. The reality is circumstances beyond our control would have had to be different for us to have made another choice and we are merely fortunate or unfortunate that they weren't. So Libertarian free will is that we could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control having been different. Compatibilist free will is something else which has nothing to do with determinism nor conscious control I'd say. We can start with examples like the difference between slavery and someone who volunteers in a charity shop. If you ask the slave if he wants to work he'll say no I'm doing it because I have to. If you ask the charity worker if he wants to work he says yes and he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to. Both the charity worker and the slave are choosing to work but it would be dangerously morally wrong to treat both choices as the same. It's in ordinary use to treat one as a free choice and one as a forced and we can look at the differences to see why.
OK, the argument seems over my head - now how about the implications of that argument?For a person who made a bad choice to have made a good choice his distant past would have had to have been appropriately different. So he is merely unfortunate that his distant past was not as it needed to be for him to make the better choice. This doesn't fit with how we view moral responsibility because that is ordinarily the concept that we could be guilty in gods eyes. Sure atheists don't believe in god but the concept of moral responsibility remains the same. So we are all sentient but none of us have any control of what experiences we get, no control in the sense of the sheer luck we need for the distant past to have been set up right for us to avoid suffering. In a just world nobody would suffer under these circumstances. So nobody can deserve to suffer. When we realise that nobody could have done otherwise (in the sense I've described) we can lose the influence of belief in moral responsibility (in the sense I've described) and I believe as many do, that leads to more compassion, more empathy, less desire for revenge, less hatred and more. We don't run society as if it's all a lottery at the moment. Our sense of fairness is warped by belief in libertarian free will, that those who end up on top in the lottery deserve it and visa versa. So I believe accepting we don't have libertarian free will can help us make moral progress, reducing suffering.Yes I know. And the thing is the implications of being a determinist go right over most peoples heads.What are the implications?
Oh and I started on this because revenge in the justice system was brought up.
An implication of not having libertarian free will is there is no such thing as justified revenge. And again if we remind ourselves of the fact a person couldn’t have done otherwise, how we feel does change, or at least that is the experience for many of us.
So we are all sentient but none of us have any control of what experiences we get.Do you actually believe this? Of course you have a choice whether to go home (where it's safe, well, at least insulated), or go out into different exposures, where it's certain unforetellable, life altering, experiences await?
In a just world nobody would suffer under these circumstances. So nobody can deserve to suffer.Here's another place you lose me, who ever said the world was just. To me that's an attitude that can only lead to insanity - of course there is no justification for my good fortune, or for another's horrendous circumstances !
When we realise that nobody could have done otherwise (in the sense I've described)OK, I sometimes I don't read as closely as I should, but to my reading, you still haven't described anything that makes sense. It's tossing labels and words around, but nothing I can relate to.
we can lose the influence of belief in moral responsibility (in the sense I've described) and I believe as many do, that leads to more compassion, more empathy, less desire for revenge, less hatred and more.OK this is good and nobel and close to my own approach.
We don't run society as if it's all a lottery at the moment. Our sense of fairness is warped by belief in libertarian free will, that those who end up on top in the lottery deserve it and visa versa.But, . . . Are you denying that life and good fortune is in fact a matter of timing and luck or "the lottery at the moment" as you would say. Some are given better footing to grab those brass rings, but still the lottery of the moment seems a very real thing to me.
So I believe accepting we don't have libertarian free will can help us make moral progress, reducing suffering.damned I wish that would make sense to me, because I certainly share the sentiment :blank:
An implication of not having libertarian free will is there is no such thing as justified revenge.Why not?
Duplicate
Yes in the sense I've given. The implications of determinism are clear and it's equally clear that indeterminism is just another luck factor, it's very simple really.So we are all sentient but none of us have any control of what experiences we get.Do you actually believe this?
Of course you have a choice whether to go home (where it's safe, well, at least insulated), or go out into different exposures, where it's certain unforetellable, life altering, experiences await?Of course and if the distant past was set up appropriately we'll make one choice or appropriately differently and we'll make another. Sheer luck in the sense I'm describing. Gotta dash, I'll add a bit about could have done otherwise. When we blame ourselves or others it is usually because we think they/we could have done otherwise. Watch yourself and see next time. Then think that they couldn't have done otherwise given their distant past, understand that they were merely unlucky that their distant past was as it was. See if it makes a difference to you, perhaps it doesn't. On just world, no it isn't a just world but that isn't the point. People believe that suffering can be deserved i.e can be just. They believe it could in principle make sense for god to judge us after we are dead for what we have done. That is the version of moral responsibility generally believed in.
hmmmm
It's an empirical matter Vyazma. You have no good reason to think the belief isn't influencing people and it seems reasonable to believe it is as that's the norm re erroneous beliefs. It would be odd for people on mass to believe in something which isn't true about such an important subject (moral responsibility) and for it to be doing no harm. You'd need good reason to believe that.So, it's a belief? Then I'm sure you have some wonderful ideas about how to get rid of this horrible belief. Microchip implants? A totally "New School"? Eugenics maybe? You're in over your head. I'll throw you a lifeline here...Can you think of some reasons why people would believe they have libertarian free-will? Hint: Maybe because they "see" it unfolding before their very eyes?
If people were generally determinists they wouldn't...... be less aggressive people.Seriously? The negative influence of belief in libertarian free-will? I really don't even know where to start with this. "....there would be less aggressive people." Do you have any frame of reference here?
It's the benefits of disbelief in libertarian free will and moral responsibility as it's commonly understood that need to be got at.You have no idea how........ The concept of trying to..... or free-will is ridiculous.d We know for a...... Trampel R, Turner R, Haynes JD. Published in PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21612. Lois Was there a reason you included me in these quotes Lois? I'm just checking to make sure you haven't misconstrued anything I have typed here. You do realize that we are on the same side of this issue?
Just to take this back on track. For Stephen’s hopeful benefit, the best we as humans can achieve on this matter is to have learned lawmakers and judges who understand these concepts and can occasionally balance out punishment with Empirical Knowledge about neurology, psychology and sociology etc…(which would be an indirect route to the reality of Determinism.)
And of course this has been done for many years already and is steadily improving perhaps.
But for this to imply that people are benefiting from “disbelief in the concept of Libertarian Free-Will” is a long stretch.
Mainly because you can not actually qualify or contextualize what “benefiting” or"belief" is in these anecdotes.
Can you think of some reasons why people would believe they have libertarian free-will?Yes, it's an illusion generated by a combination of the mistake that could means could in the actual situation and the concept of the choice being up to us. The reason people continue to believe once that's explained is because they feel they want libertarian free will, they think it's a negative thing not to have it. Once people see the benefits of disbelief in it, less hatred for one and understand that any supposed negatives are just mistakes they stop believing in it. Lois is just one example, I am another and their are many others.