posted
*looks around for headlights and cowcatchers*
urrr...
quote:why must we state the univerise is entirely one way or the other? For the most part--certainly on a "macro" scale, on a human-sized physical scale -- it's deterministic. On a micro-scale--the scale of particles that can be affected by the random aspects of quantum mechanics, it is non-determinstic
wow.
*takes a moment to recompose self*
1. Ok, but why are you introducing this disparity between micro and macro? Got any ideas for how to patch it up?
HEY! That's the second check I've written out here in one week. I thought HR didn't have any hidden fees!
Steve,
Determinism isn't rationalism. Yes, philosophers and economists alike commonly assume that people are rational. Irrationality could certainly be deterministic.
Determinism isn't predictability. Chaos isn't predictable but it IS deterministic (at least the models from which the term is derived are deterministic)
posted
Someone asked me to come up with a test of freewill. Okay here it is.
Think of something you believe in extremely strongly. Now try as hard as you can, without thinking about new information, to change your opinion about it.
Can you do it?
The answer is no. You are simply going my the morals you have aquired somewhere or somehow. You have to to believe in it because there is no other option. You don't choose to believe in it, you want to.
No matter how hard you try you can't think its a good thing for the person you love most dearly in the world to be shot dead.
No matter how hard you try you can't think of the holocaust as being the savior of our race.
You don't choose your opinions and actions, you have to make a certain choice because of how you are.
What exactly *is* free will, anyway? That we are able to make any choice we wish? That everything is not predestined?
If you look at things from a fixed point of view, people are shaped only by their genes and by their experiences. Given this, a person will act in one way, and in one way only. People react differently to the same situation, but they've had different experiences before this that influenced their current behavior, and underneath all of that are influenced by their genes and the things inherited or randomly given to them by nature. All of these combinations create a unique person who will react in a unique way to each situation, but if one was given an infinite amount of time, knowledge, and resources, (essentially, if one was God) they could map out that person's entire life, and the lives of everyone. In that sense, everything is predestined and fated to be as it is, because none of us would make a different decision from the ones we have in the past unless we had recieved different information.
However, it is essential that we believe in free will and act as if it is true. The choices we make we must take responsibility for. No matter what I believe about the ultimate reality of free will, I still know that I have control over what I do and that I need to take responsibility for my own actions.
Seems contradictory, but for me it is complementary. Actually, my entire argument, now that I think about it, seems remarkably similar to something discussed in one of Card's books... possibly Xenocide?
By the way... hi everyone I'm new... at least I don't *think* I've posted before... or if I have, it was a long time ago.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
L0 (I'm not sure about your test, but I appreciate you taking the time to think about it)
The most interesting question I've come across in this thread is this issue of responsibility.
If we don't have freewill, if we are destined (aeons ago... yay since the origin of the universe itself) to act in a particular manner, to choose one way or another, consciously or unconsciously, informed of the ultimate consquences of those choices or not, at every split-second blink of an eye, how is anyone responsible for anything?
quote:Determinism isn't predictability. Chaos isn't predictable but it IS deterministic
I thought that chaos is deterministic, but only in a probabilistic sense.
BTW, I have still not received your check. It may be simpler just to cancel it and to Paypal me the $19.95. But, you'll have to promise not to tell anyone else the answer, or else Hank will have to come over there and beat the &%$#^% out of you.
posted
Hushidh, First of all welcome and secondly, did you actually read this forum and my essay and such because you just exactly stated my theories on freewill(very impressive if you didn't read it), however I don't believe its essential that we believe freewill exists because in some cases, I don't think we should take responsibility for our actions.
I have a problem with are justice system and the thinking of media and public. We brand those who commit crimes as monsters and horrible people, but if i'm right, then I think the public thinking needs to change at the very least. Perhaps not punishment, but public thinking.
Good question. It really depends what you mean by responsible.
If you say, jimmy is responsible for knocking over the lamp than yes, jimmy was responsible for knocking over the lamp (if he in fact did knock over the lamp).
Jimmy, however, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time to knock over that lamp. But he still knocked it over and it makes most sense for him to pick up the pieces.
On another note, just because we have no free will doesn't mean everything is pre determined. Things like how you will be born are, as far as i can tell, up to chance. I think if you say things are all pre-determined its more of a faith thing.
posted
I'm really waiting for Hushidh to reply since i've never heard anybody except for myself think like that, even after 12 hours on the bus constant arguing.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I skimmed through the topic before replying, but those are the thoughts I've had about free will for years now.
As for the criminals thing, I actually think it's the opposite, I think many criminals are viewed in a light that absolves them of any personal responsibility.
Ironic in a forum about OSC, but a quote from Dean Koontz sums it up for me.
"'These days, if your life is screwed up, if you've failed your family and friends, it's never your fault. You're a drunkard? Why, maybe it's a genetic predisposition. You're a compulsive adulterer, have a hundred sex partners a year? Well, maybe you just never felt loved as a child, maybe your parents never gave you all the cuddling you needed... You just blew some shopkeeper's head off or beat some old lady to death for twenty bucks? Why, you're not a bad guy, no, you're not to blame! Your parents are to blame, your teachers are to blame, society is to blame, all of Western culture is to blame, but not you, never you, how crass to suggest such a thing, how insensitive, how hopelessly old-fashioned... You can walk out on your wife and kids without paying child support, bilk your investors out of millions, beat some guy's brains to jelly because he's gay or he showed you disrespect... drop your baby in a garbage dumpster because you had second thoughts about the joys of motherhood... cheat on your taxes, defraud the welfare... sell drugs to grade-school kids... abuse your own daughter, and still claim your the victim. Everyone's a victim these days. No one's a victimizer. No matter what atrocity you commit, you can stake a claim for sympathy, moan about being a victim of racism, reverse racism, sexism, ageism, classism, prejudice against fat people, ugly people, dumb people, smart people. That's why you robbed the bank or blew away that cop, because you're a victim, there're a million ways to be a victim. Yeah, sure, you devalue the honest complaints of real victims, but what the hell, we only go around once, might as well get your piece of the action, and who cares about those real victims anyway, for God's sake, they're losers.'"
Essentially I think people can change and do change for the better (or worse), and when they do that means they would inevitably have changed just at that moment, but it doesn't make that change any less significant. Only on "God's" level can we really say that free will is nonexistant, because we still have the power to make choices that affect our lives.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
... On the other hand, one reason I love Ender's Game so much is that I tend to understand people, why they do what they do, and I can't hate them for it. I relate to Ender on that level. But I also recognize that just because they had their reasons doesn't make them any less responsible for what they did.
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We brand those who commit crimes as monsters and horrible people
Not always. We brand people who commit horrible crimes as monsters and horrible people.
A question: why is it so important to you that people not be responsible for their actions? Have you done something you're ashamed of?
Have you...killed...someone?
Typically, you don't find poor people lobbying for tax breaks; you don't find straight-laced businessmen lobbying for the decriminalization of marijuana; and you don't find teetotalers pushing for the repeal of the liquor tax.
Why are you so interested in creating a social/political environment where no one is responsible for their actions?
Personally, I would feel horribly unsafe in that environment. Please search for your forgiveness somewhere else, and stop trying to absolve murderers of their responsibility to themselves and to society.
posted
Of course i've done things i'm ashamed of, if you havn't then i'd have to say your living up to your ideals very well. Impossibly well.
Have I killed anybody, god no! I'm 15, I don't even have any enemies.
I believe very strongly in this and I feel for those people in positions like that. The reality is that they are danger to society and need to be seperated. However, it doesn't do anybody any harm and will probably do a lot of good to forgive these people.
I guess I'm naive in thinking we can take responsibility in some cases and not in others.
True, my ideas probably wouldn't work. The system would get abused heavily.
posted
Motivations. Thats really what dictates everything. The discussion of free will and responsibility fall under the discrimination of motivations. Unfortunately I might sound insane because i'm saying this, but murders are usually crimes of passion. Most murders are one-time killers, killing people in "the heat of the moment." Granted, they are still murderers. What seperates the general public from those people is that the general public can substatially refrian from those "heat of the moment" murders. Others are just sick, mentally. Then you get to that quote up there by Koontz for all the reasons...
I believe that we have free will. That free will creates chance, which in some remote instances can have longterm effects of predetermined life The "Domino effect". I believe if you are the one who caused the bullet to enter that persons body (The one who pulled the trigger) you are responsible. But there are many levels of responsibility. The Getaway driver. The parents. The kids who picked on him/her to drive him/her to do that. We are all fragile, but different circumstances get us to do different things.
Some criminals are monsters. But who are we to make any judgements about another persons life and who they are and what they've done. never can we really understand all the motivations a person has because sometimes we can't even understand our own.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some criminals are monsters. But who are we to make any judgements about another persons life and who they are and what they've done. never can we really understand all the motivations a person has because sometimes we can't even understand our own.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I always make judgements about other people's lives, and who they are, and what they've done. Especially if they commit criminal acts. My need for self preservation (and the need to preserve the health and well being of my family) seeks to take criminals out of circulation--the worse the crime, the longer the period of incarceration desirable (though it's not like I put on a cape and spandex tights, or anything like that. Not for those reasons, at least...).
I really don't care about a murderer's "motiviation," my goal is to remove them from a position where they may threaten me or my family. If they are sane/responsible, then they go to jail. If they are insane/irresponsible, then they go to an institution. Either way, they're out of the picture.
I know that I am responsible for my own actions. I don't care one way or another if you feel like you are responsible for your own actions or not--in my world, you get treated as if you are.
quote: I really don't care about a murderer's "motiviation," my goal is to remove them from a position where they may threaten me or my family. If they are sane/responsible, then they go to jail. If they are insane/irresponsible, then they go to an institution. Either way, they're out of the picture.
Touche, ssywak .
quote: Typically, you don't find poor people lobbying for tax breaks; you don't find straight-laced businessmen lobbying for the decriminalization of marijuana; and you don't find teetotalers pushing for the repeal of the liquor tax.
Here I must disagree with you. There are many people out there, responsible hardworking people, who push for those things, because they believe that these things will actually better society. I happen to be one of those people. But this is off topic, so I'll stop now Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really don't care about a murderer's "motiviation," my goal is to remove them from a position where they may threaten me or my family. If they are sane/responsible, then they go to jail. If they are insane/irresponsible, then they go to an institution. Either way, they're out of the picture.
Two things:
First of all, fair enough. Of course you want these people away from you and your family. Did I ever say otherwise? But how on earth would it hurt to you to say that these people are clearly differant from you and you don't understand them therefore you can't brand them as monsters.
Secondly, where do you draw the line between insane and sane. If people commit murder they are clearly thinking very differantly from you or I.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Back to that nurse's aid who kept a man dying in the windshield of her car for 5-7 days...
I'll brand her a monster, and I'll stick by that decision.
She's clearly different from me.
I cannot for the life of me understand just what was going through her head for an entire week, that she didn't do something to help this poor man.
And she's a monster.
There. You're wrong and I'm right.
Hushidh, Well, maybe I shouldn't have used the "tax breaks" reference...(no offense, but I still can't imagine cases 2 and 3)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that in the matter of safety and protection of your family that it is necessary to make decisions and judgements about people and acts. But I also believe this to be a cop out. So, are you saying that in light of the fact that you have a family you are then able to make judgements about another person? How can any of us possibly justify our ability to make fair judgements about someone else because of one act?
What about all of the innocent people in the justice system? Are they all monsters because the state has branded them that way? I believe you to be a very short-sighted person if you take any evidence given to you and immediately believe it to be truth.
Granted, I agree that responsibility lies with someone. The agressor IS responsible. But if we cannot find an agressor, then the next best thing has to do? Why do you base all your judgemnets on third party information?
I have judgements about people too. My point was not that we do not mae judgements about people and their behavior, but who are we to make those judgements when we cannot even begin to fathom enough information to justify those judgements.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I never said I made "fair judgements." I only said I made "judgements."
If I see a person acting in a way that I feel will threaten my family, I seek to keep that person separated from my family. So far, it's never been all that much more complicated than locking the car doors if we drive through a depressed neighborhood.
quote:I believe you to be a short-sighted person if you take any evidence given to you and immediately believe it to be truth
You mean, like the alleged existence of a supernatural diety? Great gravy, Adeimantus, you hardly know me and already you are judging me to be "short sighted."
And since when did I say "all"? I chose one case. Was I wrong about that case?
No.
I don't think that every person I see that makes me nervous for my own safety should be locked up--not even if our government or legal system declares that person to be a "monster." If I'm walking down a street at night, and feel that someone is following me, I'll seek safety. I will not call the police and have them arrested.
quote:who are we to make those judgements when we cannot even begin to fathom enough information to justify those judgements?
We are the living. We are the survivors (no singing!). I don't have to justify most of my judgements. If I judge someone wrong (that person following me was going to return the $20 I dropped at the corner), but I am better off for it (no, actually they were going to mug me and stab me in the chest), then that's all the justification I need.
If I am going to "actively" judge someone (send them to jail, for instance), then you're right--I need a heck of a lot of good evidence, and heresay is unacceptable.
And now, you've judged me based on what? Five minutes of reading some of my scattered posts? Well at least I'm not so schizophrenic as to both make judgements, while at the same time decrying the fairness of making any judgements at all.
Not that I'm making any judgements, mind you.
P.S. Have we derailed this thread enough? It's not about judging others, after all. To be honest, it's not necessarily about "responsibility," either. It's about free will.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I concede. You have caught me in my own trap. Though, since I have already made some judgements I will continue. You seem to me to be very insecure in your surroundings. Granted I live in a small town, but I have never experienced this kind of fear of the outside and the unknown. Now I made these judgements based on all the evidence that I have access to...this site.
EDIT>just for the record I said you were short-sighted if you believe that. That, I dont believe is a judgement, but a belief I have of everyone who should feel that why. That judgement is then fair based on the fact that I am only judging that person to be short-sighted in that specific sense and I have evidence to back it up.
But like you said, back to the original topic at hand. Free will.
quote:Well, maybe I shouldn't have used the "tax breaks" reference...(no offense, but I still can't imagine cases 2 and 3)
Case 2: Straight laced businessman lobbying for decriminalization of marijuana.
I happen to know many such people... you'd be surprised.
Case 3: Teetotaler pushing for the repeal of the liquor tax.
Teetotaler - someone who abstains from alcoholic beverage. I am, in fact, a teetotaler. And I believe strongly that the repeal of liquor taxes and many other taxes would be beneficial for society.
In that last respect, I would admit that I am a minority. There are not many teetotalers that I know of, not even among the underaged. But the second case, ahh well, there are many straight laced libertarian businessmen.
But I'm quibbling on irrelivant points to the topic. At any rate, even if you do not believe, my beliefs do not require that you believe. Bonus points to whomever recognizes the quote. Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has answered my question. Why do we have to still brand criminals and rapist and murderers and such as monsters when they are locked away. What good does it do anybody to hate these people? They are away from you and your family, what stops us from forgiving them?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one has answered my question. Why do we have to still brand criminals and rapist and murderers and such as monsters when they are locked away. What good does it do anybody to hate these people? They are away from you and your family, what stops us from forgiving them?
Perhaps this is true, that hate does nothing good. But forgiveness is an individual thing; nothing that any one person says or does will make everyone feel the same way about something. You can say that you personally don't hate them, and that is fine. But people will hate because they need to blame all the problems of the world on someone, or because maybe someone they love had something horrible done to them. They may or may not be justified in hating, and that hate may or may not have geniune use to society; I don't have those answers. But just wishing that they wouldn't won't stop it from happening.
On a completely unrelated note... I turn 20 in about an hour from now! Sorry, just felt the need to shout it out loud somewhere! *dances*
Posts: 15 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
It might be analogous to the "halting problem". A computer code can be deterministic, yet predicting whether it will halt or not might be impossible.
Some of the models of chaos are built on very simple deterministic rules, but give rise to exponentially divergent behavior. They are deterministic, but not predictable.
I haven't read Wolfram's book, but I gather he covers some of these same ideas with his cellular automata. Simple deterministic rules can easily give rise to apparently random and unpredictable behavior.
posted
Just thought I'd throw a wrench in the conversation. I do not believe there is Free Will, Free Choice, Free Agency, or whatever you would like to call it. You see, it's the word Free that I have a problem with. All choices we make come with a price, whether for good or for bad, so they are not free. We still have a consequence for every choice, but it can be a positive consequence or a negative one. There is always a price, so nothing is Free. I know this isn't the direction you wanted to go with this thread, but the wording Free Will has always bothered me for this reason.
posted
I'm not sure what you mean by a scoring system, but no, I'm not imposing anything. I believe that's just the way life is. You make a choice, you have a consequence. The consequence means that you have paid a price for your choice. The price can be a positive outcome or a negative outcome, but it is still a price and not free.
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Utah, so we have a fee will? haha, i made a funny. Get it, fee...ok nm. I believe in your statement of consequences and paying a price for our choices, whether good or bad. I don't beieve that changes the interpretation of "Free" will. Our will does not have a price, if you get my metaphor. A free will in thi sense is an unbinded will a "nonpredeterministic" will, if you follow me. Yeah i think i made that word up. NEway. Thats my take.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought that there was a sort of key to free will. Your emotions are your emotions, shaped and triggered by events in your past, and you can't choose them to simply not exist, but the true choice is whether or not you choose to let your actions be affected by those emotions. That sounds pretty trite and too, well, ignorant, but I guess that's my idea. The emotions are the uncontrollable aspect of human existence. Letting them walk all over you and control your actions by, say, hitting your wife or being stubborn for no reason is just unintelligent.
I think we have to believe in free will, whether we agree with it rationally or not. Maybe it's accepting an illusion, maybe it's not, but I think we have to understand that in order to get through mundane day to day life without profoundly annoying our good friends with our constant moping.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree book. I don't believe in free will and I don;t act any differantly in any day life. Its really impossible to. I suggest we only change it where it matteres. If you did in fact read this thread and know my theories on free will.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Sorry, just felt the need to shout it out loud somewhere! *dances*
