Revolution in Thought

[Logik]

I’m not sure what you mean “is a choice you make” not a choice they make.”

To "hold somebody responsible" is to punish them in response to their actions.

You can choose punishment, or choose forgiveness. And if you claim that free will exists... Why do you choose punishment?
Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?

You’re correct, it’s not the best system but the only one we got at this time. That’s why I’m trying to bring this discovery to light because there’s a better way!

I imagine a better way would be to not punish people for things they have no control over.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[peacegirl]

I’m not sure what you mean “is a choice you make” not a choice they make.”

To "hold somebody responsible" is to punish them in response to their actions.

You can choose punishment, or choose forgiveness. And if you claim that free will exists... Why do you choose punishment?

I don’t claim that free will exists. I claim the opposite.

Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?

You’re absolutely right.

You’re correct, it’s not the best system but the only one we got at this time. That’s why I’m trying to bring this discovery to light because there’s a better way!

I imagine a better way would be to not punish people for things they have no control over.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You’re preaching to the choir. Stick with me.

[Logik]

I’m not sure what you mean “is a choice you make” not a choice they make.”

To "hold somebody responsible" is to punish them in response to their actions.

You can choose punishment, or choose forgiveness. And if you claim that free will exists... Why do you choose punishment?

I don’t claim that free will exists. I claim the opposite.

Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?

You’re absolutely right.

You’re correct, it’s not the best system but the only one we got at this time. That’s why I’m trying to bring this discovery to light because there’s a better way!

I imagine a better way would be to not punish people for things they have no control over.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You’re preaching to the choir. Stick with me.

Then I don't understand why you are being skeptical of the experiment?

[henry quirk]

"Ok, but if choice happens before awareness-of-choice your conception of free will is incoherent."

Libet didn't say 'choice happens before awareness of choice'. He said there's an anticipatory or readiness state, a state of 'pre-choice'. And Libet also said there is a conscious 'veto'.

The only folks claiming Libet's work is a definite 'no' to free will (as I conceive it) are folks who don't understand the experiments, or who only know of the initial work but not the conclusions, or who (for reasons alien to me) actively lobby against free will as reality.

[Logik]

Libet didn't say 'choice happens before awareness of choice'. He said there's an anticipatory or readiness state, a state of 'pre-choice'. And Libet also said there is a conscious 'veto'.

Yes. Impulse management. Self-discipline. The implication is that you merely get to decide whether to go along with your brain's plan or not. Instincts if you will. That doesn't take away from the fact that the idea which was tabled for "review" isn't really "yours" as such.

You also need to factor in decision fatigue e.g your ability to veto your brain as you get tired ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue ).

The only folks claiming Libet's work is a definite 'no' to free will (as I conceive it) are folks who don't understand the experiments, or who only know of the initial work but not the conclusions, or who (for reasons alien to me) actively lobby against free will as reality.

Naturally. Any smart scientist who expects public funding will never say anything with absolute certainty. The point of science is to report on the data - not to extrapolate conclusions/interpretations from it. And so I don't really care what Libet says or what he concludes.

I can draw my own conclusions directly from the experiment design.

[henry quirk]

As can I, as I do.

Ain't nuthin' there sez I'm not a free will.

[peacegirl]

To "hold somebody responsible" is to punish them in response to their actions.

You can choose punishment, or choose forgiveness. And if you claim that free will exists... Why do you choose punishment?

I don’t claim that free will exists. I claim the opposite.

Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?

You’re absolutely right.

You’re correct, it’s not the best system but the only one we got at this time. That’s why I’m trying to bring this discovery to light because there’s a better way!

I imagine a better way would be to not punish people for things they have no control over.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You’re preaching to the choir. Stick with me.

Then I don't understand why you are being skeptical of the experiment?

I am not going against the experiment. I'm going against what the experiment implies which is that we are not responsible for making our choice because the choice was made before we were even conscious of it. That's not the way determinism is explained by this author, and how it's defined makes a big difference.

[peacegirl]

"Ok, but if choice happens before awareness-of-choice your conception of free will is incoherent."

Libet didn't say 'choice happens before awareness of choice'. He said there's an anticipatory or readiness state, a state of 'pre-choice'. And Libet also said there is a conscious 'veto'.

The only folks claiming Libet's work is a definite 'no' to free will (as I conceive it) are folks who don't understand the experiments, or who only know of the initial work but not the conclusions, or who (for reasons alien to me) actively lobby against free will as reality.

The interesting thing here is that Libet's experiment does allow for a conscious "veto", which makes sense. But...this does not mean will is free. This has been the source of the confusion for centuries, so I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm talking about unless they stick with me.

[Logik]

I am not going against the experiment. I'm going against what the experiment implies which is that we are not responsible for making our choice because the choice was made before we were even conscious of it. That's not the way determinism is explained by this author, and how its defined makes a big difference.

That sounds like more goalpost-shifting.

What do you mean by "responsible" then?

I can totally hold gravity responsible me spraining my ankle yesterday evening.

If that's what you mean by "responsible" then it's the same meaning as "causal". It's an attitude towards it.

[peacegirl]

As can I, as I do.

Ain't nuthin' there sez I'm not a free will.

You're both right, but there is confusion due to the meaning of determinism which only means your preference gave you greater satisfaction than any other choice under consideration. Greater satisfaction can only go in one direction rendering all other options an impossibility at any given moment in time.

[henry quirk]

...and a good chunk of 'em take a dim view of the experiment as disproving free will.


http://www.google.com/search?q=libet+ex ... yEqBuz7S1w

If the above google search link doesn't work, do your own. Type: libet experiment (as neutral as you can get, yeah?) and see what you get.

[peacegirl]

I am not going against the experiment. I'm going against what the experiment implies which is that we are not responsible for making our choice because the choice was made before we were even conscious of it. That's not the way determinism is explained by this author, and how its defined makes a big difference.

That sounds like more goalpost-shifting.

What do you mean by "responsible" then?

It's about time you asked. lol It just means that you, the agent, was responsible for making the choice. I was responsible for choosing eggs this morning. I was responsible for calling my mother to say hi this morning. It does not mean you were morally responsible because any choice that is made is beyond your control, after the fact. Please think about this for a minute before responding.

I can totally hold gravity responsible me spraining my ankle yesterday evening.

Yes you can, but who is holding YOU responsible under the banner of determinism? No one.

[Logik]

...and a good chunk of 'em take a dim view of the experiment as disproving free will.


http://www.google.com/search?q=libet+ex ... yEqBuz7S1w

If the above google search link doesn't work, do your own. Type: libet experiment (as neutral as you can get, yeah?) and see what you get.

https://scholar.google.com

Just read the paper.

[Logik]

It's about time you asked. lol It just means that you, the agent, was responsible for making the choice. I was responsible for choosing eggs this morning. I was responsible for calling my mother to say hi this morning. It does not mean you were morally responsible because any choice that is made is beyond your control, after the fact. Please think about this for a minute before responding.

This is just begging the question.

I am asking you to explain how you are using the word "responsible".

Holding somebody responsible usually implies some form of (negative) consequences.

If "holding me responsible" for stealing a car means you have a very low opinion of me - I couldn't really give a damn.
If "holding me responsible" for stealing a car means you are going to throw me in jail - then it's consequential.

If the word "responsible" has no empirical consequences it is just a label. It means whatever feelings/emotions/attitudes you attach to it.

The way I am "holding gravity responsible" is that I don't like it very much because my leg hurts. But I am not going to throw gravity in jail....

[peacegirl]

It's about time you asked. lol It just means that you, the agent, was responsible for making the choice. I was responsible for choosing eggs this morning. I was responsible for calling my mother to say hi this morning. It does not mean you were morally responsible because any choice that is made is beyond your control, after the fact. Please think about this for a minute before responding.

This is just begging the question.

How am I begging the question? I answered you and I did not assume the truth of the conclusion.

I am asking you to explain how you are using the word "responsible".

Holding somebody responsible usually implies some form of (negative) consequences.

That's not how I'm using the term. I thought I explained this rather clearly. I am responsible for getting in my car and running a red light because I made the choice to get in the car and run a red light, hitting a pedestrian. No one else did this, but me. That does not mean I'm "morally responsible" which is something completely different. Moral responsibility is the belief that I could have chosen otherwise; that I am responsible for making a bad choice and now it's payback time; I deserve to go to jail or be punished in some way.

If "holding me responsible" for stealing a car means you have a very low opinion of me - I couldn't really give a damn.
If "holding me responsible" for stealing a car means you are going to throw me in jail - then it's consequential.

If the word "responsible" has no empirical consequences it is just a label. It means whatever feelings/emotions/attitudes you attach to it.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's establish our terms first; then we discuss what it means to be responsible in terms of consequentialism.