We ought to embrace free will

[FlashDangerpants]

OK. So if debating that we have free will is a waste of time, then so is debating that we don't.

Pretty much.

The option is there to take it as far as needed to understand why it is so unimportant when well understood in comparison to looking so important to dullards. After that, if you keep going and start trying to answer questions of moarality with it, you probably fail the same intelligence test that VA fails when he tries to use universal ontological antirealism for those sorts of questions.

[Gary Childress]

If there isn't already free will, then we can't "ought" to do anything. So your statement already assumes the existence of free will, Gary.

True. However, I don't see how one can even have morality without "ought".

No, it's not true. There are always "oughts", whether self-imposed or imposed by others.

In a determined universe, you can think that you ought to lose weight. Your teacher can think that you ought to do your homework.

But in a deterministic universe, I probably won't feel guilt or shame for doing something wrong. I'd just write it off as not having had any other realistic choice. That's what I mean by acting as though we have free will. If we don't think we have free will, then is there even a need to feel bad if we happen to get angry and someone who cut us off in traffic and shot them to death? Man, I'm sorry but I obviously didn't have any other choice at the moment otherwise I would have chosen to do it.

If people are responsible for their actions then that doesn't seem like determinism to me. It's assuming that a person could have behaved differently and that's free will at play.

[Gary Childress]

OK. So if debating that we have free will is a waste of time, then so is debating that we don't.

Pretty much.

The option is there to take it as far as needed to understand why it is so unimportant when well understood in comparison to looking so important to dullards. After that, if you keep going and start trying to answer questions of moarality with it, you probably fail the same intelligence test that VA fails when he tries to use universal ontological antirealism for those sorts of questions.

Well, we can't all be as smart as you are, Flash. That ought to be obvious.

[FlashDangerpants]

But in a deterministic universe, I probably won't feel guilt or shame for doing something wrong.

You are failing to understand the basics here. The deterministic universe and the free-will universe are both explanations of this universe, the exact universe you live in in every detail with all the words and the meanings and the feelings that are included.

[FlashDangerpants]

OK. So if debating that we have free will is a waste of time, then so is debating that we don't.

Pretty much.

The option is there to take it as far as needed to understand why it is so unimportant when well understood in comparison to looking so important to dullards. After that, if you keep going and start trying to answer questions of moarality with it, you probably fail the same intelligence test that VA fails when he tries to use universal ontological antirealism for those sorts of questions.

Well, we can't all be as smart as you are, Flash. That ought to be obvious.

I'm no genius.

[Gary Childress]

But in a deterministic universe, I probably won't feel guilt or shame for doing something wrong.

You are failing to understand the basics here. The deterministic universe and the free-will universe are both explanations of this universe, the exact universe you live in in every detail with all the words and the meanings and the feelings that are included.

What "basics" am I failing to understand? If you tell someone they had a choice in what they did, then is that saying the same thing as they were just victims of deterministic processes? One gives agency and accountability and the other gives a pretty good excuse.

As far as I'm aware, the jury is not in yet on how deterministic the mind is. There could certainly be determinism all the way up and down a chain of events, however, if there isn't, then you've just given everyone a lovely excuse to get off lightly with pretty much anything if determinism is not the case. Is assuming determinism worth changing the dynamic of how people act or choose if it's not the case?

[FlashDangerpants]

But in a deterministic universe, I probably won't feel guilt or shame for doing something wrong.

You are failing to understand the basics here. The deterministic universe and the free-will universe are both explanations of this universe, the exact universe you live in in every detail with all the words and the meanings and the feelings that are included.

What "basics" am I failing to understand? If you tell someone they had a choice in what they did, then is that saying the same thing as they were just victims of deterministic processes? One gives agency and accountability and the other gives a pretty good excuse.

As far as I'm aware, the jury is not in yet on how deterministic the mind is. There could certainly be determinism all the way up and down a chain of events, however, if there isn't, then you've just given everyone a lovely excuse to get off lightly with pretty much anything if determinism is not the case. Is assuming determinism worth changing the dynamic of how people act or choose if it's not the case?

You are confusing one state of affairs - in which you happen to exist within a fully determined universe whether you know it or not and would experience that universe in exactly the same way whether you did or not, and therefore may or may not choose to believe that you have free will...

With an unrelated state of affairs - in which you happen to hold beliefs about whether or not you have free will irrespective of the truth of the matter (which is invisible to us) and start orgtanising your own little bit of that universe according to your unfounded beliefs.

In the determined uiverse, everything is exactly like it is here and now in this universe. That's why you don't know whether you are in the determined universe or not. If this were not so, you would have a way of settling the question by observation. So you do feel guilt or shame sometimes, but that doesn't count as an observation that the universe is or is not determined.

You are smarter than Mike and Immanuel, stop letting those tunnel-visioned maniacs set the terms of the debate for you.

[promethean75]

"Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism."

You already can't act as if you don't have freewill, Gary.

The biggest problem man faces right now as a result of his belief in freewill - and more so the consequences of the application of that belief in criminal law - is that it distracts attention away from complex causes that create criminal behavior by laying the burden of responsibility squarely on the shoudlers of the individual.

He stole the loaf of bread. Let's prosecute only him... don't ask why this guy is hungry or homeless. Don't examine the conditions of society that make guys like him possible.

You also have another glaring problem here. If this guy doesn't believe stealing the bread is wrong, you can't hold him responsible for not doing the right thing; one can't intentionally do a wrong thing without also believing it's wrong. If the court then claims what is 'wrong' is objective, the guy asks the court to prove it, and the court fails every time.

All this is showing that the illusion of freewill is not only built into brain, but it also produces gross confusion and contradiction when used as a tool... or I should say when taken for granted, by criminal law.

Sometimes i wanna kill somebody and get caught just so i can eat everyone alive in the courtroom when the trial ensues and debates about responsibility and knowing right from wrong ensue. Seriously, it would be that good, Gary. So good, I would almost sacrifice my freedom just to see that philosophically dumbfounded look on those idiots faces (a philosopher beats a lawyer every time, Gary. Like a rock beats scissors). But I won't do it because it wouldn't change anything. I'd be on the news for a couple weeks, a few exclusive interviews, and a book would be published... but no worldwide riots or major spikes in crime anywhere. The sonsabitches would forget about me and go right back to their daily grind of incontrovertible nonsense.

As the staunch determinist Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt once put it: freewill is the curse laid upon man by criminal law. It is how the individual pays for the sins of his environment and society.

[promethean75]

... and if i had BigMike in my counsel, holy fuck it would be so over for that whole courtroom. Bro-bro's like Clarence Darrow 2.0.

[Gary Childress]

"Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism."

You already can't act as if you don't have freewill, Gary.

The biggest problem man faces right now as a result of his belief in freewill - and more so the consequences of the application of that belief in criminal law - is that it distracts attention away from complex causes that create criminal behavior by laying the burden of responsibility squarely on the shoudlers of the individual.

He stole the loaf of bread. Let's prosecute only him... don't ask why this guy is hungry or homeless. Don't examine the conditions of society that make guys like him possible.

You also have another glaring problem here. If this guy doesn't believe stealing the bread is wrong, you can't hold him responsible for not doing the right thing; one can't intentionally do a wrong thing without also believing it's wrong. If the court then claims what is 'wrong' is objective, the guy asks the court to prove it, and the court fails every time.

All this is showing that the illusion of freewill is not only built into brain, but it also produces gross confusion and contradiction when used as a tool... or I should say when taken for granted, by criminal law.

Sometimes i wanna kill somebody and get caught just so i can eat everyone alive in the courtroom when the trial ensues and debates about responsibility and knowing right from wrong ensue. Seriously, it would be that good, Gary. So good, I would almost sacrifice my freedom just to see that philosophically dumbfounded look on those idiots faces (a philosopher beats a lawyer every time, Gary. Like a rock beats scissors). But I won't do it because it wouldn't change anything. I'd be on the news for a couple weeks, a few exclusive interviews, and a book would be published... but no worldwide riots or major spikes in crime anywhere. The sonsabitches would forget about me and go right back to their daily grind of incontrovertible nonsense.

As the staunch determinist Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt once put it: freewill is the curse laid upon man by criminal law. It is how the individual pays for the sins of his environment and society.

How does a belief in free will necessitate that one has to punish everything overly harshly. However, it does bring up the idea that someone ought to be punished in some way proportional to the wrong done. It seems fallacious to assert that free will causes people to punish others disproportionally for crimes.

[Fairy]

If people are responsible for their actions then that doesn't seem like determinism to me.

An action is only known to be a responsible action, because it has been determined by one's own knowledge of the responsible actions consequence.
Action precedes reaction. Only reactions are known, not actions. Consequence is reaction. Action is the cause of reaction, but only the effects of an action is known, as reaction.

Same goes for irresponsible action. It's only irresponsible because it's determined by one's own knowledge of the irresponsible actions consequence, whether the action is responsible or irresponsible is determined on one's knowledge of actions consequence through reaction..

There is no bad experience that is determined to be repeated once it becomes known through reaction, because it's already been determined to be a bad experience. That's why once something is known to be bad, is why choice for the good is also available in knowledge.

Determinism is already this freedom to choose, it's the freedom to be, and it is only through one's own determinism that choice is ever known to be good or bad in the first place. Meaning, what's occurring on the inside of the brain is simultaneously occurring on the outside of the brain, in other words, the external world is an exact mirror image of what's occurring in the internal world of the brain..

It's all you. There is no you, because there is no other than you.

[Immanuel Can]

True. However, I don't see how one can even have morality without "ought".

One cannot, of course. So Determinism requires us to think of the world as a place in which morality is simply an illusion -- a inexplicable one, perhaps, but an illusion nonetheless.

In the world of known illusion, the opposite is also true. Morality is an explicable illusion.

In a word of illusion, by definition, NOTHING is ever "explicable." Nothing is trustworthy. Nothing can be known. So nothing can be explained, either.

So no, you're not solving the problem: you've just made it unsolvable, in fact.

[phyllo]

But in a deterministic universe, I probably won't feel guilt or shame for doing something wrong. I'd just write it off as not having had any other realistic choice.

You would feel guilt or shame based on what you were taught by your parents and by society.

Something that has to happen, whether free-will or determinism, is an evaluation of what one ought to be ashamed or guilty about.

That would be a useful philosophical discussion.

That's what I mean by acting as though we have free will. If we don't think we have free will, then is there even a need to feel bad if we happen to get angry and someone who cut us off in traffic and shot them to death? Man, I'm sorry but I obviously didn't have any other choice at the moment otherwise I would have chosen to do it.

The choice is always there but you may not be capable of realizing it in that moment. But that's true both for free-will and determinism.

People with free-will can be hot headed, emotional, angry, frustrated, unable to think.

Free-will doesn't automatically make you clear headed and rational. It doesn't give you the ability to see and evaluate every possible option.

It doesn't make people wise.

If people are responsible for their actions then that doesn't seem like determinism to me.

Even a hard core determinist like Big Mike will admit that responsibility does not go away in determinism.

[promethean75]

"It seems fallacious to assert that free will causes people to punish others disproportionally for crimes."

Another myth. That a punishment can be 'proportionate' to a crime. To do this, people would have to have equal tolerances for pain. What if Joe suffers less than Bob when he's punched in the jaw? Is the assault charge then less severe for the guy who punched Joe than it would be for a guy who punched Bob?

No punishment is proportionate or 'fair' because that's logically impossible. So law never was, nor could it ever be, about justice (how can it be served when punishment can't be proportionate?) Was X punished enough or not enough? That's not the question. The question is; has X been discouraged from committing more crime by what we have done to him. That's all that matters. The rest is courtroom sophistry.

[Fairy]

One cannot, of course. So Determinism requires us to think of the world as a place in which morality is simply an illusion -- a inexplicable one, perhaps, but an illusion nonetheless.

In the world of known illusion, the opposite is also true. Morality is an explicable illusion.

In a word of illusion, by definition, NOTHING is ever "explicable." Nothing is trustworthy. Nothing can be known. So nothing can be explained, either.

So no, you're not solving the problem: you've just made it unsolvable, in fact.

I never implied I was ever trying to solve a problem.

Separation is an illusion. Separation is conceptual, it's a self-sustaining automatic feedback loop of interaction of information with itself, in this VERB-al con-ception, as con-ceived, as con-versed.

The purpose of the illusory separation is to understand the illusion of separation being played, not to understand the console on which the illusion is being played upon.

The fact/truth that you're in an illusion is unprovable within the illusion. How are you going prove from within the illusion that you are in an illusion. You're looking for factual truth within an illusion that you are in an illusion.

That's like trying to find the source code within a virtual reality world. The character in the illusion knows nothing of any source code. It's not trying to find the source of it's illusory illusion, it's only concerned with the illusion being played.

Think about it, the character that is being played by IC has no experience of his beginning, not does he have any experience of his end. That's because he is an illusion trying to understand the source code of his illusory appearance. Good luck with that IC

But yes, in the illusion of separation, morality is morality, and immorality is immorality, that's just basic common sense.