For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
To "hold somebody responsible" is to punish them in response to their actions.
I imagine a better way would be to not punish people for things they have no control over.
I don’t claim that free will exists. I claim the opposite.
You’re absolutely right.“Logik” wrote:Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?
You’re preaching to the choir. Stick with me.“Logik” wrote: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.
Then I don't understand why you are being skeptical of the experiment?peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:30 pmI don’t claim that free will exists. I claim the opposite.You’re absolutely right.“Logik” wrote:Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?
You’re preaching to the choir. Stick with me.“Logik” wrote: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.
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:11 pm 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'.
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:11 pm 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.
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.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:35 pmThen I don't understand why you are being skeptical of the experiment?peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:30 pmI don’t claim that free will exists. I claim the opposite.You’re absolutely right.“Logik” wrote:Why not recognise that what happened could've been out of their control to prevent?
You’re preaching to the choir. Stick with me.“Logik” wrote: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.
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:11 pm "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.
That sounds like more goalpost-shifting.peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:30 pm 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.
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 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:29 pm As can I, as I do.
Ain't nuthin' there sez I'm not a free will.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:30 pm 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.
Logik wrote: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.
Yes you can, but who is holding YOU responsible under the banner of determinism? No one.Logik wrote:I can totally hold gravity responsible me spraining my ankle yesterday evening.
https://scholar.google.comhenry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:39 pm ...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.
This is just begging the question.peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:42 pm 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.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:42 pm 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.
Logik wrote: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.
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.Logik wrote:I am asking you to explain how you are using the word "responsible".
Holding somebody responsible usually implies some form of (negative) consequences.
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.Logik wrote: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.