 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Temper, temper ...
The idea of freewill coexisting with determinism is called compatablism. As a former colleague once said "compatabilism isn't". |
Then there IS no free will. Because if the universe isn't deterministic, then there is an element of randomness. Unless pure chance = free will, then you are saying free will can't exist.
quote:
Of course, if the rules must be followed (i.e. there is no choice not to follow) and the rules force one course of action, then there is no choice. |
You aren't "following" the rules. It's not as if you want to move your right arm, but instead move your left. You DECIDE what to do based on those rules. It's not like you're some bureaucrat sitting at a desk, and you really really want to break the regulations, but some otherworldly force makes you follow them anyways.
quote:
There is no possibility of opting out of the rules if there is no free will, and there is no choice between courses of action if action is a product purely of hardwired characteristics and environmental input. |
You are presented with input, and you have to make a decision. You process that input and produce output. This is different from, say, a robot, because you are sentient.
quote:
So you need some form of freewill for morality. |
But not for punishment 
quote:
You just presupposed freewill (the capacity to make decisions) in order to show freewill. Circular argument. |
The "choice" in free will is in the decision of what to do, not the decision of what to think!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Temper, temper ...
The idea of freewill coexisting with determinism is called compatablism. As a former colleague once said "compatabilism isn't". |
Then there IS no free will. Because if the universe isn't deterministic, then there is an element of randomness. Unless pure chance = free will, then you are saying free will can't exist. |
Well good practice is those that assert the existence of a phenomena are the ones who must provide the evidence. So where does this free will come from?
quote:
You aren't "following" the rules. It's not as if you want to move your right arm, but instead move your left. You DECIDE what to do based on those rules. It's not like you're some bureaucrat sitting at a desk, and you really really want to break the regulations, but some otherworldly force makes you follow them anyways. |
But where does this capacity for decision come from? After all, if the world is deterministic, then isn't whatever physical processes allow for decision making either determined or (if there is randomness) capricious?
quote:
You are presented with input, and you have to make a decision. You process that input and produce output. This is different from, say, a robot, because you are sentient. |
Again, where does this capacity to decide derive from? That's the question.
quote:
The "choice" in free will is in the decision of what to do, not the decision of what to think! |
Capacity? Again more circularity. I can decide because I can decide. Your spraying the leaves but I'm attacking your position at the root.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
Then there IS no free will. Because if the universe isn't deterministic, then there is an element of randomness. Unless pure chance = free will, then you are saying free will can't exist. |
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
You aren't "following" the rules. It's not as if you want to move your right arm, but instead move your left. You DECIDE what to do based on those rules. It's not like you're some bureaucrat sitting at a desk, and you really really want to break the regulations, but some otherworldly force makes you follow them anyways. |
But if you cannot change from a course of action, then you have no free will. If the future is known, and cannot be altered, you cannot change that course of action. Even if the future is not known, if it cannot be altered, than you cannot change your future actions, thus have no free will. Therefore, free will only works if the future can be altered, or is not already decided.
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
So you need some form of freewill for morality. |
But not for punishment |
Very true. Hence my post above 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
But if you cannot change from a course of action, then you have no free will. If the future is known, and cannot be altered, you cannot change that course of action. Even if the future is not known, if it cannot be altered, than you cannot change your future actions, thus have no free will. Therefore, free will only works if the future can be altered, or is not already decided. |
1. I can change my course of action. I could decide to flame you, and then change my mind and decide not to.
2. The future cannot be known. The only system capable of figuring out a future state of the universe is the universe itself. Anything else wouldn't have the information capacity, because it is part of the universe, so it would have to factor itself in. Thus it would have to have a higher information capacity than itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
1. I can change my course of action. I could decide to flame you, and then change my mind and decide not to. |
The point is, who you are is fixed at that point. Put it to it's base level:
Input*person=output
The input is a set set of events. You are fixed, in that at that moment in time, you are you. In an infinitely small time, you will be different, but at that time, you are you, and you are fixed. Given the same input, and the same input, run twice, if you are exactly the same, the output will be the same. Done an infinately small time later, you wouldn't be the same, and so the output would be different, but even if run a million times, with you being exactly the same, at that exact moment in time, the output would be the same.
People commit crimes because of who they are. Who a person is is a combination of their genetics and their experience. Genetics is not under their control, and experience is only under their control based on the genetics and previous experience. You are no responsible for who you are, because it is not under your control.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
The point is, who you are is fixed at that point. Put it to it's base level:
Input*person=output
The input is a set set of events. You are fixed, in that at that moment in time, you are you. In an infinitely small time, you will be different, but at that time, you are you, and you are fixed. Given the same input, and the same input, run twice, if you are exactly the same, the output will be the same. Done an infinately small time later, you wouldn't be the same, and so the output would be different, but even if run a million times, with you being exactly the same, at that exact moment in time, the output would be the same.
People commit crimes because of who they are. Who a person is is a combination of their genetics and their experience. Genetics is not under their control, and experience is only under their control based on the genetics and previous experience. You are no responsible for who you are, because it is not under your control. |
Would it be better if it was random. Would you have more control?
(btw, I dispute the "control" thing in the first place, because the point isn't that you can control who you are, but that who you are controls what you do)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buzzing Orchids
|
|
killing is wrong in ANY form, whether its for resources, religion, or just for the sake of brutality
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Nice discussion, have been busy over the last couple of weeks, little one's birthday.
I've mentioned before, and I will say again. I am opposed to the death penalty for procedural reasons. Until the United States judicial system is willing to admit to two levels of guilt - beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond any doubt I am opposed to the death penalty. To execute an innocent person is an abomination, and there are excellent indications that has been done in the US. When the state of Texas can have the prosecuting attorney begin to implement a policy of destroying rape kits from previous cases to prevent genetic testing (this happened just a few years ago - these were older kits that had never been subject to genetic testing) because the people involved were rightly convicted by a jury of their peers, then I will remain unalterably opposed to the death penalty.
If, and only if, prosecuting attorneys are subject to exterior review, and bad convictions brought about by them and the police are constantly examined, and after a certain number of false convictions they are banned from acting as prosecutors/banned from acting as detectives then the death penalty can never be properly implemented in the United States. This doesn't even get into the issue of mental illness.
If the man believed he was god, he is definitely mentally ill. His actions of being found covered in blood, and cooperating with the police, tend to support this. Some posters here, for the death penalty, commented that if one was shot full of some chemical then they would not be guilty, otherwise that individual must take responsibility for their actions. What many people don't realize is that for many mentally ill their brain is doing just that, pumping the wrong chemicals out and making their behavior bizarre, uncontrollable, and at times, deadly.
Does he need to be removed from any chance of ever harming anyone again? Yes. However, while this crime is horrific, look at the collapse of Enron. I can almost guarantee, given the number of people involved and the fact that many were retired, that a fair number of suicides resulted from the actions of certain officers of that company. Even worse, Keating Saving and Loan where they DELIBERATELY targeted older, retired people with dishonest investment/churing advice. How many older, retired people committed suicide when faced with living off of dogfood and living in a high crime apartment as they lost everything they had? These men are evil, and I would argue from the amount of pain, suffering, and yes death resulting from his actions that if anyone deserves the death penalty, people involved in large scale, massive fraud, especially targeting the elderly who can never recover, they do (and in the PRC, that can happen on a random basis). Of course, if you grant that premise, where does it stop? I'll take the safer course and oppose the death penalty, thank you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
A couple of points I would like to make. There is no "sort" of person that is not capable of committing crimes. All of us are capable of that.
People tend to resist religious zealots who attempt to impose their moral standards on society as a whole. Most opposition to the death penalty is very similar, except it is an attempt by humanists to impose their standards on society. Fact is, that you can't impose moral or ethical standards on nations or states, it simple cannot be applied. The whole idea of requiring a government to be moral or ethical as we might think that a person should be is outright idiocy.
So any attempt to oppose the death penalty on the basis of morality is moot and baseless.
Also, many have taken the position that there should be a moratorium on the death penalty because DNA testing has proven that the innocent have been convicted. This is actually a reason to continue the use of the death penalty, as it demonstrates that a smaller percentage of the innocent will be convicted in the future.
Clearly the death penalty is a deterrent in some cases and not a deterrent in others. It is perfectly logical that the net effect of the death penalty is fewer innocent deaths overall. If you want to make an argument that the financial cost of administering the death penalty is too high relative to the estimates of lives that it save, be my guest. But spare me the bleeding liberal heartache. It is not relevant.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2004 00:29
|