It is only your thinking that is infinitely complex. Reality is infinitely simple.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 5:36 pmWe live in an infinitely complex universe. it's not our fault that we are stupid, ignorant and unable to deal with complexity!simplicity wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 5:21 pm It would be the perfect legal system for the hundreds of millions of adult-children out there who insist, "It's not my fault."
The people who keep looking to blame somebody for the situation we find ourselves in are the same people who used to burn witches.
Methinks you are projecting your childishness onto humanity's best efforts. We can't do better if we don't know any better and we don't know very much. Perhaps you have mistaken the complex for the simple?
⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
Can you provide an argumentative substantiation for that idea?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 4:16 pm Does free will exist?
Yes. More accurately, free wills exist: each person is a free will (a causal agent); no one has free will.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
What about the opposite, the 'belief' in free will? What would be the argumentative substantiation to justify such a belief?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
*My experience of myself as self-directing, as a beginner, bender, and ender of some causal chains.theory wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 12:07 amCan you provide an *argumentative substantiation for that idea?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 4:16 pm Does free will exist?
Yes. More accurately, free wills exist: each person is a free will (a causal agent); no one has free will.
You have the same experience. Each day you make countless choices, and most of those choices aren't necessitated by what came before. Most of the time, you choose to do X for reasons (good or bad) you sussed out for yourself. You're a causal agent, a free will, just like the rest of us seven billion plus. You self-direct (sometimes wisely, sometimes foolishly) and you're responsible for all that you do.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
The justification for my belief in free will is easy: the neurons in my brain fire in just such a way that my mouth opens and I say I have free will. What choice do I have?
It's just a Philosophical confusion over language. I could have just as easily said "I don't believe in free will" as I said "I believe in free will".
The fact of the matter is that I don't actually know how to determine which one "I truly believe" - I don't know how to test whether I have free will or not because I have no idea what it is.
The question is non-sensical - much like most Philosophical questions.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
How's that even possible? Reality contains my thinking.simplicity wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 10:26 pm It is only your thinking that is infinitely complex. Reality is infinitely simple.
If my thinking is infinitely complex, then reality (which contains my thinking and them some) must be even more complex.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
What about people without a brain?
(2016) Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain
"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor cognitive philosophy from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who- ... sciousness
Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain
"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus", pediatrics professor John Lorber.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845
The question is seriously addressed:Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 11:20 amIt's just a Philosophical confusion over language. I could have just as easily said "I don't believe in free will" as I said "I believe in free will".
The fact of the matter is that I don't actually know how to determine which one "I truly believe" - I don't know how to test whether I have free will or not because I have no idea what it is.
The question is non-sensical - much like most Philosophical questions.
(2019) Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free will
Philosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer.
A new research program spanning 17 universities and backed by more than $7 million from two private foundations hopes to break out the impasse by bringing neuroscientists and philosophers together. The collaboration, the researchers say, can help them tackle two important questions: What does it take to have free will? And whatever that is, do we have it?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03 ... stery-free
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
I personally would not agree that a belief in free will will diminish over time similar to religions.
Like with the concept wisdom, or with valuing that must logically precede the senses, what it is that makes a human free may reside in a context that precedes that what can be comprehended by empirical science. An indication that this may be true is the fact that as of today empirical science has been unable to explain consciousness (the 'Hard Problem' of philosophy).
The following logic would show that free will necessarily exists:
It can be implied that for valuing to be possible, it requires a distinguish ability. By the nature of value, valuing appropriates that distinguish ability from that what can be indicated as "good". Because something cannot originate from itself, "good" per se cannot be valued.
Summarized
The following logic provides a simplified version of the idea:
"If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."
I am certain that the environment and culture can have a big influence on human thoughts and behaviour. It is only when you study philosophy that you can learn to understand it and derive actionable advantage, such as enhanced thinking. It is certainly good to intend to improve the world, and thus to prevent crime.
At question is whether it would be wise to replace the retributive justice system with preventative measures, in which the abolishment of a belief in free will is central. I simply intend to discover insights.
Like with the concept wisdom, or with valuing that must logically precede the senses, what it is that makes a human free may reside in a context that precedes that what can be comprehended by empirical science. An indication that this may be true is the fact that as of today empirical science has been unable to explain consciousness (the 'Hard Problem' of philosophy).
The following logic would show that free will necessarily exists:
It can be implied that for valuing to be possible, it requires a distinguish ability. By the nature of value, valuing appropriates that distinguish ability from that what can be indicated as "good". Because something cannot originate from itself, "good" per se cannot be valued.
Summarized
- valuing requires a distinguish ability
Valuing makes a distinction between good and bad. Bad isn't of substance. Bad is what lessens good. As such, one does not choose but 'value'.
The first logical implication is that for valuing to be possible, it requires a distinguish ability and by the nature of value it derives that ability from what can be indicated as "good". -
factual logic (logical truth): something cannot be the origin of itself
The simple logic that something cannot originate from itself can be considered factual logic or logical truth. -
indicated "good" cannot be other than "good" per se
If the indicated "good" could be anything other than that what it is considered to be per se, it would need to have been valued and that is impossible by the factual logic at point 2.
The following logic provides a simplified version of the idea:
"If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."
I am certain that the environment and culture can have a big influence on human thoughts and behaviour. It is only when you study philosophy that you can learn to understand it and derive actionable advantage, such as enhanced thinking. It is certainly good to intend to improve the world, and thus to prevent crime.
At question is whether it would be wise to replace the retributive justice system with preventative measures, in which the abolishment of a belief in free will is central. I simply intend to discover insights.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
Forget brains, if you go with John Conway's conception even fundamental matter has free will.theory wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 4:14 pm What about people without a brain?
(2016) Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain
"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor cognitive philosophy from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who- ... sciousness
Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain
"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus", pediatrics professor John Lorber.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845
Google for "Free will theorem".
The question is meaningless. I find it peculiar that Philosophers haven't yet figured out how to distinguish meaningful from meaningless questions.theory wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 4:14 pm The question is seriously addressed:
(2019) Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free will
Philosophers have spent millennia debating whether we have free will, without reaching a conclusive answer.
A new research program spanning 17 universities and backed by more than $7 million from two private foundations hopes to break out the impasse by bringing neuroscientists and philosophers together. The collaboration, the researchers say, can help them tackle two important questions: What does it take to have free will? And whatever that is, do we have it?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03 ... stery-free
Do you have eyes? Yes.
Do you have gills? No.
You can answer both of those questions because you know what an "eye" is and because you know what a "gill" is.
But imagine I asked you "Do you have wombatufles?"
You can't answer that question because you have no conception for "wombatufles". You can't recognize/identify a "wombatufle" even if you saw one at this very moment.
Asking "Do we have free will?" is exactly like asking "Do we have wombatuffles?"
You don't even understand the question. Those idiots are about to waste $7 million.
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
I get what you are saying but one must recall that Reality is not an intellectual construct [unlike our personal reality].Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 31, 2021 11:27 amHow's that even possible? Reality contains my thinking.simplicity wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 10:26 pm It is only your thinking that is infinitely complex. Reality is infinitely simple.
If my thinking is infinitely complex, then reality (which contains my thinking and them some) must be even more complex.
Deconstruct the intellectual and what remains are increasing levels of truth, whereas...
...absolute Simplicity is absolute Truth.
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
If everything is determined then the disagreement over free will was destined to happen and a contradiction occurs. If contradictions are thus determined then it was determined free will exists as a phenomenon.
Dually free will cannot occur without order as every action has a cause and effect relationship. A results in B and A is chosen thus necessitating determinism as following from free will.
Free will and determinism co-exist.
Dually free will cannot occur without order as every action has a cause and effect relationship. A results in B and A is chosen thus necessitating determinism as following from free will.
Free will and determinism co-exist.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
Bad luck for that theory.
"Religion" is actually increasing worldwide...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/a ... ppens-next
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
No action, no change.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 5:50 pmThat's a tidy summary of the implications of Determinism. Good point.
This is where we can make a mistake in thinking, and a thinking Determinist will catch it....change is apparent all around.
"Change" has several definitions, and two are particularly important here. They are:
1) a conversion of one state into a different state.
This, as you note, is evident all around, all the time. Water "changes" into ice, youth "changes" into age, and so on. But a second meaning of "change" is...
2) an alteration in the path of events, from many possible states to one particular state.
Only this second definition is contrary to Determinism.
This second one suggests that other things "could have" happened, but didn't. When we say, "Tom changed his mind," or "We changed our reservation dates," or "I saw the car coming and changed lanes," we're speaking of a different phenomenon...not merely of the change-of-state, but a change produced by the state of will of the agent, a switching among multiple could-have-been-chosens, not merely the fact of an impersonal prior causal factor pushing him inevitably down a single track.
And Determinism insists there is only one state that "could" happen, ever, at any one time, in reference to any one object: and that state is the inexorable product of prior causes and effects. At a given moment, what is, simply is what is: no more can be said, under Determinism.
So we must not equivocate between definition 1) and definition 2). Only the former allows for Determinism. The latter denies it. And when you say, "change is apparent all around," I think you're aiming at definition 1. But that routine observation, admittedly so compelling for 1), will not allow us to say we've demonstrated the truth of 2); and 2) is essential if we are going to deny Determinism.
So when a free willian says he believes in "change," he needs to be standing for and justifying 2), which he cannot do by pointing to an example of 1). That's the essential problem with just saying, "change is apparent all around." We need to show that it's a "change" among possible alternatives for one thing, not merely a change of state in one thing.
Possible alternatives are not action, therefore possible alternatives are not change.
In order for action to exist, or to have existed, action must occur.
The action that occurred is reality.
Thus, blind justice makes the body responsible for the actions of the body.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
Actually, one of them always is: the alternative that is taken, whichever it is. Meanwhile, the others are actions-that-could-have-been, all of which would have issued in their own particular consequences.
So yeah, they're all actions.
Now, sitting around deliberating might be inaction. But any possibility is an action...or, if you prefer, a potential action.
Think of it like the word "energy." There is kinetic energy, energy in motion, and potential energy, energy "stored," so to speak, or better, latently possible, in the object.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will
...err, depends on what you call religion, doesn't it?
I doubt very much if superstition is increasing, since the majority of mankind already embraces some kind of mystic nonsense. The particulars of superstition may change from belief in one form to another, perhaps more formal which you might categorize as religion, e.g. the phenomenal growth of Islam, for example, but there can hardly be any more superstition than has always dominated human minds.