responsibility and free will

responsibility and free will

Free will is indeterminate
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
biology
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29

compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
determinism
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

one interesting area to consider is responsibility

clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
responsible for choices of their action

what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?

dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely

revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?

Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment

I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.


--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org

Re: responsibility and free will


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.07.10.51.09@comcast,net ...
| Free will is indeterminate
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
|
| determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
| biology
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
|
| Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
|
| compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
| determinism
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
|
| one interesting area to consider is responsibility
|
| clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
| responsible for choices of their action
|
| what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?

What we have to of course.

| dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely

Good idea though.

| revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
| hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?

Yes.

| Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
| electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
| http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment

Euthanasia. Church of Euthanasia: http :// www .churchofeuthanasia.org/

| I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
| religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.

Nothing is forever.
--
Bucy's Law:
Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man.

Re: responsibility and free will

Dale Kelly wrote:

> I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
> religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.

There you go!!! I knew you could do it!! Your very first period at the
end of a sentence!!

I'm so proud.

--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Just because it's inexplicted doesn't mean it's inexplicable.' --Dr
Gregory House

Re: responsibility and free will


"Sean Carroll" <seanc130@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:lRNRh.65075$s8.17068@newsfe21.lga...
| Dale Kelly wrote:
|
| > I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome
and
| > religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
|
| There you go!!! I knew you could do it!! Your very first period at the
| end of a sentence!!
|
| I'm so proud.
|
| --
| --Sean
| http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
| 'Just because it's inexplicted doesn't mean it's inexplicable.' --Dr
| Gregory House

Wot about your quote? Should be inexplicit not inexplicted surely?

explicit

Re: responsibility and free will

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 05:50:33 -0500, Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:

>Free will is indeterminate
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
>determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
>biology
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
>Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
>compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
>determinism
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>
>one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>
>clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
>responsible for choices of their action
>
>what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
>
>dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
>
>revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
>hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
>
>Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
>electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment
>
>I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
>religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.

Consider "accountability", it is intent free,
whereas "responsibility" is not.

Re: responsibility and free will

On Apr 7, 3:50 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Free will is indeterminate http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
>
> determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
> biology http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> Dualists says free will is not a part of biology http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism %28philosophy of mind%29
>
> compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
> determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>

If free will has causes then it is determined but not pre-determined.
But the determination has to do with a combination of cognitive goals,
memories, checking progress, adjusting along the way, and not to
mention the various ways the world interacts with our senses. Free
will is a geussing game to complex to predict and a trial and error
real time adjustment and entrainment to various activities in the
brain and world. Free will is probably extended across time and
probably a hardwired instinct, based upon probability thinking, ready
to be imprinted so as to accent it to the local determinants.

The Probability "Instinct"
http :// groups.google,com /group/talk.philosophy.misc/msg/b69e0f0e7f86ca15

Free will is something bubbling up out of the activities of the brain
that when constantly combining exert influence upon themselves. This
process may involve 100 billion nerve cells, various organizational
stabilities in an emerging hierarchal influence, influences from
changing sensory data. I am an sharer in control freely steering an
vast system which steers the elements of freedom. Some of these
activities are identical to my subjectivity.

Mill used to say something along the lines that the steering of the
self by will makes the system end up somewhere else where we decide
and our progress is checked by "stored memory" accessed in the future
and slight course details adjusted appropriately. Therefore if this is
what Mill believed then free will is "extended in and across time?"

"Mill's argument is basically that we have free will, but that
we will almost always choose to act the same way if faced
with the same circumstances. The reason for this
according to Mill is because of who we are, what our
characters are, what beliefs, desires, and motivations
we have. These factors influence our actions, and
because we don't usually change the core of our person,
we are fairly regular in our actions, unless we
purposefully choose to act against our
normal characters."

http :// www .elliotcross,com /essays/essay4.html


..,it 's an election hall of idiots, for idiots, and by idiots, and it
works marvelously. This is the true nature of democracy and of all
distributed governance. At the close of the curtain, by the choice of
the citizens, the swarm takes the queen and thunders off in the
direction indicated by mob vote. The queen who follows, does so
humbly. If she could think, she would remember that she is but a mere
peasant girl, blood sister of the very nurse bee instructed (by whom?)
to select her larva, an ordinary larva, and raise it on a diet of
royal jelly, transforming Cinderella into the queen. By what karma is
the larva for a princess chosen? And who chooses the chooser?

"The hive chooses," is the disarming answer of William Morton Wheeler,
a natural philosopher and entomologist of the old school, who founded
the field of social insects. Writing in a bombshell of an essay in
1911 ("The Ant Colony as an Organism" in the Journal of Morphology),
Wheeler claimed that an insect colony was not merely the analog of an
organism, it is indeed an organism, in every important and scientific
sense of the word. He wrote: "Like a cell or the person, it behaves as
a unitary whole, maintaining its identity in space, resisting
dissolution...neither a thing nor a concept, but a continual flux or
process."

It was a mob of 20,000 united into oneness.

http :// www .kk.org/outofcontrol/

Free will is a personalized interaction in a massive field of
interactive causes. If the motive rolls out the organizational
structure that steers the rest it is free. If an system is imposed
down upon it from the top down it is not free. There is an spectrum of
Control; centralized and decentralized. Decentralized control of
simple factors that grow into massive events are free. Like people
voting for politicians the will is an summed set of cycles ever
changing into an free choice. Where is the freedon/causation here?

The notion that in an ecosystem view of parallel processes some point
in an attempt to reduce it all would show that smaller units in the
ecosystem might similar to serial computers but an ecosystem by this
symbology would consist of trillions of serial computers organized
into a multi-layered grammatical structure of organizational entities
each with threir sphere of influence all at once contributing to the
overall emerging waves of influence pon the backs of various levels of
activity.

It seem to me that it is more appropriate to consider free will in the
context of a herd. All the individuals influence the direction of the
mass of individuals. Maybe the sense of self and freedom comes from an
overall activity but the means that initiate these activities are like
Shpherders or sheep dog. By a few simple rules and with a few
individuals the entire masses of individuals can be herded in this
direction of that. The sheep dog has a few simple rules to simulate an
objective movement of the herd like; if the dog sees some individuals
moving and steering in an undesired direction he runs over and nips
the heels of a few select sheep and a wave of exponentially growing
movement increases across the herd that may alter the general
trajectory of the population.

For us there may be a disconnect because our sense of being,
consciousness and freedom may be major cross regional and mode locked
regions of the brain but the stimulants to these vaster activities are
small groups of herding impulses. Up and down back and forth in scale
the dynamic fluctuates. These small influences have to grow so the
initial state can lead to very complex results and some information
trickles back down so that a monitoring effect takes place etc....

http :// www .kk.org/outofcontrol/


> one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>
> clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
> responsible for choices of their action
>
> what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
>
> dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
>
> revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
> hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
>
> Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
> electroshock? forced psychosurgery? http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary treatment
>
> I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
> religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org

Re: responsibility and free will

On Apr 7, 7:52 pm, "Immortalist" <reanimater 2...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 3:50 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > Free will is indeterminate http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
>
> > determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
> > biology http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> > Dualists says free will is not a part of biology http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism %28philosophy of mind%29
>
> > compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
> > determinism http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>
> If free will has causes then it is determined but not pre-determined.
> But the determination has to do with a combination of cognitive goals,
> memories, checking progress, adjusting along the way, and not to
> mention the various ways the world interacts with our senses. Free
> will is a geussing game to complex to predict and a trial and error
> real time adjustment and entrainment to various activities in the
> brain and world. Free will is probably extended across time and
> probably a hardwired instinct, based upon probability thinking, ready
> to be imprinted so as to accent it to the local determinants.
>
> The Probability "Instinct" http :// groups.google,com /group/talk.philosophy.misc/msg/b69e0f0e7f86ca15
>
> Free will is something bubbling up out of the activities of the brain
> that when constantly combining exert influence upon themselves. This
> process may involve 100 billion nerve cells, various organizational
> stabilities in an emerging hierarchal influence, influences from
> changing sensory data. I am an sharer in control freely steering an
> vast system which steers the elements of freedom. Some of these
> activities are identical to my subjectivity.
>
> Mill used to say something along the lines that the steering of the
> self by will makes the system end up somewhere else where we decide
> and our progress is checked by "stored memory" accessed in the future
> and slight course details adjusted appropriately. Therefore if this is
> what Mill believed then free will is "extended in and across time?"
>
> "Mill's argument is basically that we have free will, but that
> we will almost always choose to act the same way if faced
> with the same circumstances. The reason for this
> according to Mill is because of who we are, what our
> characters are, what beliefs, desires, and motivations
> we have. These factors influence our actions, and
> because we don't usually change the core of our person,
> we are fairly regular in our actions, unless we
> purposefully choose to act against our
> normal characters."
>
> http :// www .elliotcross,com /essays/essay4.html
>
> ..,it 's an election hall of idiots, for idiots, and by idiots, and it
> works marvelously. This is the true nature of democracy and of all
> distributed governance. At the close of the curtain, by the choice of
> the citizens, the swarm takes the queen and thunders off in the
> direction indicated by mob vote. The queen who follows, does so
> humbly. If she could think, she would remember that she is but a mere
> peasant girl, blood sister of the very nurse bee instructed (by whom?)
> to select her larva, an ordinary larva, and raise it on a diet of
> royal jelly, transforming Cinderella into the queen. By what karma is
> the larva for a princess chosen? And who chooses the chooser?
>
> "The hive chooses," is the disarming answer of William Morton Wheeler,
> a natural philosopher and entomologist of the old school, who founded
> the field of social insects. Writing in a bombshell of an essay in
> 1911 ("The Ant Colony as an Organism" in the Journal of Morphology),
> Wheeler claimed that an insect colony was not merely the analog of an
> organism, it is indeed an organism, in every important and scientific
> sense of the word. He wrote: "Like a cell or the person, it behaves as
> a unitary whole, maintaining its identity in space, resisting
> dissolution...neither a thing nor a concept, but a continual flux or
> process."
>
> It was a mob of 20,000 united into oneness.
>
> http :// www .kk.org/outofcontrol/
>
> Free will is a personalized interaction in a massive field of
> interactive causes. If the motive rolls out the organizational
> structure that steers the rest it is free. If an system is imposed
> down upon it from the top down it is not free. There is an spectrum of
> Control; centralized and decentralized. Decentralized control of
> simple factors that grow into massive events are free. Like people
> voting for politicians the will is an summed set of cycles ever
> changing into an free choice. Where is the freedon/causation here?
>
> The notion that in an ecosystem view of parallel processes some point
> in an attempt to reduce it all would show that smaller units in the
> ecosystem might similar to serial computers but an ecosystem by this
> symbology would consist of trillions of serial computers organized
> into a multi-layered grammatical structure of organizational entities
> each with threir sphere of influence all at once contributing to the
> overall emerging waves of influence pon the backs of various levels of
> activity.
>
> It seem to me that it is more appropriate to consider free will in the
> context of a herd. All the individuals influence the direction of the
> mass of individuals. Maybe the sense of self and freedom comes from an
> overall activity but the means that initiate these activities are like
> Shpherders or sheep dog. By a few simple rules and with a few
> individuals the entire masses of individuals can be herded in this
> direction of that. The sheep dog has a few simple rules to simulate an
> objective movement of the herd like; if the dog sees some individuals
> moving and steering in an undesired direction he runs over and nips
> the heels of a few select sheep and a wave of exponentially growing
> movement increases across the herd that may alter the general
> trajectory of the population.
>
> For us there may be a disconnect because our sense of being,
> consciousness and freedom may be major cross regional and mode locked
> regions of the brain but the stimulants to these vaster activities are
> small groups of herding impulses. Up and down back and forth in scale
> the dynamic fluctuates. These small influences have to grow so the
> initial state can lead to very complex results and some information
> trickles back down so that a monitoring effect takes place etc....
>
> http :// www .kk.org/outofcontrol/
>
>
>
> > one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>
> > clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
> > responsible for choices of their action
>
> > what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
>
> > dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
>
> > revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
> > hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
>
> > Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
> > electroshock? forced psychosurgery? http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary treatment
>
> > I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
> > religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
>
> > --
> > Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's the most logically lengthy babble I've read on this group
today.
Do keep up the good work. Some of the stuff you rambled on about
actually made me see trails.

Re: responsibility and free will

On Apr 7, 11:49 pm, "The Psychodelic Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint
of the Internet" <tadap...@willitsonline,com > wrote:
> On Apr 7, 7:52 pm, "Immortalist" <reanimater 2...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>

yadyada

>
> That's the most logically lengthy babble I've read on this group
> today.
> Do keep up the good work. Some of the stuff you rambled on about
> actually made me see trails.

http :// youtube,com /watch?v=yb7ZFpr5n0o

Re: responsibility and free will


"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.07.10.51.09@comcast,net ...
> Free will is indeterminate
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
> biology
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
> determinism
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>
> one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>
> clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
> responsible for choices of their action
>
> what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?

I propose we continue to do exactly what we've been doing.

> dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely

And stupid, as it's clearly not in our best interest.

> revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
> hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?

That would be stupid as well, and not in our best interest.

> Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
> electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment

Another stupid idea. Obviously not in our best interest.

> I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
> religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.

No. You make the same mistake that creationists make when they assume those
who agree with the Theory of Evolution, APPROVE of the fact of evolution. I
agree that evolution occurs, but I know that evolution is not our friend.
Evolution is not the friend of any living thing. The mountains of extinct
species should make that abundantly clear.

Likewise, a determinist like me acknowledges the fact that I'm a machine
who's decisions are determined by the stochastic nature of the universe, and
then goes about his life as if he had free will because there is no purpose
to trying to second-guess his decisions. I don't LIKE determinism, but
that's irrelevant to the fact of determinism.

Why did you not see this already, and instead come up with nothing but the
stupid ideas you put forth above?

Determinism does not change what's in our best interest. The things that
make us happy and the things that make us suffer are not changed by the
knowledge of determinism. It is in our best interests to behave as if we
have free will.

As luck would have it, that's really easy to do.

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io,com
http :// www .io,com /~dloubet
http :// www .ashenempires,com

Re: responsibility and free will

On Apr 7, 11:31 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io,com > wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04.07.10.51.09@comcast,net ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Free will is indeterminate
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
>
> > determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
> > biology
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> > Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism %28philosophy of mind%29
>
> > compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
> > determinism
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>
> > one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>
> > clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
> > responsible for choices of their action
>
> > what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
>
> I propose we continue to do exactly what we've been doing.
>
> > dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
>
> And stupid, as it's clearly not in our best interest.
>
> > revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
> > hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
>
> That would be stupid as well, and not in our best interest.
>
> > Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
> > electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary treatment
>
> Another stupid idea. Obviously not in our best interest.
>
> > I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
> > religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
>
> No. You make the same mistake that creationists make when they assume those
> who agree with the Theory of Evolution, APPROVE of the fact of evolution. I
> agree that evolution occurs, but I know that evolution is not our friend.
> Evolution is not the friend of any living thing. The mountains of extinct
> species should make that abundantly clear.
>
> Likewise, a determinist like me acknowledges the fact that I'm a machine
> who's decisions are determined by the stochastic nature of the universe, and
> then goes about his life as if he had free will because there is no purpose
> to trying to second-guess his decisions. I don't LIKE determinism, but
> that's irrelevant to the fact of determinism.
>
> Why did you not see this already, and instead come up with nothing but the
> stupid ideas you put forth above?
>
> Determinism does not change what's in our best interest. The things that
> make us happy and the things that make us suffer are not changed by the
> knowledge of determinism. It is in our best interests to behave as if we
> have free will.
>
> As luck would have it, that's really easy to do.
>
> --
> Denis Loubet
> dlou...@io,com http :// www .io,com /~dloubet http :// www .ashenempires,com - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How much money do you make with each new hit to your website?

Re: responsibility and free will

On Apr 7, 11:31 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io,com > wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04.07.10.51.09@comcast,net ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Free will is indeterminate
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free will
>
> > determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
> > biology
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>
> > Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism %28philosophy of mind%29
>
> > compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
> > determinism
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>
> > one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>
> > clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
> > responsible for choices of their action
>
> > what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
>
> I propose we continue to do exactly what we've been doing.
>
> > dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
>
> And stupid, as it's clearly not in our best interest.
>
> > revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
> > hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
>
> That would be stupid as well, and not in our best interest.
>
> > Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
> > electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary treatment
>
> Another stupid idea. Obviously not in our best interest.
>
> > I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome and
> > religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
>
> No. You make the same mistake that creationists make when they assume those
> who agree with the Theory of Evolution, APPROVE of the fact of evolution. I
> agree that evolution occurs, but I know that evolution is not our friend.
> Evolution is not the friend of any living thing. The mountains of extinct
> species should make that abundantly clear.
>
> Likewise, a determinist like me acknowledges the fact that I'm a machine
> who's decisions are determined by the stochastic nature of the universe, and
> then goes about his life as if he had free will because there is no purpose
> to trying to second-guess his decisions. I don't LIKE determinism, but
> that's irrelevant to the fact of determinism.
>
> Why did you not see this already, and instead come up with nothing but the
> stupid ideas you put forth above?
>
> Determinism does not change what's in our best interest. The things that
> make us happy and the things that make us suffer are not changed by the
> knowledge of determinism. It is in our best interests to behave as if we
> have free will.
>
> As luck would have it, that's really easy to do.
>
> --
> Denis Loubet
> dlou...@io,com http :// www .io,com /~dloubet http :// www .ashenempires,com - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How much? I just got to know how much you earn with each new hit to
your website.

Re: responsibility and free will


"The Psychodelic Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet"
<tadapope@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:1176242684.644103.235400@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 7, 11:31 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io,com > wrote:
>> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:pan.2007.04.07.10.51.09@comcast,net ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Free will is indeterminate
>> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>>
>> > determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
>> > biology
>> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>>
>> > Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
>> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>>
>> > compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
>> > determinism
>> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>>
>> > one interesting area to consider is responsibility
>>
>> > clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
>> > responsible for choices of their action
>>
>> > what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
>>
>> I propose we continue to do exactly what we've been doing.
>>
>> > dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
>>
>> And stupid, as it's clearly not in our best interest.
>>
>> > revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
>> > hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
>>
>> That would be stupid as well, and not in our best interest.
>>
>> > Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
>> > electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
>> > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment
>>
>> Another stupid idea. Obviously not in our best interest.
>>
>> > I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome
>> > and
>> > religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
>>
>> No. You make the same mistake that creationists make when they assume
>> those
>> who agree with the Theory of Evolution, APPROVE of the fact of evolution.
>> I
>> agree that evolution occurs, but I know that evolution is not our friend.
>> Evolution is not the friend of any living thing. The mountains of extinct
>> species should make that abundantly clear.
>>
>> Likewise, a determinist like me acknowledges the fact that I'm a machine
>> who's decisions are determined by the stochastic nature of the universe,
>> and
>> then goes about his life as if he had free will because there is no
>> purpose
>> to trying to second-guess his decisions. I don't LIKE determinism, but
>> that's irrelevant to the fact of determinism.
>>
>> Why did you not see this already, and instead come up with nothing but
>> the
>> stupid ideas you put forth above?
>>
>> Determinism does not change what's in our best interest. The things that
>> make us happy and the things that make us suffer are not changed by the
>> knowledge of determinism. It is in our best interests to behave as if we
>> have free will.
>>
>> As luck would have it, that's really easy to do.
>>
>> --
>> Denis Loubet
>> dlou...@io,com http :// www .io,com /~dloubet http :// www .ashenempires,com - Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> How much? I just got to know how much you earn with each new hit to
> your website.

Who? Me? Not a cent!


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io,com
http :// www .io,com /~dloubet
http :// www .ashenempires,com
>

Re: responsibility and free will


"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io,com > wrote in message
news:cPqdnU4rIay9EYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@io,com ...
|
| "Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
| news:pan.2007.04.07.10.51.09@comcast,net ...
| > Free will is indeterminate
| > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
| >
| > determinism says there is no free will, and all behavior emerges from
| > biology
| > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
| >
| > Dualists says free will is not a part of biology
| > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
| >
| > compatiblists try to justify a co-existence of indeterminism and
| > determinism
| > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
| >
| > one interesting area to consider is responsibility
| >
| > clearly the general public believe in free will and holding people
| > responsible for choices of their action
| >
| > what do determinists and proponents of emergent behavior suppose we do?
|
| I propose we continue to do exactly what we've been doing.
|
| > dis-mantle the legal system, since no one makes choices? un-likely
|
| And stupid, as it's clearly not in our best interest.
|
| > revise the legal system to be a biological pest control system? cold
| > hearted with no consideration of emotions or choices?
|
| That would be stupid as well, and not in our best interest.
|
| > Orwellian mental health? forced incarceration? forced drugging? forced
| > electroshock? forced psychosurgery?
| > http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment
|
| Another stupid idea. Obviously not in our best interest.

Where did you get the idea that we should or do act in our best interest?
Is this an established philosophy like Utilitarianism?

| > I think determinists have met a roadblock that they will not overcome
and
| > religion and philosophy is guaranteed a place forever.
|
| No. You make the same mistake that creationists make when they assume
those
| who agree with the Theory of Evolution, APPROVE of the fact of evolution.
I
| agree that evolution occurs, but I know that evolution is not our friend.
| Evolution is not the friend of any living thing. The mountains of extinct
| species should make that abundantly clear.
|
| Likewise, a determinist like me acknowledges the fact that I'm a machine
| who's decisions are determined by the stochastic nature of the universe,
and
| then goes about his life as if he had free will because there is no
purpose
| to trying to second-guess his decisions. I don't LIKE determinism, but
| that's irrelevant to the fact of determinism.

If you're likes and preferences are determined then you may as well choose
to like determinism but of course you have no choice.
This is not in your best interest as not liking what is, but being powerless
to change things is not going to make you happy but will make you suffer.

| Why did you not see this already, and instead come up with nothing but the
| stupid ideas you put forth above?
|
| Determinism does not change what's in our best interest. The things that
| make us happy and the things that make us suffer are not changed by the
| knowledge of determinism. It is in our best interests to behave as if we
| have free will.

We have no choice in the matter.

| As luck would have it, that's really easy to do.

It may be for you, but on several occasions my body has acted against my
best interests, and has beaten me up and even burned down my flat with me
still in it, almost killing me and destroying my life for several years. I
have no memory of these episodes and doctors and psychiatrists had no
explanation, so I had to think it could be demonic possession, until I saw a
TV program about people who do things while sleepwalking. Some have been
tried for murder and not convicted after tests in a sleeplab showed that the
most primitive parts of the brain can take over the body causing it to eat,
have sex or if there is a percieved threat fight or flight. Sleep
deprivation and stress are common precipitating factors.
A history of sleepwalking or sleepwalking in the family are predesposing
factors.
The legal judgement is that one is not responsible for the actions of one's
body if the higher brain functions are asleep.
We are our memories so we cannot be held resposible for what our bodies may
do when we are asleep.
This is pretty scary stuff if it happens to you and it does happen to me
sometimes, fortunately not very often.

Spencer

Re: responsibility and free will

Well, it makes sense.

I actually thought about this exact same point a few times myself,
although I never wrote about it. I suppose I should have, because it
exposes the hypocrisy in humanity's views.

First they want to tell us there is no free will. THEN they speak of
blame, and justice, and get angry at others for "crimes".

Crazy. Humans are such self-contradictory liars.

Also, don't worry about the retards giving you retarded responses.
They are just retards hoping to fool themselves that they aren't
stupid. Incapable of responding to intelligence with intelligence,
they try to push you down to their level. At least that they, they
hope they aren't showed up.

These people really are scum.

They will burn in hell for their lies.

Re: responsibility and free will


<collection60@googlemail,com > wrote in message
news:1176036984.758958.244960@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> Well, it makes sense.
>
> I actually thought about this exact same point a few times myself,
> although I never wrote about it. I suppose I should have, because it
> exposes the hypocrisy in humanity's views.
>
> First they want to tell us there is no free will. THEN they speak of
> blame, and justice, and get angry at others for "crimes".

Well yeah, just because we have no free will doesn't mean crime doesn't harm
us.

> Crazy. Humans are such self-contradictory liars.

And you are one of them, as am I.

> Also, don't worry about the retards giving you retarded responses.
> They are just retards hoping to fool themselves that they aren't
> stupid. Incapable of responding to intelligence with intelligence,
> they try to push you down to their level. At least that they, they
> hope they aren't showed up.

Or perhaps they're accurate in their observations, and you're wrong. Will
you admit that's a possibility?

> These people really are scum.

Or perhaps you're projecting.

> They will burn in hell for their lies.

And perhaps you will burn in the Moslem hell. Or be reincarnated as a dung
beetle. Or just be dead.


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io,com
http :// www .io,com /~dloubet
http :// www .ashenempires,com