Determinism

[D McCloud]

So you don't decide on a specific course of action of your own will?

Not with free will. However, if you factor in reductionism into a society, "the whole is not greater than the sum of it's parts," the complexity of the human brain creates a sense of free-will that really doesn't exist outside of itself.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Not with free will. However, if you factor in reductionism into a society, "the whole is not greater than the sum of it's parts," the complexity of the human brain creates a sense of free-will that really doesn't exist outside of itself.

I don't understand how reductionisim plays a part exactly...

 

[D McCloud]

I don't understand how reductionisim plays a part exactly...

Ok for example, our societies is composed of people that come together and form cooperative groups that in many instances promote competition. In other words, Free will is an illusion deriving from people merging together and forming interactive societies, and would otherwise have no bearing outside of those very interactions. It just goes to show the complexity of the human mind.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Ok for example, our societies is composed of people that come together and form cooperative groups that in many instances promote competition. In other words, Free will is an illusion deriving from people merging together and forming interactive societies, and would otherwise have no bearing outside of those very interactions. It just goes to show the complexity of the human mind.

What I'm not getting is how the free will 'illusion' derives from societies merging and such...(sorry, I'm just having a hard time fully getting this)

 

[D McCloud]

What I'm not getting is how the free will 'illusion' derives from societies merging and such...(sorry, I'm just having a hard time fully getting this)

It's ok, I'm probably just not explaining it that well.

When you have many different people driven by different things in a society interacting with each other, it's creates the appearence that we all are freely choosing our own actions.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

It's ok, I'm probably just not explaining it that well.

When you have many different people driven by different things in a society interacting with each other, it's creates the appearence that we all are freely choosing our own actions.

Okay. But what about people that commit suicide...now some mental things and such obviously most likely play a factor and maybe their situation...but can someones situation and/or mental/genetic issues or whatnot literally force someone to take their own life? If that is the case...is it really taking ones own life, or is it technically the environment and situations and such that are 'taking' your life since you are supposedly not choosing to take it of your own will?

 

[D McCloud]

Okay. But what about people that commit suicide...now some mental things and such obviously most likely play a factor and maybe their situation...but can someones situation and/or mental/genetic issues or whatnot literally force someone to take their own life? If that is the case...is it really taking ones own life, or is it technically the environment and situations and such that are 'taking' your life since you are supposedly not choosing to take it of your own will?

In a way yes.

I would say it's a combination of genetics, outside side factors dealing with upbring, and random events that cannot be accounted for (such as a reaction to medication or something else).

It would still be called suicide because they intentionally wanted to kill themselves, and carried it out. However, the above are some reason why they could have wanted to do so. For example, it's like me giving you a gun, and you pulling the trigger. I didn't pull the trigger, but I did give you the gun.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I would say it's a combination of genetics, outside side factors dealing with upbring, and random events that cannot be accounted for (such as a reaction to medication or something else).

Yes, It would still be called suicide because they intentionally wanted to kill themselves, and carried it out. However, the above are reason why they could have wanted to do so. For example, it's like me giving you a gun, and you pulling the trigger. I didn't pull the trigger, but I did give you the gun.

Did they want to of their own self or was that forced/predetermined by other factors?

W/ the example, you just giving me the gun won't make me use it, I choose that. Is that not free will?

 

[D McCloud]

Did they want to of their own self or was that forced/predetermined by other factors?

W/ the example, you just giving me the gun won't make me use it, I choose that. Is that not free will?

I would say they they 'wanted to' because they were forced by those other factors.

Well now you have to ask yourself why you choose to use the gun. You're right back at determinism.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I would say they they 'wanted to' because they were forced by those other factors.

Well now you have to ask yourself why you choose to use the gun. You're right back at determinism.

So when you want something, it's really other factors making you 'want' it? That isn't really wanting it then...

But what about this situation: Someone gossips about you and gives you every excuse to despise them. However, you decided to be kind and sincere towards them and hold no bitterness against them. The situation and even others and your own feelings even go against what you do, but you choose to do that.

 

[D McCloud]

So when you want something, it's really other factors making you 'want' it? That isn't really wanting it then...

But what about this situation: Someone gossips about you and gives you every excuse to despise them. However, you decided to be kind and sincere towards them and hold no bitterness against them. The situation and even others and your own feelings even go against what you do, but you choose to do that.

Depends on how you define want. Any decision you make is going to be because you were forced to wiegh the positive consequences against the negative ones. If you had a strong feeling of desire for something, than I think it's fair to say you wanted it because of the conditions making you choose it. However, whether you're entirely to blame for choosing it is another issue.

This is just another instance of performing the action that brings about the most positive consequences. You still have to ask yourself why you decided to go against your own feelings. (determinism again)

 

[t_w]

[/i]

In other words, they are not actually random - simply unpredictable in practice. Two very different things. Emergent properties are not actually random. There is no break in deterministic causality.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of random in this context. Even if every single piece of information is known about system X, the velocity of every molecule, the mass of every molecule etc. etc., it is impossible to predict the future state of that system. Not just impractical. Now, if it were all determined it would be very easy to predict the future state of that model. Hence, it isn't fully determined.

I saw earlier you mentioned that quantum mechanics can be predictable. It is completely and utterly unpredictable, self-contradictery and should, by all means, be as impossible as a square circle or a triangle with 1000 degrees.

 

[levi501]

If it's not his fault...then why is the death penalty instilled?

I believe the death penalty to be immoral as it's more about revenge then protecting society.

Also...since supposedly no one is responsible for their actions, is it perfectly right to do anything, such as kill someone. I mean...the person didn't choose it...so is it really bad?

I'm not addressing whether it's right or wrong as it has no baring on the reality of the situation which is we are all products of our environments.

 

[t_w]

It's worth mentioning that even if people aren't to blame for their actions, we should still punish them. I noticed the comment 'then why is the death penalty enforced? etc.'. The reason is, if someone has the potential to murder, which they demonstrate by murdering, we have to protect our society from that potential. One way of preventing that is murder. Another, more humane method is imprisonment. It is not an AIDs virus's fault if it kills 100,000,000 people, but we should still try to wipe it out. It is not a flood's fault if it wipes out a town, but we should still try and build damns. The same applies to murderers and thiefs. A society that doesn't prevent such behaviour won't last long.

 

[elman]

Yes. Behaviour - which is where an idividual's choices become apparent to the rest of - can be checked against things like genetic make-up and social background. There are direct correlations between, for example, your social status and the likelihood that you will commit crime. There are similar genetic correlations - twin adoption studies have demonstrated that if your genetic parent is a criminal you are more likely to commit crime (the fact that the twin was adopted means that the parents they were raised by were not criminals) .

Now, we have a couple of options here: either it is purely coincidence that social status and genetics are correlated with criminal behaviour or social status and genetics cause criminal behaviour.

As more evidence that they are caused, people use these sorts of things - not the genetics stuff yet, but the social stuff - to plan cities, prisons, schools et cetera. If they were not causal factors, this would be a futile activity.

Correlation is not proving your case. If it is just correlation it is not totally caused by the genetics etc. If geneetics etc was the cause, then all of the people with those genetics and environment would be criminals not just a larger per centage.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Depends on how you define want. Any decision you make is going to be because you were forced to wiegh the positive consequences against the negative ones. If you had a strong feeling of desire for something, than I think it's fair to say you wanted it because of the conditions making you choose it. However, whether you're entirely to blame for choosing it is another issue.

This is just another instance of performing the action that brings about the most positive consequences. You still have to ask yourself why you decided to go against your own feelings. (determinism again)

So you can blame the conditions and consequences for why you choose something?

Even when weighing the consequences you are still choosint. The conditions aren't making you choose anything...they can persuade you in a direction, but it's ultimately up to you, is it not?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I believe the death penalty to be immoral as it's more about revenge then protecting society.


I'm not addressing whether it's right or wrong as it has no baring on the reality of the situation which is we are all products of our environments.

I think it does have some bearing, morality that is, because if we are all 'products' of the environment and we aren't responsible, then why not just act any old way and such since it technically isn't your fault or choosing? You can't just ignore that fact.

 

[t_w]

Lily, see my post above for a way of reconciling a moral system with absolute determinism.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

It's worth mentioning that even if people aren't to blame for their actions, we should still punish them. I noticed the comment 'then why is the death penalty enforced? etc.'. The reason is, if someone has the potential to murder, which they demonstrate by murdering, we have to protect our society from that potential. One way of preventing that is murder. Another, more humane method is imprisonment. It is not an AIDs virus's fault if it kills 100,000,000 people, but we should still try to wipe it out. It is not a flood's fault if it wipes out a town, but we should still try and build damns. The same applies to murderers and thiefs. A society that doesn't prevent such behaviour won't last long.

Yes, but what about other 'smaller' moral issues that are still morally wrong, but not needed to be imprisoned or whatnot for?

 

[D McCloud]

So you can blame the conditions and consequences for why you choose something?

Even when weighing the consequences you are still choosint. The conditions aren't making you choose anything...they can persuade you in a direction, but it's ultimately up to you, is it not?

technically yes, but whether it's acceptable or not in our society is another issue.

You're making a choice but your not making a free choice. The conditions are making you choose what's only natural for you to choose given the options, you can't selectively choose something the conditions don't allow for. Your actions are being controlled by your options.