Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lilly of the Valley said:So you don't decide on a specific course of action of your own will?
D McCloud said: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 said:I don't understand how reductionisim plays a part exactly...
D McCloud said: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 said: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 said: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 said:
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 said: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.
Lilly of the Valley said: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 said: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 said: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.
David Gould said:[/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 believe the death penalty to be immoral as it's more about revenge then protecting society.Lilly of the Valley said:If it's not his fault...then why is the death penalty instilled?
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.Lilly of the Valley said: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?
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.David Gould said: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.
D McCloud said: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)
levi501 said: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.
t_w said: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.
Lilly of the Valley said: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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?