On 15 Apr 2011, at 21:16, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues
because
we do not have free will.
This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute
incompatibilist
sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the
correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature
of free
will.
The free will that we don't have in the "absolute incompatibilist
sense" is the free will that most people believe in.
How can you know that?
Compatibilist free will should be called "faux will". Or more
charitably, "subjective will".
Then earth does not exist. Because most people was think that earth is
a flat object.
When we do some dioscovery it is better to adapt our word instead of
throwing the baby with the bath water.
Th fact that you say that compatibilist free will is "faux will" or
worst "subjective will" means that you *do* believe in incompatibilist
free will.
You act like atheist who defends a very particular definition so as to
better mock the concept.
Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level.
Critics of "free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense" are
correct.
So we agree on the sense.
Critics of "compatibilist free will" object to the misuse of terms by
compatibilists, not to the concepts described by those terms.
There is no confusion. The problem is quite clear...combatibilists
are engaged in word-jugglery.
Not at all. They realized that 68% of the reasoning done by the
incompatibilist are valid, so it is worth to save the notion and
recast it in a consistent theory.
That is what we do all the time in science. We change the definition a
little bit, to save the interesting theories and abandon the
inconsistent ideas.
I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a
social tendency to dissolve responsibility among those taking
decisions.
Rewarding bad behavior will get you more bad behavior - but this is a
consequence of human nature, and has nothing to do with free will.
Even if we take a purely deterministic, mechanistic view of human
nature, the question remains: "What works best in promoting a
well-ordered society?"
Society, in that crime is only an issue when you have more than one
person involved.
Is more criminal behavior due to correctable conditions that can be
alleviated through education programs or by a more optimal
distribution of the wealth that is generated by society as a whole?
In other words, can criminal behavior be minimized proactively?
This is really another vast topics, and a very complex one. What
machine's theology can explain, is that in such a domain the hell is
paved with the good intentions. We can teach to the children the
respect of the other person *only* by examples, or theories (that is
explicit conjecture). But in the human science, we are still a long
way from understanding the advantage of the conjectural, deductive,
axiomatic way of thinking. They just fight and resist. It is a long
lasting tradition.
Or is most criminal behavior an unavoidable consequence of human
nature, and thus deterrence by threat of punishment is the most
effective means of minimizing that behavior? In other words, can
criminal behavior only be addressed reactively?
The question is: As a practical matter, what works best?
What results in the greatest good for the greatest number? Whatever
it is, I vote we do that.
I would certainly never vote for a politician who pretend to have the
solution. I prefer to vote for an "honest opportunist" who will be
able to abandon its post in case of failure than for an illuminate who
believes having solve the good/bad human problem.
I do suggest a practical solution below, not for solving the problem,
but for leading us to making the situation better for handling it
practically.
We are just not living at the level were we are determined.
But we are nonetheless determined, and thus not free from what
determines us.
Orwell get the point; freedom (the attractor of free will) *is* 2+2=4.
And this can be real relief ... if you have the chance to be able to
say that 2+2=4 in your neighborhood. I am living in a society who has
always defended my right to say that 2+2=4, until I said so. Oh no! I
was not supposed to say it.
"2+2=4" is the liberating power making it possible for birds and
humans to fly. "2+2=5" or any BS of that style is what makes it
possible to be tortured by your pairs, as Orwell illustrated quite well.
This is an inconvenient truth,
1) Why?
2) Science is not wishful thinking.
and no amount of
word-jugglery gets around it. Best to just deal with it squarely,
rather than try to hide it under the rug as with compatibilism.
Compatibilism show that we are "really" free (even if partially only).
It is not an illusion. It is subjective, but consciousness is also
subjective. The error of the aristotelians is that they use
"subjective" as meaning illusory or false (as you did above), That is
close to person elimination.
The comp compatibilist theory of free will makes it as real as
consciousness, and pain, and pleasure and all that. Matter is also
made into something subjective, first person (plural), but this does
not make asteroids and earthquake less real, in our histories.
And free will, like consciousness, is not "just" a qualia, it is a
qualia which change the relations between the quanta in the
neighborhood, for the best (walking on the moon), or the worst
(exploding atomic bombs).
If we were, we could replace jail by hospital,
and people would feel having the right to justify any act by
uncontrollable
pulsions.
All acts are justifiable in that sense. But, just as we don't allow
malfunctioning machines to run amuck, neither should we allow
malfunctioning people to do so.
But you are begging the question, or saying that given that free-will
does not exist, then we should send everybody acting badly to the
hospital, because it is pure "malfunctioning". Believer in free will
(compatibilist or not) believe that you can badly treat people and be
100% not malfunctioning.
To the greatest extent possible, malfunctions should be minimized
through proper configuration and maintenance. When malfunctions
inevitably occur, the damage should be minimized and repairs made if
possible.
We certainly agree on this!
Free will is irrelevant at best, and more likely a counter-productive
distraction.
You are so quick here ...
People who doubt free-will are so closed to those who told me that
consciousness is a crackpot notion. There is a so much tendency to
eliminate the person, which is logically implied by the widespread
confusion between mechanism and materialism, that I am very vigilant
when someone detract a notion of human science as being senseless.
Free will is what makes us wanting more freedom. It is the ability to
be aware and exploits our infinity of universal machine degrees of
freedom.
As before, the question is what works best?
i did answer this: to send in jail the bad guy, and to send in
hospital the "malfunctioning guy". The bad guy is the one who did not
respect a person, or a social rule, purposefully. Judges and
physicians might have to use their intimate conviction to make some
judgment about that, and it cannot always be fair. But perfection just
don't exist in this sphere. Those who believe in perfection here are
those who pave the roads to hell.
All this works even much better when corruption is minimized, and thus
the most urgent is to stop prohibition, because prohibition is
generating and banalizing corruption at all levels everywhere. So the
answer is
LEGALIZE
Do what you want as far as the others can do what they want as far as
you can do what you want as far as the others can ....
Concerning humans they are billions of unknowns.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
