tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1458166553535188125.post6945515266233521836..comments2024-02-10T06:09:41.561-05:00Comments on Armchair Philosophizing: Premises, Part 3 - Free WillGeoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08509184330732763342noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1458166553535188125.post-44500265420136445862011-08-14T22:36:34.093-04:002011-08-14T22:36:34.093-04:00I disagree with that statement. Because we perceiv...I disagree with that statement. Because we perceive free will, regardless of whether it is actually free or not, we can hold people responsible for their behavior. We are the sum of our parts, we are our behavior. Presuming that there is a "me" that exists outside of the sum of our parts is the fallacy here. <br /><br />When you choose not to assign responsibility to an actor, you assume that they were not in control of their actions, meaning that they exist outside of them, as some kind of voyeuristic entity that can only watch but cannot act. In reality, since we are the sum of our parts and there is no soul, punishing the vehicle is no different from punishing the person.<br /><br />To look at it another way, imagine that a robot is programmed like T1 in Terminator to just seek and kill. If he kills your mother, do you not blame the robot, even though it had no control over its actions? Do you not punish the robot in order to prevent it from doing that in the future? In the case of the T1 robot, you blame the person who programmed it, which in this case is another robot, but you can still think of T1's "reprogramming" as punishment in a way. If we could literally reprogram humans, and it was proven so, you can imagine a situation in which we would choose to reprogram death row inmates rather than ending their lives, particularly fit and healthy ones that could be productive members of society.<br /><br />That's the underlying premise of the post, and the premise of "free will" in general. You have to assume agenticity. We've evolved to operate within the framework of agenticity between humans because we assume that others have free will since we perceive within our own minds that we have free will.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08509184330732763342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1458166553535188125.post-16113868752305716542011-08-14T18:26:04.098-04:002011-08-14T18:26:04.098-04:00I like these posts. I also took notes on it, but I...I like these posts. I also took notes on it, but I came up with a completely different (and unexpected) idea when writing my interpretation of these.<br /><br />I will just copy the text I wrote, it doesn't need any introduction:<br /><br />"...Or, on another point, because each agent exercises free will according to their perception of filtered reality (modified template of morals and objective reality) they can't be held responsible for their actions because each agent would experience the objective reality differently."<br /><br />I would like to hear your idea about this..TTuncohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12667260752268472216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1458166553535188125.post-68351071153742413822011-07-19T12:39:07.239-04:002011-07-19T12:39:07.239-04:00I don't think that many serious scientists bel...I don't think that many serious scientists believe that the path and collisions of electrons are truly random. Einstein had a number of famous quotes to this effect. Either way, I do not believe in randomness. I believe in chaos, which means that very minute differences in starting point can result in dramatic differences in end points, appearing random. <br /><br />Quantum mechanics is a model that is convenient for calculations, but the fact that it does not agree with relativity means that one or both of them are wrong, despite both being useful in their respective fields. Presumably, a unifying theory of physics would eliminate the element of randomness from the calculations.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08509184330732763342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1458166553535188125.post-57872574572451204422011-07-19T12:26:16.093-04:002011-07-19T12:26:16.093-04:00But there is randomness. Our lives are most certai...But there is randomness. Our lives are most certainly not deterministic. The paths and collisions of electrons are random, and the butterfly effect applies from there. Example: subject passes a smoker on the street, one cell in his/her lungs turns cancerous, morphs into many and kills the subject, triggers a funeral which causes a traffic back-up with repercussions through-out the town and, eventually, through the society ...GreggHamnoreply@blogger.com