Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: RG on 20 May 2010 20:53 In article <ht46a4$n2v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-20 13:15:34 -0400, RG said: > > > Retribution is not pointless. The point is to assuage the negative > > emotions of anger and helplessness that people feel when they are > > victims of a crime. This is true regardless of whether or not you > > believe in free will or dualism. One can certainly argue that > > retribution is cruel, or that the benefits are not worth the costs. But > > under no circumstances is it pointless. > > "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." "Not worth the cost" is not the same thing as "pointless." rg
From: Don Geddis on 20 May 2010 20:23 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote on Wed, 19 May 2010: > In article <87wruzqj5w.fsf(a)mail.geddis.org>, Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> wrote: >> "Free choice" is not necessarily incompatible with determinism. > That's news to me. How is that possible? I would recommend Chapter 5 of Gary Drescher's "Good and Real" http://www.amazon.com/Good-Real-Demystifying-Paradoxes-Bradford/dp/0262042339/ Chapter 5 is titled Deterministic Choice, Part 1: Inalterability Does Not Imply Futility I can't do the discussion justice in just a few sentences, but the basic idea is that a decision-machine really does make choices (even in a deterministic world), and there really isn't any way of knowing how those choices will come out, other than running the algorithm of the machine. The fact that the future is determined (in principle), does NOT make the future predictable (in practice). You eventually get into mental reflection as well. A decision-making machine can't figure out what answer it's going to come up with, by simulating a model of itself. It actually has to just decide what it wants to do. -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org Note on jar by cash register: "If you fear change, leave it in here."
From: Don Geddis on 21 May 2010 00:06 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010: > On 2010-05-20 00:46:33 -0400, Don Geddis said: > Yours is the compatibilist position, which I think is logically void (I.e., I > am an incompatibilist): > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism> > If this is indeed the source of our disagreement, there's little point in > further discussion, as our positions are fundamentally irreconcilable. That's an excellent page, and I think any interested readers of this thread ought to take a quick glance through it, if they're trying to decide between your position and mine. A key quote: [F]ree will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. That is, when one says that one could either continue to read this page or to delete it, one doesn't really mean that both choices are compatible with the complete state of the world right now, but rather that if one had desired to delete it one would have, even though as a matter of fact one actually desires to continue reading it, and therefore that is what will actually happen. You haven't thought very carefully, if you think that Compatibilism is "logically void". That's just false. You may _disagree_ with it, and have your own pet, preferred, theory. Which is fine. But there are plenty of smart people who disagree with you. So when you say things like, "the free will of humans is only an illusion, and thus our whole legal and moral framework collapses", you really ought to preface that with "...if you believe in incompatibilism..." That way, people can more easily dismiss your claims outright, by simply saying, "but I don't believe in incompatibilism". -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. -- Richard Dawkins
From: RG on 21 May 2010 01:12 In article <87pr0q2jcq.fsf(a)mail.geddis.org>, Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> wrote: > RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote on Wed, 19 May 2010: > > In article <87wruzqj5w.fsf(a)mail.geddis.org>, Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> > > wrote: > >> "Free choice" is not necessarily incompatible with determinism. > > That's news to me. How is that possible? > > I would recommend Chapter 5 of Gary Drescher's "Good and Real" > http://www.amazon.com/Good-Real-Demystifying-Paradoxes-Bradford/dp/026 > 2042339/ > Chapter 5 is titled > Deterministic Choice, Part 1: > Inalterability Does Not Imply Futility > > I can't do the discussion justice in just a few sentences, but the basic > idea is that a decision-machine really does make choices (even in a > deterministic world), and there really isn't any way of knowing how > those choices will come out, other than running the algorithm of the > machine. The fact that the future is determined (in principle), does > NOT make the future predictable (in practice). > > You eventually get into mental reflection as well. A decision-making > machine can't figure out what answer it's going to come up with, by > simulating a model of itself. It actually has to just decide what it > wants to do. Ah, OK. I would say that a very convincing illusion of free choice is compatible with determinism, and that for all practical purposes this illusion can be treated as if it were the real thing. It's a minor quibble. rg
From: Nick Keighley on 21 May 2010 03:32
On 20 May, 15:37, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-20 09:01:48 -0400, Nick Keighley said: > > The law is part of what constrains behaviour of > > the robots and leads to stable societies that maximise average > > reproductive success. > > I wrote "recast" our legal system, not eliminate. In particular, legal > theories of criminal penalties typically deal with several types of > penalty, among them, deterrence (as you note), incapacitation ("keeping > criminals off the street"), rehabilitation (re-training, or > re-educating criminals so they become less likely to commit future > offenses), and retribution ("punishing the morally wicked"). If we have > no free will, then any penalties based on retribution become pointless, > even cruel, like sentencing a slug to 40 lashes for wickedly eating > your garden lettuce. ah, but the other robots enjoy watching the bad robot suffer. It makes them feel included in the group and group cohesion is a successful survival strategy. a legal system also discourages vigilantism which can spiral out of control and disrupt society. You have more faith in your deterministic robots than I do Facebook group: "why do we do experiments on animals when there are still peadophiles locked up in prison?" |