Kevin's Watch

Agreed.

--A

Baradakas wrote:I understand that, I guess my point was to state that a world with laws must be a world with free will, as any "murder" in a world without free will would be predestined and theoretically unpunishable. (not to say that a tool cannot be punished, only that it would be illogical to do so.

-B

No, it would be logical to punish, given that predestined or not, life goes on. No punishment would be mean a danger to society. Just because the universe may be predestined does not mean society cannot punish, for laws also exist to put off murder. Even if a person is predestined to, does not invalidate their crime; logically, society is predestined to protect itself.

is it possible to believe in causality as the primary means of the universe and believe in free will do you think?

Tazzman wrote:is it possible to believe in causality as the primary means of the universe and believe in free will do you think?

No way. What is causing 'free will' then? If you believe in causality and believe in free will, then you have to accept that free will is spontaineous. That's illogical.

i only ask because i remember Malik saying that he believed in both.

could you not say that we are responsible for our own actions and therefore the causes and effects of our actions? (just a thought)

maybe it depends on what you see free will as.

Loremaster, if there is no free will, murder cannot be put off, with or without punishments. The "punishments" are predestined, and the murders that are committed after those punishments are written down are predestined. If there is no free will, then the murderer could not do other than murder that particular person, at that instant, with that exact weapon. And those who punish him are not capable of not punishing him. Those who protest executions, carrying signs and marching around the building where the execution takes place, cannot choose to do otherwise. And we have no option but to sit at our computers discussing all of it; typing the exact words we type at the exact instants we type them; typing a word we have no choice but to type, only to "regret" that word, and want to change it; either hitting the Backspace button, the Left arrow and Delete, or highlighting the word and starting again.....

The thought that all of those things are a sham, that Mhoram's super computer could tell us who will kill in the future; what thread I will be typing in at this moment next year; which word I will type, but come to regret, and which method I will use to "fix" it; when my children will have sex, with whom, which of their children will be programmed to actually murder.... The sham is too great. I would be horrified if I thought it was true. Of course, my horror would be predestined also, and the depression that lead to my suicide would merely be part of the sham.

Loremaster wrote:But the mind is doing the changing. Since your thoughts are organic in origin therefore organic processes are altering themselves, otherwise where are the thoughts originating? The brain is the source of thinking/consciousness, so thoughts have to come from that.

IMO, you are talking about two different things, and trying to make them the same. For example, the chemical storage system that houses our memories isn't our memories. Our thoughts exist in the medium of our brains, but those exact thoughts can exist in the Horta, which, as you know, is a silicon-based life form. Awareness/consciousness is an unexplained, possibly unexplainable, phenomenon that somehow combines the chemical storage system, the sensory input from our sense organs, and all the other brain structures and functions, in a "the whole is greater than the sum of its part" way.

Yes, that's just my opinion. But it explains how the sham can be other than the sham you think it is. My direct experience of my own awareness and free will every conscious moment of my life cannot be this sham.

And if you think I am stubborn in this stance, I hope you are programmed with patience, because you must think I have no choice but to "feel" as I do, and type these words.

Tazzman wrote:i only ask because i remember Malik saying that he believed in both.

could you not say that we are responsible for our own actions and therefore the causes and effects of our actions? (just a thought)

I say we are responsible because we initiated them based on our experiences and genetic/neurological makeup. The individual made the action and set off a chain or events.

Excellent post Fist. This is why I believe that mind is seperate from brain.

And my own personal experience bears that out, because I have countless times chosen not to do the thing that I am most tempted or inclined to do.

As for your earlier point, life might go on, but where is the logic in punishing somebody for something that they couldn't not do, even if they wanted?

--A

LM wrote:then you have to accept that free will is spontaineous. That's illogical

Screw logic! Really Lore! Why do you persist in taking the fun out of everything. The next thing you'll tell me is magic doesn't exist... Sheesh, what a killjoy.

Philosophy can be fun up to a point, and then it's like watching Mengele pull perfectly good teeth.

danlo wrote:The next thing you'll tell me is magic doesn't exist...

Magic doesn't exist. Nor do rolling eyes emoticons.

Sheesh, how many Iain M. Banks books do I have to send over to america for you to get off my case?

Avatar wrote:As for your earlier point, life might go on, but where is the logic in punishing somebody for something that they couldn't not do, even if they wanted?

I'm not sure what part of which post you're referring to, so excuse me if I don't answer you correctly. There is no logic in punishing somebody for something they couldn't not do. But if there is not free will, the punishers have no choice but to punish. And if there is free will, the murderer deserves to be punished.

personally, (and this might have no philisophical basis) i can see that ,quite possibly, one could be responsible for their actions yet still be a 'prisoner' to causality. why cant our actions be the primary causes of events? then morality would exist and we would have free will.

Tazzman wrote:personally, (and this might have no philisophical basis) i can see that ,quite possibly, one could be responsible for their actions yet still be a 'prisoner' to causality. why cant our actions be the primary causes of events? then morality would exist and we would have free will.

But what causes actions?

Loremaster wrote:

Tazzman wrote:personally, (and this might have no philisophical basis) i can see that ,quite possibly, one could be responsible for their actions yet still be a 'prisoner' to causality. why cant our actions be the primary causes of events? then morality would exist and we would have free will.

But what causes actions?

errrr....i'll get back to you!

no seriously, i'll think about it.

Cool thoughts..........no that's not my response, that's what's responsible.

LM: so where do they come from?
d: it doesn't matter.

I agree with Malik that free will and causality can co-exist. Only because causality also implies that every set of thoughts are predetermined, including regrets and putting off decissions. So the free will exists, only it's an illusion.

I think I was talking to LoreMaster, Fist.

I think that causality and free-will can exist, Prebe, but I think free will trumps causality.

--A

danlo wrote:LM: so where do they come from?
d: it doesn't matter.

It matters to me.

but I think free will trumps causality.

Then what, if no creatures exist with anything that remotely resembles will? Could we have perfect causality?

I think so, in the sense that everything is obviously caused by something else in some sense. Even the events of free will are caused by something else. But the factors are too varied and variable to imagine that they can be recreated.

One of our biggest stumbling blocks as humans may be "What If..."

--A