King's Indian

Hello again, Torben.

I have to apologize to you for your bearing the brunt of the final stages of what turned out to be a posting frenzy. By that stage, I was seizing on any interesting sentence and forming an opinion about it, without too much consideration for context. I’ve recovered some of my equilibrium now, and I’ve shaken out most of the dribble trapped in my keyboard. Anyway, to your reply:
Mentioning planets was rather my point: that in the most well-understood patterns of physical systems there is no need to factor in the behaviour of atoms. Just because we don’t understand certain patterns of physical behaviour, that doesn’t force us to start thinking of particles as the best places to look. Perhaps there will be a way of quantitavely assessing what goes on in our brains that also eschews such atomic reduction. As for the weather, perhaps so for what our brains do: Are randomness and free will the only choices allowed? Perhaps our self-consciousness may be explained by the interaction of biological systems and environment that produce an entity that really can make conscious decisions, which have real, observable effects in the world. As for the weather, although you’re right about forecasting beyond ten days or so, we have a lot of success in quantitavely explaining the different rates of rainfall on each side of mountain ranges. To do this, we compare the interaction of adiabatic and environmental lapse rates; again, no real need to drag atoms into this. My next point is a follow-on. Although our ability to make conscious, rational choices (I don’t think “free will” helps us a lot, as description or concept) comes from nowhere other than being entities composed of particles, we don’t have to view our choice-making as the “sum” of these particle’s activities; any more than we use such arithmetic to understand planetary motion. Explanations of larger-scale phenomena have their place, as in planetary systems and rainfall. Perhaps if, in looking for explanations of our decision-making at the atomic level (or beyond) we get confused, we might feel that we shouldn’t have started from there in the first place.
I’m as much in the dark about what’s going on as the next man. I’ll accept any objections to the above in good spirit.
Take care,
KI.

PS. The only people of my acquaintance who “know all the answers” aren’t the sort whom you’d want be cornered by at a party.

Treacle Worshipper

Hello all,
Just thought I'd let you know I haven't abandoned this thread. I'm reading your discussions with great interest.
I've also finished reading www.determinism.com (thanks Neilium) It seems a reasonable summation of how determinism could work "in the real world". The only thing which confused me is that they say that, altho' we are not responsible for the causes of our actions/reactions, we are responsible for the consequences of our (re)actions. I don't see how that can be the case. If someone acts destructively, and it is beyond their capabilities to act otherwise, surely we should concentrate on healing whatever has caused their unpleasant act, rather than blaming them for it? (This essay contains an example of what I mean in para. 5)
TW

John Page

TW:
We are held responsible by others, we understand this and can self-modify our behavior. Very Pavlovian but more subtle.

Cheers, John

flatland

I've never really understood how determinism could void responsibility. Sure, it easily does away with moral condemnation, but whether or not you had complete freedom over your action, you are still the agent of that action. You performed the action, and are thus held responsible for the consequences. Punishment can modify future behavior in a reaction that is quite at home in determinism. The only troubles come when you allow the possibility of free will, which a determinist would not. An non-existent concept leads to illusory problems.

Guillaume

True, in the same sense that natural phenomena and animals are responsible for their actions.

From what I saw, punishment rarely, if ever, modify futur behavior in a positive way.

DRFseven

I think it's because of the assumption that we should be fair (not impose sanctions on behavior, since, lacking free will, we're bound to behave in whatever way we find ourselves behaving). However, as some have pointed out, expectation of sanctions can sometimes alter behavior such that the sanctions are avoided. Only obviously it doesn't always happen that way and people have to be incarcerated, etc., if we want to survive.

VivaHedone

The very concept of free will is impossible, made so by simple cause and effect principles. The cause of our actions is our thoughts, the cause of our thoughts is our sensations and the way they are processed through our brain. We have no control over our thoughts, and therefore no control over our decisions. The fact that we, unlike other animals, are able to hear and understand our thoughts gives us the illusion of free will.

If you were to put exactly the same person in exactly the same circumstances repeatedly, they would always act in the same way, because their brain would process the sensations in the same way and their thoughts and consequent decisions would be the same.

I cannot see how even a deity could have free will - the christian god, for example, would always act in the morally right way. He would be bound by his properties as much as we are. Every decision has a cause.

Treacle Worshipper

Quote John:
We are held responsible by others, we understand this and can self-modify our behavior. Very Pavlovian but more subtle.
That certainly makes more sense of the whole concept.

Quote flatland:
you are still the agent of that action. You performed the action, and are thus held responsible for the consequences.
But if you had no choice but to perform that action, why should you be held responsible? If a tree is forced to fall by a hurricane, we don't hold the tree responsible for the damage it causes.

Quote Guillaume:
True, in the same sense that natural phenomena and animals are responsible for their actions.
But we don't really hold them responsible, do we? For instance, if the cat suddenly stops using its litterbox, we are likely to look for reasons why (box needs cleaning, cat has illness) and to solve the problem, rather than modifying the cat.

Quote DRFseven:
I think it's because of the assumption that we should be fair (not impose sanctions on behavior, since, lacking free will, we're bound to behave in whatever way we find ourselves behaving).
Yes, I think that's the thing. It seems unfair to punish someone, to hold them responsible for something they had to do.

However, as some have pointed out, expectation of sanctions can sometimes alter behavior such that the sanctions are avoided. Only obviously it doesn't always happen that way and people have to be incarcerated, etc., if we want to survive.
I agree with this too. I think determinism works if one concentrates on healing/reforming the causes which lead people to act destructively, rather than holding them responsible for their destructive actions.

I find it a bit depressing, if I'm not responsible for my actions, it gets rid of the shame/guilt factor, but also seems to leave no room for thinking "I'm a good person, because I do good things" either.
TW

DRFseven

I think of it more like you are liable for damages incurred during the operation of "you" (except in certain circumstances). For instance, a bee flies into your car window and stings you, causing you to sideswipe another car. You are liable for damages to the other driver and car, and in addition, you have incurred damage to your own car and a painful bee sting, as well. Circumstances dictate that things happen and sometimes we are the unhappy recipients of bad experiences that seem unfair. By the same token, sometimes serendipitous things happen that we experience as beneficial, that make us happy. We don't mind either windfalls or "unearned" praise ("You have such beautiful eyes!"; "You are so intelligent!"), and we don't mind being praised for behavior that seem earned, either. Either way, our dopaminergic system rewards us.

flatland

Guillame:

It of course gets extremely complicated when you factor in the extreme complexity of the human brain/behavior. However, punishment can easily modify behavior in simple circumstances. You stick a fork in an outlet, you get hurt. It is unlikely that you will continue to stick forks in outlets. The concept will get muddled when you add in the possibility of not being caught. Giving an example along the lines of what I believe you were referring to, a person incarcerated for stealing is released. Will they steal again? Not if they believe they will be caught again. If a person truly believes they can get away with something that they do not find distasteful, they will do it. If consistently punished for their actions, they will cease those actions.

Treacle Worshipper:

I would say we do hold a tree responsible for its actions. The tree caused the damage, most directly. The hurricane also caused the damage, but at a greater remove. However, there is no use in punishing or condemning the tree, so we do not. Why? There is no possibility of repeated future actions of this type. There is no use punishing something that will never again harm us. We do not force dead people to serve prison sentences. Additionally, there is no hope that punishing this tree will deter other trees from falling when caused to by hurricanes, or indeed at any time. Trees lack the feedback of a human mind that allows for either behavior or behavior modification.