19 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI have no intention of pursuing your suggested "project". I honestly believe prison is conducive to rehabilitation. However, I believe that evryone affords
I have no intention of pursuing your suggested "project". I honestly believe prison is conducive to rehabilitation. However, I believe that evryone affords
sympathy for their crimes and that is my project: dont judge others.
It is also why I dont accept the death penalty. The only people who do support are those who know they will never be in that cha ...[text shortened]... t if compatibilism is true, then the question becomes more like "when does free will exist".
sympathy for their crimes and that is my project: dont judge others.
Your stance does not seem consistent to me. You say that we should not judge others, but in the same breath, you indicate that some are in need of "rehabilitation". To say that one is in need of rehabilitation is nothing other than a statement of judgement.
I believe that evryone affords
sympathy for their crimes
Again, "crime" is a word based in judgement.
If you truly believe that free will does not exist, then how is anyone morally accountable for their actions? Why are you not fighting to set free all those who have been imprisoned? Why do you maintain that they are in need of rehabilitation? Forgive me: I am just trying to figure out how you account for the possibility of moral responsibility, being that you seem to deny both the libertarian and compatibilist notions of free will.
19 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think he construes rehabilitation as a causal process that can change the rehabilitated's internal states, thereby preventing future actions that the rest of us deem worth preventing. It is perfectly consistent to claim both that X is not at fault for committing act A, and that X ought to be modified by external causal factors (rehabilitated) to prevent further A-acts. The judgment here is merely prudential; it is in our best interests to rehabilitate X.
[b]I have no intention of pursuing your suggested "project". I honestly believe prison is conducive to rehabilitation. However, I believe that evryone affords
sympathy for their crimes and that is my project: dont judge others.
Your stance does not seem consistent to me. You say that we should not judge others, but in the same breath, you indica , being that you seem to deny both the libertarian and compatibilist notions of free will.[/b]
19 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeSuppose I believe that 'P' is the case, and I believe that 'if P then Q' is the case, and I thereby infer that 'Q' is the case. This is reasonable by any standard. But it's plausible that these deliberations are computations over mental representations with particular contents; that they are purely mechanical, syntax-driven processes. If that's the case, then there is a counter-example to your argument above. Further, some deliberative processes must be brute causal, lest one run afoul of Kripke's rule-following paradox.
Here's another argument for free will.
Consider the two claims:
1) "I did X because I found the arguments in favor of doing do reasonable."
2) "I did X because my brain made me do it."
One contention has been that these two claims cannot be reconciled.
The idea is that, for 1) to be true, 2) must be false, because if it were not, then one n determinism.
It's an interesting argument. But I can already think of one objection.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWas I blaming you for anything? You can tell me you picked out
Its not my fault you can't provide a logical challenge to my arguments.
a car, one of four, and deny it was your free will, a free choice. No
one put a gun to your head, not one denied you the rest of the
universe, or your remaining time left in this life time to pick another
car somewhere else at any other time. Yet, for you, it wasn't a
choice you made freely. At some point you either see what is there,
or you don't, logical challenges aside, you either open your eyes
and see the forest by looking at the trees or you don't.
Your arguments, I fail to see any worth to them. You don't believe
you can have any contact or influence to make a free choice by
an act of your will, even when you do, it isn't free to your thinking
because there are infuences in the universe other than your will.
If your will desires you to walk north, and a wind is in your face
that doesn't have the power to stop you, are you not still free to
walk north inspite of that wind? I think your logic is nothing but
an excuse for people to not be what they want to be, or do what
they want with their lives.
Kelly
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrHave not seen you in quite awhile, was actually worried about you.
I think he construes rehabilitation as a causal process that can change the rehabilitated's internal states, thereby preventing future actions that the rest of us deem worth preventing. It is perfectly consistent to claim both that X is not at fault for committing act A, and that X ought to be modified by external causal factors (rehabilitated) to prevent fur ...[text shortened]... A-acts. The judgment here is merely prudential; it is in our best interests to rehabilitate X.
Glad to see you posting again.
Kelly
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrWhat a pleasant surprise. Long time no see.
I think he construes rehabilitation as a causal process that can change the rehabilitated's internal states, thereby preventing future actions that the rest of us deem worth preventing. It is perfectly consistent to claim both that X is not at fault for committing act A, and that X ought to be modified by external causal factors (rehabilitated) to prevent fur ...[text shortened]... A-acts. The judgment here is merely prudential; it is in our best interests to rehabilitate X.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI do.
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.
Anyone disagree?
Take two identical haystacks several feet apart. Put a donkey exactly in the middle.
Without free will the donkey would starve, since it has no preference for any of the haystacks.
The donkey won't starve, proving there is something as free will.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KOur consciousness cannot be the product of chemicals and their interactions. That has never been proven anywhere in science. And, also, I'd cite some sources where that's been proven before a strew my atheistic garbage all across the internet. Also, how the consciousness be the product if chemicals when a woman who dies and has no heart beat, ends up floating up above her on body, over the tops of the hospital and sees some tennis shoes on the roof. When she is brought back, she informs the doctor that she saw tennis shoes on the roof. They go and check. There are indeed tennis shoes on the roof. The doctor asks, "HOw did you know?" She said she saw them after she died. This truly happened. NO, we are made in the image of God, and this physical body is not all we are. We are destined for greater things, and the soul is directed by the consciousness. We have a choice in our hearts and in our souls to choose the living God or eternal damnation.
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.
Anyone disagree?
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrThanks. Good post. And it is really nice to see you back.
I think he construes rehabilitation as a causal process that can change the rehabilitated's internal states, thereby preventing future actions that the rest of us deem worth preventing. It is perfectly consistent to claim both that X is not at fault for committing act A, and that X ought to be modified by external causal factors (rehabilitated) to prevent fur ...[text shortened]... A-acts. The judgment here is merely prudential; it is in our best interests to rehabilitate X.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrcorrect. Thats exactly what i meant.
I think he construes rehabilitation as a causal process that can change the rehabilitated's internal states, thereby preventing future actions that the rest of us deem worth preventing. It is perfectly consistent to claim both that X is not at fault for committing act A, and that X ought to be modified by external causal factors (rehabilitated) to prevent fur ...[text shortened]... A-acts. The judgment here is merely prudential; it is in our best interests to rehabilitate X.