• If our behavior is really deterministic, what can actually still be just?
    15 replies, posted
I just read the entire article on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman]Charles Whitman[/url] and it sprung up a [del]mental meltdown[/del] train of thought that's keeping me from doing anything else productive and I feel the need to see if anybody else can give me a meaningful opinion on this and help me to either detach from this way of thinking or ease the confusion it makes me feel. If each of us really is perfectly (or even if partially) driven by the way our body (and our brain) developed, and then by the sum of the experiences we had in life, how can anybody be held "responsible" for what they do when it's actually the only possible outcome of their previous life and the previous life was obviously wholly caused by outside influence as well? Charles Whitman was a probably one of the very first big "mass murderers" of modern era who killed a lot of people seemingly without a good reason or motive. It turned out he had a tumor on his brain which pressed against the part of his brain thought to be responsible for "flee or fight" decisions. He sought medical attention many times before the act, he wrote multiple mentions that he's very remorseful for what he was doing. He was a very intelligent and empathic person who in the end murdered a dozen of innocent people. The issue is, his case is just extreme case of invisible and unexpectable but how is the rest of influences anyhow different? How is random brain brain tumor different from somebody who faced physical abuse all their life and grew abusive of others as it was the norm to them, being taught that right of the stronger is the only real rule? How is brain tumor different from somebody being born into a family that from cradle to their early school years teaches them that their religion leaves them with no other chance but to fight and kill in the name of it? This is basically nothing but different approach to the question if free will exists, but even if it does, how much responsibility does it leave people with? It makes it hard for me to accept concepts of guilt for the wrongdoings people perform or for their merit for economic advantage over others if neither of these are nothing but an unavoidable role their life situation and environment set them on. I understand that a punitive measure can sometimes be nothing but the right influence to help the person do nothing but good in the future, or at least to prevent them from doing more bad. I understand that providing some economical benefit to people who work hard is in the best interest of everyone, because that will allow the hard working person be beneficial further and more effectively, but how can one justify a death penalty or life in jail punishment when these will leave no chance of the individual ever being productive again and leave nothing but a further negative influence of their own, or how can one justify that some people are born into riches and live their entire life off interest of the money that fell into their lap, and which they don't even have to choose what to invest into on their own as they can afford to pay investors or just keep the money in the bank? I am sorry if this whole thing is just a meaningless rant but I had to write it down and ask people, or I would go just fucking insane.
The way I look at it is roughly like this; Imagine we got a historian from a possible world which as free will, and thus responsibility. We ask him to give us a history of person x on his version of the world. He describes the life and decisions of person x, and what they amount to. If we were then to place him in his own past, during the life of person x, would that then invalidate his free will or ability to choose or his ability to be blamed by his peers? I think not. Knowlege of a destiny does not negate the possibility of free will, it is just an epistemic position in relation to your free will, assuming that yolo. To wish to say you could have done otherwise is nonsense be cause you have already not done otherwise. At any point, even in the life of a theoretically free person, someone could ask if they could have done otherwise. It is a fruitless question.
In the absence of free will, law and punishment exists as a way to discourage people from doing bad things. When one is punished for doing something illegal, one finds their punishment unpleasant. Regardless of what that person may do in the future, regardless of whether they are a good or a bad person, regardless of whether or not they deserve the punishment, punishing that person reinforces the faith people have in the base promise of the judical system. The promise is that something unenjoyable (the punishment) will inevitably follow any transgression of the law. By allowing this punishment to befall each of us equally, we ensure our collective survival. Anything capable of feeling pain and discomfort will attempt to avoid feeling pain or discomfort. We are smart enough to understand what this promise is, so it affects our behavior, regardless of whether or not we have free will.
In a deterministic world there is no such things as a "person," all consciousness is illusory. Not only would it be silly to hold people responsible for their actions, the very very thought of looking at anyone as a person would makes no sense.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46642604]In a deterministic world there is no such things as a "person," all consciousness is illusory. Not only would it be silly to hold people responsible for their actions, the very very thought of looking at anyone as a person would makes no sense.[/QUOTE] That depends on what you mean by "consciousness" and "hold responsible". A logical action is necessarily intended to create a specific result, and sometimes popular methods to achieve those results are wildly ineffective.
You can consider jail as a way to protect people outside from the ones inside. For example, even if you don't hold murderers responsibles for their actions, you prevent them from murdering again by imprisoning them until they learn to live among people. Death penalty is used for people that will never behave properly. Punishments and rewards are meant to drive people towards "good" behaviors, i.e. behaviors that benefit the society (or the country, or the firm, or whatever can punish/reward you) instead of damaging it. Productivity is encouraged, laziness is discouraged, theft is discouraged, murder is discouraged, and so on... If people are influenced by their outer environment, you build this outer environement to make them behave properly. Also, even if you don't hold anyone responsible for their acts, you can act like you do, responsibilty is then used to trigger guilt, which can alter ones behavior. About riches that are born this way, I think you should consider it this way : knowing your work will benefit your familly may encourage you to work hard. What you see is the consequence of a reward. At least, this is how I think things are meant to be. Of course, after 2-3 generations of people living on the interests of their money, this doesn't make any sense. On the topic of free will, you can read "On the Freedom of the Will", by Arthur Schopenhauer. It is quite short, very interesting and can answer some of your questions. To answer the title question, if you consider people have no free will, I think justice has the same definition : this is what allows society to exist.
[QUOTE=Nikita;46642587]In the absence of free will, law and punishment exists as a way to discourage people from doing bad things.[/QUOTE] The point is that if there is no free will, then law and punishment are meaningless because people are going to be either law-abiding or delinquent regardless of whatever external pressures that influence a person to go either way. [QUOTE=sgman91;46642604]In a deterministic world there is no such things as a "person," all consciousness is illusory. Not only would it be silly to hold people responsible for their actions, the very very thought of looking at anyone as a person would makes no sense.[/QUOTE] In such a world, the act of holding people responsible for their actions is just as deterministic as the actions of the people who break the law. Each set of actions makes as much "sense" as the other in such a system. I don't see how you can justify punishment for breaking the law as being "silly".
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;46644242]The point is that if there is no free will, then law and punishment are meaningless because people are going to be either law-abiding or delinquent regardless of whatever external pressures that influence a person to go either way.[/QUOTE] But this just isn't true; the external pressures have an enormous impact on decision making, [I]especially[/I] if decision making is deterministic. Law/punishment to facilitate retribution is indeed meaningless, but as a means of reward/determent it does plenty. The problem is that free will is just a badly formed concept. Decision making always bottoms out as a deterministic system (or if not that, an indeterministic system based on elements of randomness, which makes you even less culpable for what you do). Even if you can will to will a certain way, and even if you can will to will to will a certain way, whatever your will is at the top is completely explained in terms of a system. We grow up with this idea of each person being a completely free agent, but this isn't healthy or conducive or even true. Everything is, essentially (and I mean that in the strong philosophical sense), inseparable from everything else. If we want a more correct worldview, you need to approach morality/justice/culpability with this in mind. It's funny, when you first hear Hindu/Buddhist ideas about unity and compassion, it's easy to shrug it off as incredibly twee and trite, but really it's just a reflection on the interdependence of everything, and compassion is just the consequence of that. Why would you hold acts against other human beings when they're no more in control of their actions than you are (which, after a little meditation you'll understand, is not at all)? Gone kinda off-topic for some but in my own mind I can't separate the argument of free will with ideas of interdependence/unity.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46644587]But this just isn't true; the external pressures have an enormous impact on decision making, [I]especially[/I] if decision making is deterministic. Law/punishment to facilitate retribution is indeed meaningless, but as a means of reward/determent it does plenty. [/QUOTE] An individual has no will in a deterministic system, and therefore, in such a system, there is no decision being made on both the part of the individual breaking the law and the individual enforcing the law. The concept of reward/deterrent is inherently subjective, and cannot truly exist in a deterministic system, as subjectivity is dependent on individual will.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;46646764]An individual has no will in a deterministic system, and therefore, in such a system, there is no decision being made on both the part of the individual breaking the law and the individual enforcing the law. The concept of reward/deterrent is inherently subjective, and cannot truly exist in a deterministic system, as subjectivity is dependent on individual will.[/QUOTE] it depends on the type of determinism you follow. Determinism isn't one idea or one hypothesis. It's multiple different approaches to the problem. Dennets recent approach to Deterministic free will is interesting and deviates substantially from what you're calling determinism. Even Harris's interpretation of it isn't the same as the one you're mocking here.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;46646764]The concept of reward/deterrent is inherently subjective, and cannot truly exist in a deterministic system, as subjectivity is dependent on individual will.[/QUOTE] I don't mean anything particularly philosophically interesting, by reward/deterrent; all I'm saying is that, even though there is no free will, saying I'll kill you if you do X, Y, Z has a pretty huge impact on your decision making process. There doesn't have to be free will for law/punishment to have an effect.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;46644242]In such a world, the act of holding people responsible for their actions is just as deterministic as the actions of the people who break the law. Each set of actions makes as much "sense" as the other in such a system. I don't see how you can justify punishment for breaking the law as being "silly".[/QUOTE] I agree completely. It's extremely difficult to use words at all to truly describe the state of an absolutely deterministic universe and how it relates to people since all of our understanding of people comes form the illusion of free will, personhood, and self-consciousness. With that said, I'm religious, as I'm sure you all know, and in my opinion the issue of free will is the single most difficult to answer question within the religious worldview. As such, I've done a lot of thinking on it and have come to what I think of as an interesting conclusions: There's no measurable difference between a universe in which free will truly exists and a universe with the absolute illusion of free will exists. Let us say that we somehow were able to create a universe where all physics of the brain were replaced with an entity that truly had free will, with everything else in the universe staying constant. Would we really be able to tell the difference? I don't believe so. Relative to our perspective we DO have free will and whether it is an illusion or not is irrelevant because it would change nothing. [editline]5th December 2014[/editline] It's similar to someone living in the Matrix. If a person lives their entire life within the Matrix with no idea that it's an illusion, then did they live any less of a life than a person living outside the Matrix? I don't believe so. A perfect illusion is not differentiable from the real thing.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;46640780]The way I look at it is roughly like this; Imagine we got a historian from a possible world which as free will, and thus responsibility. We ask him to give us a history of person x on his version of the world. He describes the life and decisions of person x, and what they amount to. If we were then to place him in his own past, during the life of person x, would that then invalidate his free will or ability to choose or his ability to be blamed by his peers? I think not. Knowlege of a destiny does not negate the possibility of free will, it is just an epistemic position in relation to your free will, assuming that yolo. To wish to say you could have done otherwise is nonsense be cause you have already not done otherwise. At any point, even in the life of a theoretically free person, someone could ask if they could have done otherwise. It is a fruitless question.[/QUOTE] Well fair enough, but we know that in certain cases the threat of punishment cannot deter the crime and never does. For instance, spontaneous violence (somebody finds their partner cheating on them and kills them on the spot (yes I have remembered Minority Report in this context don't bring it up), or somebody is heavily intoxicated and gets into a fight, failing to measure their strength and killing somebody). It would be also unfair to punish convicted terrorist (mind me, I don't mean if some get killed in combat, that's not punishment but means of stopping immediate danger) who got recruited by their peers/family because they are usually going into the deal with the understanding they are going to die, and jailing them indefinitely on gitmo isn't a threat they are really going to consider. So, can you agree then that only solely the punishments that can have either corrective character or ones that can keep people from doing planned crimes make sense?
i think asimov's psycho-history (which later would influence sociology) has a good sumation, in the grand scheme of things, we can identify trends and at a macroscopic scale, see what a large enough group of people will do, but when it comes to individuals we cannot predict what they will or won't do. now he never wrote that with the massive amounts of survalence and data-extrapolation that are present today in mind, but still we can't predict exactly what is going through someone's mind, and the action of trying to predict what someone will do will inevatibly change the outcome.in this way we are still truely free to act because we cannot be measured without a change in our response, plus there's also the element of spontaneous crime that can never be predicted either. as for if we are ever truely free from our body or circumstances, i would like to think that for as many decisions that are motivated by the self, there has to be an equal amount motivated by our own character, otherwise how would people ever progress out of poverty and their own social paterns. theres plenty of cases where people are raised in the OP's conditions but they grow up to be extremely altruistic, which has to be due to some inherent character, since they wouldn't have learned that behavior.
I think everything is deterministic but with a complexity beyond our current (or even potential) understanding. Like having an old school peer to peer networked game, everyone starts at the same time and shares moves updating the state of the game, if you join late though it was, at the time, beyond our power to resync. For us to know such things we would need to know the position and velocity of every particle and the state of all energy simultaneously, then have the ability to process all of that data fast enough to bete able to analyse the results and aquire the wanted information before the event you were seeking happened in the first place. Good luck with that. As for the morality, this would be an argument for prevention and rehabilitation, rather than punishment, with respect to law and order. Stop wasting time and money with punishment (look at reoffending rates) and start fixing problems. The argument against all this requires the existance of true randomness, physicists have stated this is possible but I personally think it is a bit of a cop out to state something is random when you don't know everything about it, like a child saying a random number generator on their parent's computer is random. It then comes down to belief and if you trust physicists have the ability to correctly make such statements. [editline]12th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;46640780]The way I look at it is roughly like this; Imagine we got a historian from a possible world which as free will, and thus responsibility. We ask him to give us a history of person x on his version of the world. He describes the life and decisions of person x, and what they amount to. If we were then to place him in his own past, during the life of person x, would that then invalidate his free will or ability to choose or his ability to be blamed by his peers? I think not. Knowlege of a destiny does not negate the possibility of free will, it is just an epistemic position in relation to your free will, assuming that yolo. To wish to say you could have done otherwise is nonsense be cause you have already not done otherwise. At any point, even in the life of a theoretically free person, someone could ask if they could have done otherwise. It is a fruitless question.[/QUOTE] You say this time traveling historian could exist or that someone could know their fate? Why base an argument on a false premise? I can prove anything I want using a false premise. eg "1+2 = 1 and god exists" => "god exists"
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46696435]The argument against all this requires the existance of true randomness, physicists have stated this is possible but I personally think it is a bit of a cop out to state something is random when you don't know everything about it, like a child saying a random number generator on their parent's computer is random. It then comes down to belief and if you trust physicists have the ability to correctly make such statements.[/QUOTE] Lemme throw this out there: I don't believe the "randomness" in quantum mechanics is truly random (I subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation right now) but it seems you don't quite understand the evidence for randomness. When this weird quantum randomness was first discovered, the immediate response was obvious: "we're just ignorant of the actual underlying laws!" But John Stewart Bell came up with inequalities that correlated measurements must satisfy in [I]any[/I] local realistic theory (i.e. a theory without faster-than-light communication, where measurements are determined before they are performed). Quantum entanglement violates these inequalities. Conclusion: reality is either non-local, or non-realistic. We have never seen non-local effects, and all of our theories (such as relativity, and even quantum mechanics itself!) predict that it doesn't happen. So we're forced to throw out realism. Many worlds gets around this requirement by throwing out something that I didn't mention instead, counterfactual definiteness.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.