Materialism and Consciousness.

[Ayatollah So]

Consider how legal punishment would use your term? Can we send anyone to jail any more? Can we continue to beleive in "evil" crimes that warrant the death penalty or life imprisonment? Why would these questions be decided democratically, anyway?

Well to start with, my conception of free will includes something that WillJ hasn't emphasized so far, namely rationality/intelligence. A high degree of rationality and intelligence is conducive to free will. This includes imagining various actions and their likely results, evaluating them, and implementing one of the best plans.

I think my conception fits extremely well with actual legal practice. That's why the insanity defense focuses on either the defendant not knowing right from wrong (he cannot evaluate the actions), or having psychophysical compulsions like Tourette's syndrome (he cannot implement the plan which he knows is best, in particular he cannot refrain from using foul and abusive language).

 

[cgannon64]

Well to start with, my conception of free will includes something that WillJ hasn't emphasized so far, namely rationality/intelligence. A high degree of rationality and intelligence is conducive to free will. This includes imagining various actions and their likely results, evaluating them, and implementing one of the best plans.

I'm not sure that this changes much. After all, there is nothing irrational about crime. Plenty of clever people execute it, and they execute it well.

But, regardless, I think the point I made to WillJ stands: How can you cause people suffering for what they, essentially, have no control over?

I think my conception fits extremely well with actual legal practice. That's why the insanity defense focuses on either the defendant not knowing right from wrong (he cannot evaluate the actions), or having psychophysical compulsions like Tourette's syndrome (he cannot implement the plan which he knows is best, in particular he cannot refrain from using foul and abusive language).

Another important aspect of legal practice is 'intent'. The meaning of 'intent' is pretty wrapped-up in the older, non-materialist conception of free will. What is the difference between a crime planned out beforehand, and a crime done in a moment of passion, if both are uncontrolled by a person's free will? The only difference is the length with which their desires were focused on crime. Does someone who unintentionaly desired to commit a crime for months deserve more punishment than someone who unintentionally desired to commit it for a few seconds?

 

[CartesianFart]

Nagel is just making the mistake which I corrected in post #410

That is, he assumes that a separate conception of subjective events implies that the events themselves are separate.

Be careful Ayatollah.Are you willingly to stand by this,if so,then you have made an erroneous interpretation by subjecting yourself to an Ockham's razor.Of course Ockham's razor never seen the rise of science,but it doesn't mean i can't use this principle as an analogy.

And i will tell you this in a few simple details:

When i tell you what i think,i am not transferring thoughts to you.I do not lose them when i tell them.I express what i think ,and for you to understand,you need to not think what i think,or have the same thought as i.You may need to know what i think and to say it,but not to have the thought or think it.

Sounds Wittgensteinian,doesn't it?

The thing is,Ayatollah is that solipsism is inevitable and every general knowledge of the conciousness,whether it be the materialist or the Idealist position,is incredulous.That is what going on since the 20th century of philosophy till today.Metaphysics is dead.Only the study of language of Science is the only role that philosophers should be doing.The rest is just junk.

 

[El_Machinae]

How can you cause people suffering for what they, essentially, have no control over?

If they have no control over their desire, then I have no control over my desire to live in a crime-free world (and thus, I will take steps to reduce the criminal impulse).

Your question is strange, because you're asking "how can you choose to punish, if they have no choice?". Of course there's a conflict of paradigms there.

In addition, we do struggle with this. If we come up with a 'cure' for criminal behaviour (I'm thinking something more modern that Clockwork Orange), are we justified in incarcerating 'cured' criminals? Maybe, but only from a deterrence perspective.

 

[cgannon64]

If they have no control over their desire, then I have no control over my desire to live in a crime-free world (and thus, I will take steps to reduce the criminal impulse).

Your question is strange, because you're asking "how can you choose to punish, if they have no choice?". Of course there's a conflict of paradigms there.

I understand that. But being someone trapped by language, I have no way of expressing what I want to say without acting like, well, I want to say it.

But anyway, I think my point still stands, and your rejoinder is a little semantic - valid semantics, perhaps, but annoying. (Cuz you know you could do that forever, since our whole discussion is loaded with this free will-assuming language...)

In addition, we do struggle with this. If we come up with a 'cure' for criminal behaviour (I'm thinking something more modern that Clockwork Orange), are we justified in incarcerating 'cured' criminals? Maybe, but only from a deterrence perspective.

I was going to edit my post to include something about this. Indeed, I think the only justifiable purpose for jail under this new free will system would be to reform criminals - and our current prison system is woefully inadequate at doing that, especially because it acts as if the person has a moral conscience and free will, and can use both to 'reform' - think of the activity involved in that word! - their own behavior.

 

[El_Machinae]

Jail can conform people (it's just not very good at it). You'll note that I've already incorporated some of my views regarding the Justice System with my views on Materialism.

I believe that people will always do what they perceive is best for them. Because of some types of intelligence, some people have more success than others (mainly, understanding of long-term consequences). The Justice System will put pressure on people to factor in their future suffering, hopefully enough to prevent them from being criminals. In addition, through suffering, we help people develop their understanding of consequences (much like you can train a child to have more self-control over time).

The criminal will always do what's best for him, society just changes many of the options, and changes the cost/benefit factors.

Regarding your concept of First Cause - I must admit I've never thought about it from a morality perspective (I seemingly give Life the ability to change its environment, instead of being wholly subject to it ... I'm just not looking deep enough, as you've shown). I once read an interesting article that talked about how all the 'detail and diversity' in our universe must have been caused by minor (and totally undetectable, or even unpredictable) differences in the Big Bang. i.e., there were differences in the Initial Point that must have existed (though they would be so small, we currenlty would not think they exist) in order for all the diversity to exist now.

BTW, I'm really enjoying (most of) this thread

 

[punkbass2000]

Good god. How is it I go to work for, perhaps, 12 hours, and come back to pages of lengthy posts.

BTW, what is a "poorman Heraclitus"?

 

[CartesianFart]

I won't tell you. Unless you never heard of him,then look him up.Maybe you can agrue that you are not.But rest assure that you will be convinced of this truth.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're not saying "Define poorman Heraclitus" are you, sir?

 

[punkbass2000]

"Gotta love this guy he says it's all so simple but science can't explain how any of the bahviours work in animals at the fundemental level at any level but it's all so simple."

So, then, if Science can't explain something it isn't simple?

 

[punkbass2000]

You're not saying "Define poorman Heraclitus" are you, sir?

No. I recognize the name as an ancient philosopher (pre-Socratic, I would guess). I don't really know what CartesianFart means when says I'm a poor one.

 

[punkbass2000]

Thomas Kuhn(i highly agree with this view) said that scientists are more like religious believers than neutral investigators,and their science is mediated by the rarely questioned central "paradigms" of their community.

I think I tried to argue that once except I phrased it as "Science is a Religion" and then Gothmog kicked my cyber-a$$

 

[El_Machinae]

I recently got into a debate regarding whether science was a religion. I agree that it has elements of faith, but doesn't fit all the requirements.

 

[punkbass2000]

I vaguely remember that paper, and how creepy it was. Though not nearly as creeped out as the people who were in the experiment!

Yeah. There's a fair bit of evidence that there's a whole section of the brain that is primarily concerned with "keeping a good story running", so to speak. It's quite interesting, I think. It's not something that can really be proven, but there's a fair number of experiments as well as case studies which suggest rationalization is all we've got. Either that, or time runs backwards

 

[Birdjaguar]

Good god. How is it I go to work for, perhaps, 12 hours, and come back to pages of lengthy posts.

BTW, what is a "poorman Heraclitus"?

Here is a link and a sampler.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/HERAC.HTM

FRAGMENT 50
(quoted in Hippolytus, Refutations )
Listening to the Logos rather than to me, it is wise to agree that all things are in reality one thing and one thing only.

FRAGMENT 10
(quoted in Aristotle, On the World )
Things which are put together 1are both whole and not whole, brought together and taken apart, in harmony and out of harmony; one thing arises from all things, and all things arise from one thing.

 

[punkbass2000]

I recently got into a debate regarding whether science was a religion. I agree that it has elements of faith, but doesn't fit all the requirements.

Well, yeah, as I say, I surrendered to Gothmog. In short, the idea of Science is not a religion, but it becomes one in practice most of the time.

 

[punkbass2000]

Here is a link and a sampler.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/HERAC.HTM

Yeah, I would largely agree with the quotes you provided.

 

[punkbass2000]

Nonsense.Punky is a poorman Heraclitus.Unless he beg to differ.

I guess I don't really understand what it means here, though. How does my Heraclitusness affect your willingness to links I post?

 

[punkbass2000]

No individual persuit of truth in here.

If that's what you seek, why are you at a discussion forum? Not a particularly formal one, either. Do you know of IIDB?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do you know of IIDB?

So on target PB. It is a great site for heavy weight discussion.