More about free will

[Willamena]

If a, then b is a function. A function is a relationship.

Ah, mathematics. Thank you.

 

[Skwim]

The tao describes it a bit. The first thing was the if without any then. Everything now is the effect. The first thing to go "A, no B", was the first thing with intention. Not an intention like that of mind consciousness. Tao speaks of actionless action. Doing without will, going with the flow. Tao says such is the mystery of the beginnings.

Yet it does know that that the first thing was intention. I suspect that this Tao likes to wrap itself in conundrums to sound enigmatically wise.

 

[idav]

Yet it does know that that the first thing was intention. I suspect that this Tao likes to wrap itself in conundrums to sound enigmatically wise.

How does anything get from 'a' to 'b' without any sort of intention or set course? We likely can't prove whether b is intended or random.

 

[Willamena]

And why do they have to be observed things. This is a very curious restriction you've saddled it with.

Because we cannot rationally make relational claims about unobserved things.

 

[Skwim]

How does anything get from 'a' to 'b' without any sort of intention or set course?

Determinism does say anything about something getting from A to B, although it may say that A causes B.

 

[Skwim]

Because we cannot rationally make relational claims about unobserved things.

In philosophy, the arena of the determinism v. freewill battle, it's done all the time.

 

[idav]

Determinism does say anything about something getting from A to B, although it may say that A causes B.

So from the looks of it, there is an 'A' out there without cause or intention. Everything else... is with cause.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not sure what you mean by "meaningful," but like it or not the fact remains that you can nothing other than what you're caused to do. The only other option is that what you do is absolutely random, you do things willy-nilly, which, of course, is certainly not compatible with the notion of freewil.:

Yeah, I'm not really sure what it is that you think I'm saying, but, however you want to say it, if you can only do what you're caused to do, then the jury has no more input over those causes then the murderer, so talk of whether to hold murderers responsible or not for their actions is a non-issue since the jury will do what it is caused to do, just like the murderer.

 

[Willamena]

In philosophy, the arena of the determinism v. freewill battle, it's done all the time.

Probably not as much as you think.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, I'm not really sure what it is that you think I'm saying, but, however you want to say it, if you can only do what you're caused to do, then the jury has no more input over those causes then the murderer, so talk of whether to hold murderers responsible or not for their actions is a non-issue since the jury will do what it is caused to do, just like the murderer.

Yup.

Good catch. The murder couldn't help murdering just like the jury couldn't help coming up with the verdict it did.

 

[Skwim]

Probably not as much as you think.

Which has nothing to do with the issue, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless.

 

[Willamena]

Yup.

Good catch. The murder couldn't help murdering just like the jury couldn't help coming up with the verdict it did.

Do you realise that that lends no purpose to having a jury?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Do you realise that that lends no purpose to having a jury?

No purpose at all. Only necessity.

 

[Willamena]

No purpose at all. Only necessity.

I am skeptical that a jury capable of taking meaningless input and deriving a meaningless judgement is a necessity.

 

[Skwim]

Do you realise that that lends no purpose to having a jury?

Sure it does. Without a jury no action would take place as to the fate of the murderer. The jury is a manifestation of the causes that came together to create it. Thing is, none of this can be helped. We will all do as we are caused whether it makes sense or not.

 

[Curious George]

Sure it does. Without a jury no action would take place as to the fate of the murderer. The jury is a manifestation of the causes that came together to create it. Thing is, none of this can be helped. We will all do as we are caused whether it makes sense or not.

That sounds like a s-t--r---e---t--c-h. Isn't the murder also a manifestation of the causes that came together to create it? That hardly asserts a purpose for a jury. If we are locked in step, then guilty and not guilty are irrelevant. Hence, no purpose for a jury. But that doesn't matter either because even if they are irrelevant they have no choice to be there or not.

Why assume causality and not freewill?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I am skeptical that a jury capable of taking meaningless input and deriving a meaningless judgement is a necessity.

And yet, math and science conclude this.

 

[Skwim]

That sounds like a s-t--r---e---t--c-h. Isn't the murder also a manifestation of the causes that came together to create it?

Yes it is.

That hardly asserts a purpose for a jury.

In a very real sense you're right. None of life appears to have any real purpose, either on a personal level or an any kind of "grand scheme of things" level.

If we are locked in step, then guilty and not guilty are irrelevant. Hence, no purpose for a jury. But that doesn't matter either because even if they are irrelevant they have no choice to be there or not.

Correct. They are only relevant within the contextual illusion we operate under. (I know "contextual illusion" sounds like double talk, but at present it's the best way I can put it.)

Why assume causality and not freewill?

Because freewill, sort of a metaphysical doctrine, assumes a capability that has never been shown to exist, whereas cause/effect has.

 

[Willamena]

Sure it does. Without a jury no action would take place as to the fate of the murderer. The jury is a manifestation of the causes that came together to create it. Thing is, none of this can be helped. We will all do as we are caused whether it makes sense or not.

Well, at least that last sentence denotes the world as it currently is.

 

[Curious George]

Yes it is.

In a very real sense you're right. None of life appears to have any real purpose, either on a personal level or an any kind of "grand scheme of things" level.

Correct. They are only relevant within the contextual illusion we operate under. (I know "contextual illusion" sounds like double talk, but at present it's the best way I can put it.)

Because freewill, sort of a metaphysical doctrine, assumes a capability that has never been shown to exist, whereas cause/effect has.

Cause and effect is only shown to exist when one assumes cause and effect exist. Arguing for determinism is like arguing for God. You cannot get to causality without an assumption. Now I understand that such inductive reasoning is a necessity, but so too is freewill or at least the illusion of freewill.

While it may be possible to chase causation down to a quantum level, it has yet to be done. Yet, for some reason control or at least the illusion of control has evolved in some species. If control is irrelevant, how is the illusion beneficial?