Responsibility without freewill

[bobhikes]

Why did you make the "choice" you did? Was it a completely random event or was there a cause behind it? If there was a cause event behind it could you have done otherwise? Of course not. You had to do what you were caused to do. And what generated this specific reaching-for-the-red-shirt event, a prior random event or did it too have a cause. Off course it had a cause---random events only happen at the quantum level. And so on back down the chain of causes/effect events. Each cause determining the next event, and only that event, which in turn became the cause of the following event, and so on until the moment of cause→Event of reaching-for-the-red-shirt. You were caused to reach for the red shirt because the sequence of cause/events leading up to that moment were what they were and not something else. For you to have reached for the blue shirt something in this chain would have had to be different, BUT THEY WEREN'T, so you had to reach for the red shirt.

There may be apparent options, but there are no true choices, or choosing.

How is that the majority of causes support the growth of life. Is there a guiding force. Are causes all designed to create and support life. For life to exist at least 51% of causes have to support life on earth. I would suspect far more. Why isn't it equal through out the universe.

It seems odd that causes would keep life around as long as it has on earth when we can't find it anywhere else in the universe.

 

[Skwim]

How is that the majority of causes support the growth of life. Is there a guiding force.

Not that I'm aware of. It's crap shoot as far as I can tell. Perhaps there are a million planets just like ours (right size, right distance from their "sun," with an oxygen atmosphere, etc., et.) that for one reason or not had its life snuffed out, or never got started. Maybe there only 10 planets in our galaxy that are supporting life, maybe 10 thousand. All we can really say is that, so far we know of one: Earth.

Are causes all designed to create and support life. For life to exist at least 51% of causes have to support life on earth. I would suspect far more. Why isn't it equal through out the universe.

Maybe it is equal, maybe it isn't. Why assume one or the other?

It seems odd that causes would keep life around as long as it has on earth when we can't find it anywhere else in the universe.

One source estimates there are two-to-three trillion planets in our galaxy alone. And we've looked at how many? A mere speck.

 

[bobhikes]

Not that I'm aware of. It's crap shoot as far as I can tell. Perhaps there are a million planets just like ours (right size, right distance from their "sun," with an oxygen atmosphere, etc., et.) that for one reason or not had its life snuffed out, or never got started. Maybe there only 10 planets in our galaxy that are supporting life, maybe 10 thousand. All we can really say is that, so far we know of one: Earth.

Maybe it is equal, maybe it isn't. Why assume one or the other?

One source estimates there are two-to-three trillion planets in our galaxy alone. And we've looked at how many? A mere speck.

Why can't it be equal well first that would means cause is random. Second I am talking original life. For original life to take, cause had to align specifically to not wipe it out. For the first million years of life any random cause could have ended it all and to be honest unless it specifically wanted life should of.

Yes we have only looked at a mere spec and yet your positive about causality. You can never know the exact cause chain of any thing you do but you know that chain exists. Why simply because it must.

 

[Skwim]

Why can't it be equal well first that would means cause is random. Second I am talking original life. For original life to take, cause had to align specifically to not wipe it out. For the first million years of life any random cause could have ended it all and to be honest unless it specifically wanted life should of.

Yup. But maybe abiogenesis is quite common among hospitable planets---it's the norm---and adverse conditions are very rare. Maybe life-friendly planets are just that: friendly. We just don't know.

Yes we have only looked at a mere spec and yet your positive about causality.

The only other option is utter randomness. And I have yet to see anything materialize out of randomness. Have you? Events have a cause. They don't simply *poof* into being out of nowhere.

You can never know the exact cause chain of any thing you do but you know that chain exists. Why simply because it must.

The alternative, utter randomness, fails because it has yet to make itself known.*


​

* Some possible quantum events not withstanding

 

[Willamena]

You can have responsibility in the sense that you, and no one else, committed the act. I, and no one else, picked up the rock and threw it. So I, and no one else, am responsible for breaking the window. As for assigning blame or praise, that's a whole other kettle of crawdads.

Being the sole instance of something isn't what makes for responsibility. Ownership of ego makes for responsibility ("I did that. That was me."). Everything conscious being does is a choice.

Being the sole instance of something beyond your control surrenders responsibility to those circumstances that dictate their successors ("It did it, not me."). Things done to us are not by choice.

 

[dust1n]

There's obviously no ontological responsibility. Being called upon to do something is a human affair. This is independent whether free will exists or not. Or, at most, the lack of responsibility precludes a lack of free will. What is free will if actions hold no weight?

 

[bobhikes]

Yup. But maybe abiogenesis is quite common among hospitable planets---it's the norm---and adverse conditions are very rare. Maybe life-friendly planets are just that: friendly. We just don't know.

The only other option is utter randomness. And I have yet to see anything materialize out of randomness. Have you? Events have a cause. They don't simply *poof* into being out of nowhere.

The alternative, utter randomness, fails because it has yet to make itself known.*


​

* Some possible quantum events not withstanding

You forget about balance all one needs is a scale. If perfectly balanced anything can shift it. Once it is shifted even slightly one can make a decision. Change is the only constant and constantly shifting the scales. Cause is Logically looking backwards for a pattern. In other words, it always was caused but it is always changing. Change is usually random but can be caused through intelligence. It is why life prospered. Life can cause change.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why did you make the "choice" you did? Was it a completely random event or was there a cause behind it? If there was a cause event behind it could you have done otherwise? Of course not. You had to do what you were caused to do. And what generated this specific reaching-for-the-red-shirt event, a prior random event or did it too have a cause. Off course it had a cause---random events only happen at the quantum level. And so on back down the chain of causes/effect events. Each cause determining the next event, and only that event, which in turn became the cause of the following event, and so on until the moment of cause→Event of reaching-for-the-red-shirt. You were caused to reach for the red shirt because the sequence of cause/events leading up to that moment were what they were and not something else. For you to have reached for the blue shirt something in this chain would have had to be different, BUT THEY WEREN'T, so you had to reach for the red shirt.

There may be apparent options, but there are no true choices, or choosing.

I really think this is merely a possibility...not an absolute fact. There is the apparent existence of options, and rationale by which we make the 'choices', so from just basic observation, we sort of have to assume freewill at least in the parameters of available options. I would say also that 'no freewill' idea seems to be purporting a 'set reality', which pre-exists our decisions, another problem imo.

 

[Straw Dog]

After reading through I still fail to see how you can have responsibility without out freedom of will.

I don't know. Still trying to figure that one out myself.

It was pointed out in a different discussion that it doesn't really matter whether we have free will or we are totally predetermined because, practically speaking, we still have to decide what to do. Every new moment requires reevaluation. Both fate and freedom are useless outside our little thought experiments. It's what we actually do that defines us.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't know. Still trying to figure that one out myself.

It was pointed out in a different discussion that it doesn't really matter whether we have free will or we are totally predetermined because, practically speaking, we still have to decide what to do. Every new moment requires reevaluation. Both fate and freedom are useless outside our little thought experiments. It's what we actually do that defines us.

Predetermination is not exactly causation, it has been linked to free will for me falls somewhere between the two.

Causation, fate and freedom are useless to our actions or our definitions but very much important for societies rules. How is a criminal judged that is caused, fated or choose his path. Are you confined to a caste system? Homosexuality, Bigotry, Feminism plus more all are effected by how society see's if people choose or not.

 

[Skwim]

After reading through I still fail to see how you can have responsibility without out freedom of will.

I don't know. Still trying to figure that one out myself.

Think of it this way, gents. A tornado doesn't have this freewill you talk about, but it can stll be responsible for the damage it causes. It only did what it was caused to do.
The same with humans. We only do what we are caused to do. We may think we choose to do A rather than B or C, but the fact is the chain of cause/events leading up to the moment of doing inexorably led to A. The only way B or C could have happened is if something in that chain of cause/events had been different. But in as much as there wasn't any such "something," A had to transpire. You "chose" A because all those neural events in your brain leading up to the "doing" terminated at A. You could do no differently than what your neurons directed you to do. And each of these neural events had to have been the result of a chain of cause/event episodes themselves. Our neural synapse do not fire randomly but because . . . . . . . and the "cause" in "because" is quite telling. It tells us that something is pushing toward an effect, the event, which in turn becomes the cause of another event.

The choosing you see yourself doing was already determined by the sequence of cause/event episodes leading up to the moment of doing. If we had the capability, we could predict exactly what you would "choose" to do. . .and without fail.

 

[Straw Dog]

Predetermination is not exactly causation, it has been linked to free will for me falls somewhere between the two.

Causation, fate and freedom are useless to our actions or our definitions but very much important for societies rules. How is a criminal judged that is caused, fated or choose his path. Are you confined to a caste system? Homosexuality, Bigotry, Feminism plus more all are effected by how society see's if people choose or not.

I see your point and explains why we still feel a need to address it in society. It's a complicated case, a lot of ins, a lot of outs... I don't see the ambiguity subsiding anytime soon. It's all a matter of asserting perspectives. How can we prove anything? Science? Psychology??

 

[Skwim]

Predetermination is not exactly causation,

No, it's the result of it.

Causation, fate and freedom are useless to our actions or our definitions but very much important for societies rules. How is a criminal judged that is caused, fated or choose his path. Are you confined to a caste system? Homosexuality, Bigotry, Feminism plus more all are effected by how society see's if people choose or not.

Don't beg the question. Just because freewill is necessary to validate these concepts doesn't validate freewill itself. And I don't deny that without the notion of freewill running our lives we might be in one hell of a mess, but this too doesn't validate it. The only thing that will validate freewill is to show how it operates free of prior cause. If uncaused then it must an utterly random operation. And I don't think anyone wants to claim that what we do are acts of utter randomness.

 

[bobhikes]

The choosing you see yourself doing was already determined by the sequence of cause/event episodes leading up to the moment of doing. If we had the capability, we could predict exactly what you would "choose" to do. . .and without fail.

The truth of it is is that you can't and you never will be able to predict exactly anything.

I can prove you have to choose yet you can't even prove why I was caused to write a single letter on this page or why you will or will not respond.

Once it is done you still can't prove the exact reasons it was done and you never will because everything has changed, is changing and will continue to change in random and non-random way's.

 

[Straw Dog]

I don't feel like my will is free, just flexible. Does that matter?

 

[Skwim]

The truth of it is is that you can't and you never will be able to predict exactly anything.

Never said I could or will. Predictability has absolutely nothing to do with determinism: the cause/effect operation.

I can prove you have to choose

Not to my satisfaction you won't.

yet you can't even prove why I was caused to write a single letter on this page or why you will or will not respond.

Okay.

Once it is done you still can't prove the exact reasons it was done and you never will because everything has changed, is changing and will continue to change in random and non-random way's.

In "random . . .ways" Else wise, Okay.

I don't feel like my will is free, just flexible. Does that matter?

Heck no. I go through each day with the illusion that I have freewill, even though intellectually I know I don't. I I have no choice in the matter.

 

[s2a]

I don't feel like my will is free, just flexible. Does that matter?

I suppose it depends upon whether you wish (or hope) that your "will" is your own, or if "will" is simply a delusion afforded by a "god" that has already predetermined your outcome despite whatever choices you make.

If you like that idea, pray to that "god".

If not, determine your own outcomes.

Let's face it.

You either believe (and then accept) that you retain NO control (being preordained no matter what choices you make). You are but a vessel of your "god".

Or, you live as if NO "god(s)" exert any control over any of your choices. NONE.

Your call.

 

[Willamena]

Think of it this way, gents. A tornado doesn't have this freewill you talk about, but it can stll be responsible for the damage it causes. It only did what it was caused to do.

Right. A tornado doesn't own an ego.

The same with humans. We only do what we are caused to do.

When we are tornadoes, yes, but otherwise, we do own our egos.

We may think we choose to do A rather than B or C, but the fact is the chain of cause/events leading up to the moment of doing inexorably led to A. The only way B or C could have happened is if something in that chain of cause/events had been different. But in as much as there wasn't any such "something," A had to transpire. You "chose" A because all those neural events in your brain leading up to the "doing" terminated at A. You could do no differently than what your neurons directed you to do. And each of these neural events had to have been the result of a chain of cause/event episodes themselves. Our neural synapse do not fire randomly but because . . . . . . . and the "cause" in "because" is quite telling. It tells us that something is pushing toward an effect, the event, which in turn becomes the cause of another event.

Alternately, we are faced with options A, B and C, and all the factors and conditions present with us (the owned ego) in the moment of consciousness. We choose A by whatever influences please us most at that moment.

What's that about Occam's Razor again?

The choosing you see yourself doing was already determined by the sequence of cause/event episodes leading up to the moment of doing. If we had the capability, we could predict exactly what you would "choose" to do. . .and without fail.

If it was the sequence that chose instead of us, that surrenders responsibility for the choice to that sequence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If there is no responsibility for our actions then that means there are no "consequences" but they will still happen the same regardless if there is free will or not. For example If I do something and I don't have "real" free will then I am not the one who was responsible for it. However neither is anyone else who reprimands me for it. It also makes it unavoidable. And all together the same as if we calculated our actions with free will intended.

 

[Skwim]

Right. A tornado doesn't own an ego.


When we are tornadoes, yes, but otherwise, we do own our egos.

I fail to see the relevance of ego to the issue.

Alternately, we are faced with options A, B and C, and all the factors and conditions present with us (the owned ego) in the moment of consciousness. We choose A by whatever influences please us most at that moment.

I'd like to reply, but cannot fathom the significance of this ego thing.

What's that about Occam's Razor again?

What about it? Are you thinking it's an imperative; all less complex explanations are best? And if you think a cause→ effect (cause)→ effect is more complicated than the idea of free will where both "will" and "free will" go begging for definition, think again. Explain how this freewill thing operates without cause. And if there is such a cause how it arises without cause, and how this cause arose with a cause, and so on back down the line.

If it was the sequence that chose instead of us, that surrenders responsibility for the choice to that sequence.

Yup.