Gay Nightclub mass shooting -- Orlando, Florida

[Siro]

Let's take this from the perspective of the serial killer. The thought enters his mind that he should go on a mass murder spree. He knows that he has no free will, therefore it is not really his decision whether or not he acts on this thought, so he is more like a casual observer who just watches himself act on this idea. He brutally murders 50 people, shattering scores of lives. He faces the consequences, just as you said, but so do all of the thousands of people impacted by his act.

Your system of morality of consequences is not better because the consequence is not a deterrent if you see it as inevitable. Your system of morality is much, much worse.

There is no "self" either in the way you describe.

There is no one observing anything. The actor and the observer are one and the same. The conscious and the subconscious are all part of the same thing.

I need to go soon, so i don't have time to further elaborate at the time, but I do have to bring up two points. First, we're talking about the nature of the world. It is what it is. If that does not make for satisfying morality, and I do think it does, then that's what it is. I'm not interested in believing something simply because it makes me feel better. Second, like I said before, subjective experience remains the same. Knowing that we have no free will does not change the fact that we feel like we do. We will still experience the world the way we do now. A serial killer can "choose" to/not to kill. No free choice was really made. His brain reached the choice thru its physical structure (shaped by history and genetics), and the choice was made known to the conscious part. What matters is that society in general do not want people killed, and will work to stop that. I don't see why belief in causality-transcendent animals are necessary for that.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There is no "self" either in the way you describe.

There is no one observing anything. The actor and the observer are one and the same. The conscious and the subconscious are all part of the same thing.

I need to go soon, so i don't have time to further elaborate at the time, but I do have to bring up two points. First, we're talking about the nature of the world. It is what it is. If that does not make for satisfying morality, and I do think it does, then that's what it is. I'm not interested in believing something simply because it makes me feel better. Second, like I said before, subjective experience remains the same. Knowing that we have no free will does not change the fact that we feel like we do. We will still experience the world the way we do now. A serial killer can "choose" to/not to kill. No free choice was really made. His brain reached the choice thru its physical structure (shaped by history and genetics), and the choice was made known to the conscious part. What matters is that society in general do not want people killed, and will work to stop that. I don't see why belief in causality-transcendent animals are necessary for that.

I'm sure you'll agree that any input into the brain is going to have an impact on the "decision" that the individual believes that they make. To continue with the example from above, if one of the inputs into the brain of a potential killer is, "I have no free will," I believe it would have a higher likelihood of leading to a negative outcome than the alternative. In fact, it would be akin to what we currently see as a mental illness. They could probably even successfully plead insanity if they claimed this as a defense.

Our argument has become circular, though. I see your logic and understand why you believe it's correct. I simply don't think that it can be proven, and I believe that we are far better off with morality based on free choice.

 

[NAOS]

Siro has gone of the deep end, zen-style.

 

[Hekate]

This is absurd.

 

[♪alt13]

@ siro

The brain is a meat computer. Correct?

What we call the mind seems to be governed by the brain. Correct?

That meat computer makes decisions based on it's current state. Correct?

Particles that are governed by quantum mechanics are an integral part of defining that state. Correct?

Those particles exist as a wave function until measured observed. Correct?

In essence the mind exist in multiple States until observed by itself. Correct?

(Insert Twilight Zone gif)

Can we say anything with certainty about a system(the mind) that seems to be toeing the line between both classical and quantum mechanics when we still haven't a United Theory of the two? I would agree that free will seems to be on Shaky Ground but I'm not sure if physics has yet given us a satisfactory answer to the question.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Siro acid posting

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Siro acid posting

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Lol

 

[NAOS]

Siro acid posting

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

*bad acid.
Or, like I suggested, a bad brush with Zen Buddhism.

 

[Siro]

@ siro

The brain is a meat computer. Correct?

What we call the mind seems to be governed by the brain. Correct?

That meat computer makes decisions based on it's current state. Correct?

Particles that are governed by quantum mechanics are an integral part of defining that state. Correct?

Those particles exist as a wave function until measured observed. Correct?

In essence the mind exist in multiple States until observed by itself. Correct?

(Insert Twilight Zone gif)

Can we say anything with certainty about a system(the mind) that seems to be toeing the line between both classical and quantum mechanics when we still haven't a United Theory of the two? I would agree that free will seems to be on Shaky Ground but I'm not sure if physics has yet given us a satisfactory answer to the question.

That's not correct, no. The brain does not exist in a super-position or anything like that. The neural structure that governs computation is a macro object that exists in a coherent state. No quantum computations happen as far as I'm aware, altho I did read theories that some might be occurring. Regardless, let's assume that your picture is correct, and that the mind collapses upon interaction (and keep in mind that I'm giving you this, since it doesn't), it would still not allow for free will. The collapse would be random. So we're talking about choice being random, and not free at all.

Either way, most of what I got was arrogant responses by people who think they have it figured out. No serious suggestions at all of how this magical free will is supposed to work in a causal universe. Unless such paradigm is presented, there is no point in going on.

 

[addictionary]

That's not correct, no. The brain does not exist in a super-position or anything like that. The neural structure that governs computation is a macro object that exists in a coherent state. No quantum computations happen as far as I'm aware, altho I did read theories that some might be occurring. Regardless, let's assume that your picture is correct, and that the mind collapses upon interaction (and keep in mind that I'm giving you this, since it doesn't), it would still not allow for free will. The collapse would be random. So we're talking about choice being random, and not free at all.

Either way, most of what I got was arrogant responses by people who think they have it figured out. No serious suggestions at all of how this magical free will is supposed to work in a causal universe. Unless such paradigm is presented, there is no point in going on.

I was serious about free will being a sociopolitical concept and maybe you should stop criticizing it like it forces the laws of physics and existence.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That's not correct, no. The brain does not exist in a super-position or anything like that. The neural structure that governs computation is a macro object that exists in a coherent state. No quantum computations happen as far as I'm aware, altho I did read theories that some might be occurring. Regardless, let's assume that your picture is correct, and that the mind collapses upon interaction (and keep in mind that I'm giving you this, since it doesn't), it would still not allow for free will. The collapse would be random. So we're talking about choice being random, and not free at all.

Either way, most of what I got was arrogant responses by people who think they have it figured out. No serious suggestions at all of how this magical free will is supposed to work in a causal universe. Unless such paradigm is presented, there is no point in going on.

If you really believe these ideas that you are advancing then it makes no sense that you're upset or surprised at our responses. Our reactions do not reflect any free choice, after all.

On a side note, with regard to this issue I haven't seen anyone other than you who "thinks they have it figured out."

 

[addictionary]

If you really believe these ideas that you are advancing then it makes no sense that you're upset or surprised at our responses. Our reactions do not reflect any free choice, after all.

On a side note, with regard to this issue I haven't seen anyone other than you who "thinks they have it figured out."

I have no choice that I have free will. Can't help it.