because you are a bunch of neurons. A bunch of neurons controls what a bunch of neurons does (according to you)

The "bunch of neurons" called "you" deciding something IS controlling something--namely, the probability biases of the options available to you. — Terrapin Station

Ok phew. We're in agreement. But the language you use for it just seemed weird to me. Does the hot pan speed up the particles in it? No, the pan is hot because the particles are sped up. Do "you" control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of control.

as if you're something other than the "bunch of neurons," which isn't the case. — Terrapin Station

That's what it sounded like to me

Something like an electron interacting with another electron may very well control the probabilities that the second electron is in one state versus another. — Terrapin Station

Yes but it sounded to me like you said that "AND the system of 2 electrons may very well control the probabilities that the electrons are in one state rather than another in another effect exclusive to the first because voodoo magic"

Now. Where were we?

Ah yes. "With free will it's not something random". I'll just say this "With free will, one can control their choices."

At any rate, you're supposing that no physical stuff can control probability biases with respect to other physical stuff because? — Terrapin Station

I didn't say that. Just to confirm, if the bunch of neurons called "you" decides something, even though each neuron has its own life and is just interacting with the others. Did the "you" control the neurons?

I think we're in agreement but I don't like the way you use "control"

Imagine "you" as a house and individual neurons the bricks. Did the house "control" where the bricks were laid or what their colors were? Is it really fair to say that? I'd say the bricks controlled what the house looks like and the house in turn didn't do shit to the bricks.

It sounds to me you're saying the house changed the bricks somehow

Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control this — Terrapin Station

Oh my God.

Ok. What is "you" here? A subset of brain functions correct? This subset of brain functions is ultimately just a collection of neurons and other brain matter correct? How can you say that the emergent property "you" CONTROLS the lower level mechanisms?

That's like saying the water being hot causes the particles to have more kinetic energy. No, the particles having more kinetic energy causes the experience of heat. The experience of heat itself doesn't cause anything.

In the same way, the randomness (here defined as uncontrolled random interactions) result in conscious "you" but conscious "you" in turn doesn't cause anything to change about the neurons that make it up.

Another example is: putting bricks on top of each other in a specific way results in the creation of a house. However the creation of a house doesn't do anything to the bricks.

but those are not deterministic — Terrapin Station

Agreed

biased probabilities, etc., — Terrapin Station

Biased probabilities are still randomness no? As I said in the other thread, when I say random I don't mean equal chances of all options

then there's no distinction to be made — Terrapin Station

I agree. There is no distinction between free will and any other combination of physical interaction. Which are either random (biased or not) or deterministic

nothing in my comment implied determinism. And I'm not sure how not being a realist on physical laws helps.

how does "control" happen exactly? How are the neurons "controlled". "You feel like you control this but it's actually just like every other physical interaction" seems more accurate to me.

Say there was a neuron that has a 50% chance of firing at a particular instance. Explain to me how this chance is "controlled" just because the neuron happens to be in your brain.

I accept it is true that we feel like we have control. I don't understand what "control" could possibly mean ontologically. How can it happen?

And again--this is something else that I've had to repeat many times (which is incredibly annoying) when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a realist on physical laws. — Terrapin Station

All of this was unnecessary. You can't complain about writing more while taking the time to express your frustration from answering questions that haven't been asked.

Yes — Terrapin Station

And aren't all physical processes either deterministic or random?

biasing the possibilities is something that you do. You control this. — Terrapin Station

Yes. But isn't it also true that "you" is physical? According to you. Consciousness is just a subset of brain functions wasn't it?

yup

yes

Is a false premise because it assumes B is capable of deciding whether he agrees or disagrees — staticphoton

B becomes capable of deciding later no? Yet he still has to do the thing A told him to do, namely live

situation 1 does not exist. — staticphoton

Existence is riskier than non existence correct? In other words, more pleasure and more pain are at stake when it comes to existing than when not existing correct?

The biasing is not random--you don't have random contemplation about your possibilities. But it's not determined — Terrapin Station

Uhhhhh. Aren't you literally proposing the mystical third way of causation that we both said doesn't exist, this "free". Something is either ontologically determined or it is random. There is no room for "free" unless free means "not determined" in which case it means random. You said this yourself...

you don't have random contemplation — Terrapin Station

You do though... Sure it may not be equal chances for every thought but each thought has its chance and that's it.

It's not deterministic in that you're not forced to make a particular choice. — Terrapin Station

Yes. I agree. Where is the confusion here?

You asked:

So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? — Terrapin Station

Except it IS something random no?

Even you said in that thread that if something is not deterministic then it is random. So if free will is not deterministic then it is random no?

What don't you understand here: — Terrapin Station

But. You have different probabilities to do things before this biasing takes place no? And towards which of those this biasing takes place is not deterministic no?

I understand that the will is the thing that biases a decision to 100%. But which decision gets biased is random no? Of course it takes into account all your dispositions and past experiences and whatnot

What did you do when you read that explanation? — Terrapin Station

I read and apparently misunderstood it.

What do you mean "it's not something random"

Do you mean not equipotential? As in not the same probability?

So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? — Terrapin Station

Uhhhh. What? You mean it's not something deterministic? I thought your whole shtick was that free will is basically just an expression of the fact that chemical reactions aren't determinate in the quantum level

I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal? — Terrapin Station

No. It is not causal. I said so three times are you blind?

what's that period supposed to mean?

no (in case you didn't see the edit)

no

If it's indeterminate it's not causal — Terrapin Station

So I assume rigging a gun to shoot randomly by some indeterminate mechanism (say, random nuclear decay) and putting that in a public street is fine?

it isn't. I edited the comment a bit. As in X is the sound waves, C is the final result of the indeterminate mental processes in your brain.

It could be the case that without the input X, your free will would have indeterminstically gone another way right? A way that is not violent. I understand that in that case the causal chain isn't really a causal chain because there is an indeterminate process in the middle is that your objection?

It's ridiculous to think I was ever suggesting anything special about "things with single causes." — Terrapin Station

Ehhhhh I've heard crazier stuff.

Now. Say X is hate speech, Y is violence and C is the indeterminate brain functions that add up to free will

If X, A, B and C cause Y

Why shouldn't we ban X?

Are you saying X has absolutely no effect for causing Y? Aka it would never be there along A, B and C?

I don't you remember you doing so. So would B C and E all be punishable or what?

Above I wrote "'X makes y more likely' isn't a statement of causality" and "On my view only causality matters."

So why do I have to write both again a couple hours later — Terrapin Station

You didn't. You could've just said "yes that would be my objection" because that's exactly what I asked would be your objection

Now. Does this mean the ONLY way for something to be punishable for you is if it has a single cause and is not "co caused" by multiple things?

So if D is bad and

A=>D. Then A is punishable
B, C and E=> D. Now what? Are none of them punishable?

Fair. So if one were to empirically establish that hate speech increases the likely hood of violence wouldn't that be good grounds for banning it?

I assume your objection will be "but it's not a cause and only causes matter" correct?

so I assume one would have to "causally peg" not prove?

so one wouldn't need to prove that shooting people causes them to die in order to make it punishable?

I'm not saying anything at all about proof in any of these comments — Terrapin Station

What was the point of this quote then?

First, that wouldn't be possible, because empirical claims are not provable period. — Terrapin Station

alright then.

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

I removed the big bad word. Does this match the description of birth now?

First, that wouldn't be possible, because empirical claims are not provable period. — Terrapin Station

Shooting someone causes them to die is an empirical claim but we can't prove that so I guess shooting people is fine herpa derp.

Secondly, aside from proof, "X makes y more likely" isn't a statement of causality — Terrapin Station

No but X, A,B,C and D simultaneously cause Y is a statement of causality no? I'm saying X can be hate speech and Y violence

On my view only causality matters. — Terrapin Station

But you said before that multiple things can cause an event at the same time right? So if the event in question has multiple causes as such should individual causes be legally punishable?

If A B and C cause bad thing D then should someone who did A be punished if D happens?

Something should only be punishable if it has one cause only? A => D?

But other than food and shelter, that is what a born child needs, a nurturing parent that loves them and teaches them. They want nothing more, and neither does the parent. — staticphoton

Ok great. Not every parent succeeds at providing that even if they can. And not every child grows to be happy. So why take the risk? Give me a reason that does not depend on your valuation of human existence as your child might not share it


At this point we're just repeating the same arguments over and over. It's getting nowhere.

Just answer this: I asked this a while ago and you still haven't come up with a response

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

Because these are the scenarios of birth. If you can find one actual example we can start from there

And you're not getting the point that a newborn is incapable of choice because he doesn't yet understand what choice is. He will after you teach him. — staticphoton

When he grows up he might not agree with you.... I'm not claiming 3 year old Billie is gonna write a philosophical thesis on the meaninglessness of life

Again, reducing human life to a paper thin logic and ignoring the merits of human existence. — staticphoton

Again. Not getting the point that your child might not agree with you a about human existence having merit

Torturing your child means directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no, it is not ok. — staticphoton

Alright. How about putting them in a situation where they MIGHT get harmed. Say, leaving them in the middle of traffic. Is that ok?

You're gonna answer no (hopefully) so then you can see that just because someone or something isn't capable of consent that doesn't justify putting them in a scenario where they might get harmed does it?

They can't say no because they are not capable to understand the circumstances, not because you are robbing them of the choice. — staticphoton

I... Don't understand why the REASON they can't say no is relevant. You said

You are creating the problem. There is no such a thing as consent coming form being incapable of understanding what consent is. Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved. — staticphoton

So that means that consent is not an issue for young children. So then I asked whether or not it's ok to torture them. Please actually answer the question.

You are doing what you believe is good. You are preventing the child from existing because you believe it is best for him that way. — staticphoton

No. I am not benefiting anyone by not giving birth to them. I'm just making sure no one is harmed. Not having children is not "good" it's neutral. It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent.

Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved. — staticphoton

Does that make it ok to say, torture children because they can't say no? When consent isn't available you do the least harmful alternative no?

It is not forcing. I'm not taking the child out of unborn child limbo against his will and pushing him out into the mean bad world. — staticphoton

Fair point. Maybe it's not "forcing" but the fact that you have no consent to do it doesn't change. That's the real problem

Yes but preserving the human race and doing something to improve the world you live in is more important, a higher calling if you will, — staticphoton

Great. So go get em. Do it. But don't force others to do it.

To a great extent our needs include to be part of, to contribute in some way. Much more important than "it makes me feel good to help" is that your world/environment is becoming a better place because of it. — staticphoton

Don't you mean in your mind? You can't guarantee your child will be you

You call me selfish because I force my belief on someone who is not born yet.
I call you selfish because out of fear that one individual might experience suffering you are willing to ignore the need to improve mankind. — staticphoton

Explain to me how that is selfish. If I had such a desire, I would be sacrificing my own desire to not risk harming someone else. How is that selfish exactly?

Improving mankind involves a risk, and it is an endeavor that benefits the many sometimes at the expense of an individual. — staticphoton

Yes. But that individual has to choose to do it. Forcing someone to do something for the good of the many is not good. Especially when this "good of the many" is not actually the good of the many but your own values. You've shown me no evidence that the majority of people think as you do.

If the improvement of humanity means nothing to you, then I can understand why life would be meaningless. — staticphoton

It doesn't. But that's not the point. Even if it meant something to me I wouldn't force it on others. Why aren't you getting the simple point that it's not about what you believe to be good. Unless you are willing to force others to work for your values which I don't think you actually are.

I, for example, place value on conquering oneself and becoming more powerful. similar to Nietzsche's "will to power". I value that a lot, but I would never have a child so they can seek the "will to power" or become "ubermensch" just because that's MY goal. Because such an imposition benefits no one but my own sense of narcissism