I think a distinction between my unconscious decisions and actions and conscious ones is artificial and pointless. — T Clark

Perhaps a conscious decision is one where we logically weigh all factors and do some sort of analytics to determine a course of action, whereas most decisions just seem to come to us after pondering. I see a difference.

I'm in favor of bettering the breed, but that gets us into the difficult questions of how determinism determines outcomes. What, exactly, do we select in prospective breeding pairs (besides overall hotness). Brains? Risk aversion? Emotional stability? Enough obsessive compulsivity to assure rule-compliance? Minimal ambitiousness? Etc.

Once you have the list of traits to select for, remember that 20 generations takes around 600 years. That is a VERY long time for people to pay attention to anything, and it will probably take more like 100 generations to start weeding out annoying human traits.

I take it you want to be on the candidate selection committee--yes?

I'm in favor of bettering the breed, but that gets us into the difficult questions of how determinism determines outcomes. What, exactly, do we select in prospective breeding pairs (besides overall hotness). Brains? Risk aversion? Emotional stability? Enough obsessive compulsivity to assure rule-compliance? Minimal ambitiousness? Etc. — Bitter Crank

The devil, as they say, is in the details. It's not going to be easy working out the specifics but if we put our hearts and souls into it, I'm sure we can come up with something doable.

I take it you would like to be on the candidate selection committee--yes? — Bitter Crank

No, I wouldn't. I'm not the type who makes good decisions. However, I will give my opinion on the matter, if asked.

As for determinism, my understanding is people are fed up with freedom (free will) - it's one of those things that's more trouble than it's worth. We could have heaven on earth and surrendering our free will for that seems to be a very small price to pay for it, no? Dirt cheap actually.

I find pure materialist physics very unconvincing, worse than unconvincing - meaningless. But this is not the place to go into that. — T Clark

I was agreeing with them on this point:

On the other hand, some people understand our lack of free will to be dependent on a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. — T Clark

The lack of free will follows from a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. If one ascribes to a purely materistic ontology than accepting the lack of free will should follow from that premise. This type of metaphysics though relegates human experience to the realm of the 'unreal', only the third person perspective decides what is really really real. It is a metaphysical position. I am not saying I also ascribe to it. I do not think we are very far apart, if at all on this point.

I have my own answer and I’m not interested in discussing that right now. What I want to discuss is whether or not it matters if we have free will. — T Clark

It doesn't matter a split end. What matters is that we have a will.

People holding others accountable is one of the mechanisms by which their actions are determined. — T Clark

That's why it is better to get rid of accountability, responsibility, guilt, a moral consciousness, or similar nonsense all together. Aren't they just instruments to constrain, forbid, or limit thoughts and actions to fit the expectations of the ones applying them? Isn't this feature imposed on people? To get rid of unwanted behavior and thinking by holding them accountable and making them feel guilty if thinking certain thoughts or performing certain actions?

Holding someone accountable or responsible for their actions is as silly as claiming their will is constrained or even determined by physical laws. The will is simply there, and it can be impaired by brain damage or sickness. The actions flowing from the will can be constrained by the will not to execute these actions, because one knows the consequences or by the will of other people with other thoughts. But the notion of holding a will accountable or claiming it to be free or not is just an artificial notion. It gives rise to the saying that actions taken are
not somebody's fault, which is just the opposite of saying it is somebody's fault. It's invented to steer unwanted will, thoughts, and actions by reference to some god-given notion of what are the right thoughts and actions.

So if there is a will only, without it being free or not, and no such thing as accountability, the question doesn't make sense. Accountability hasn't been proven to exist scientifically, and any claim to its existence is speculative.
It is assumed to exist, as are a free or a chained will. The claim that our will is governed by natural laws is just as silly as the claim for accountability. Both notions don't exist in reality.

Which isn't to say the actions flowing from thoughts, emotions, and the will to perform them, shouldn't be constrained. But to base the constraint on accountability, free will or not, will constrain the will more than desirable. And it's the will for power that mainly drives these silly notions.

On what base then should actions be constrained? I don't know. It depends on the situation and the people involved. But again, using accountability to achieve the goal to get rid of unwanted action or behavior is using a false notion.

Perhaps a conscious decision is one where we logically weigh all factors and do some sort of analytics to determine a course of action, whereas most decisions just seem to come to us after pondering. I see a difference. — jgill

I was probably unclear - I meant that the difference doesn't matter from the point of view of whether free will is involved, i.e. a decision made subconsciously can be a reflection of free will. Does that make a difference?

The lack of free will follows from a materialistic interpretation of basic ontology. If one ascribes to a purely materistic ontology than accepting the lack of free will should follow from that premise. This type of metaphysics though relegates human experience to the realm of the 'unreal', only the third person perspective decides what is really really real. It is a metaphysical position. I am not saying I also ascribe to it. I do not think we are very far apart, if at all on this point. — Tobias

I might have some quibbles with some of this, but I think you and I mostly agree.

That's why it is better to get rid of accountability, responsibility, guilt, a moral consciousness, or similar nonsense all together. Aren't they just instruments to constrain, forbid, or limit thoughts and actions to fit the expectations of the ones applying them? Isn't this feature imposed on people? To get rid of unwanted behavior and thinking by holding them accountable and making them feel guilty if thinking certain thoughts or performing certain actions? — Raymond

No. I don't agree, although this may be outside the specified scope of this discussion. Accountability is one mechanism by which people face the consequences of their actions.

So if there is a will only, without it being free or not, and no such thing as accountability, the question doesn't make sense. — Raymond

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making between will and free will. It sounds interesting, but it's outside the scope of this discussion.

Accountability hasn't been proven to exist scientifically, and any claim to its existence is speculative. — Raymond

Here's one definition of "accountability" from the web:

The state of being accountable or answerable; responsibility for the fulfilment of obligations; liability to account for conduct, meet or suffer consequences, etc.: as, to hold a trustee to his accountability; the accountability of parents toward their children, or of men toward God.

There may be doubt as to whether accountability is an effective way of ensuring someone's behavior, but it's existence is not in doubt. I've held people accountable. I've been held accountable. It's not a scientific concept.

If there is no free will then we are holding people accountable as a product of determinism(or insert variant x). Really, it's an attempt at reductio ad absurdum of determinism that fails, because of the assumption we could choose to not hold people accountable. When someone does something we are compelled by x to hold them accountable. Or put another way; what sense does it make to ask what decision should we make in a world where we can not make decisions.

what sense does it make to ask what decision should we make in a world where we can not make decisions. — Cheshire

I guess we have no choice but to ask what decision should we make in a world where we can not make decisions.

Under the paradigm of free will, it makes sense to create social structures such as moral and legal accountability to encourage people to choose to behave well. By extension, under the paradigm of determinism, it makes sense to create (insofar as it it possible to do so in a deterministic world... but let's put a pin in that one) structures like moral and legal accountability that attempt to make people behave well. Whether by choice, or by virtue of one's interaction with society, accountability is a means, apparently largely effective, to sway human behavior in a pro-social direction. The question of free will is a red herring.

I guess we have no choice but to ask what decision should we make in a world where we can not make decisions. — T Clark

If we're content in treating the matter as a deliberately unresolvable philosophical soccer ball, then perhaps. Best I can tell is that free will is rejected solely because at some point it was understood to be a product of a creator God. Post enlightenment rejection of religion seems to be more appealing than dismissing the hollow argument that free will implies random action, so the game goes on.

I hate discussions of free will — T Clark

This is a surprising statement for someone who has started a discussion about good will!! :grin:

And it would be also surprising for me if I were involved in it, because I also hate discussions about free will! :grin:

accountability" from the web:

The state of being accountable or answerable; responsibility for the fulfilment of obligations; liability to account for conduct, meet or suffer consequences, etc.: as, to hold a trustee to his accountability; the accountability of parents toward their children, or of men toward God. — T Clark

I know what being accountable or responsible means. But it's nonsense. The quote defines accountability by using accountability: "Accountability: the state of being accountable." Further it gives examples how it is used. Liability, accountability, responsibility guilt, etc. are just inventions to give people the false impression that they are in charge of their thoughts and actions, to not make them think thoughts or do things unwanted by the people who project it on them. If the accountability is installed in people, then they have the false idea that it's them who are in charge of what they do or think, and are accountable for what they think or do, while it are in fact the imposers of the accountability who are in charge of the thoughts and actions they want to control by introducing accountability.

Best I can tell is that free will is rejected solely because at some point it was understood to be a product of a creator God. Post enlightenment rejection of religion seems to be more appealing than dismissing the hollow argument that free will implies random action, so the game goes on. — Cheshire

:up:

So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark

My two pennies worth: in short answer to the question: yes, it does.

In terms of practical accountability, the ontic (un)reality of free will doesn’t make a bit of difference: If free will, then ontically valid accountability for that which is (freely) chosen (among available alternatives). If causal determinism, then – I think echoing your own views – by the fact that we’re not omniscient, we are ontically predetermined to not know everything about the past, present, or future; i.e., we’re predetermined to be ignorant of the fully predetermined causal system, or the block universe, as a whole; thereby making us ontically predetermined to epistemically live as though we freely choose at least some future outcomes, this on account of our ignorance regarding an otherwise fully fixed causal reality. In other words, in the latter, we are ontically predetermined to hold a strictly epistemic – but not ontic - freedom of choice … and, thereby, epistemic, but not ontic, responsibility for our actions.

I’m not saying the latter doesn’t have issues, but it can be argued, to my mind in a cogent enough manner.

The ontic reality, or unreality, of free will does, however, make a world of difference in the type of universe we inhabit. For instance, is the universe accurately described by physicalism, and are the innumerable consequences in respect to ourselves of the universe’s so being (or not being) thereby true (or untrue)? As a common example among mankind: if physicalism, as its currently known, then all conceivable possibilities of spirituality, such as that of an afterlife, are bogus. If free will is ontically real, then physicalism, as its currently known, is bogus. To me, all this irrespective of there being, or not being, a Creator Deity. But these are the types of differences that make a difference in relation to free will.

From where I stand, this cuts through the muck and gets to the core issue in respect to free will’s reality.

To me, all this irrespective of there being, or not being, a Creator Deity. But these are the types of differences that make a difference in relation to free will. — javra

While true, a good Bayesian analysis would consider factors such as the history of cultural myths or religions and how they might inform (or be informed by) common conceptions of things such as free will.

While true, a good Bayesian analysis would consider factors such as the history of cultural myths or religions and how they might inform (or be informed by) common conceptions of things such as free will. — Reformed Nihilist

Sure, I agree. Not all cultural myths or religions subscribe to a Creator Deity, though.

No, but the one's that are most prevalent in the modern western world that we live in are, and that is the context for this being a meaningful and interesting question. I don't know if the question is meaningful to someone in china or someone living in a remote village in the amazon. I do know it is in the western world.

Free will doesn't imply random action. A random choice is almost impossible to make, if not impossible.
Free will means that thought and action can express themselves freely, without any notion of accountability constraining them.
Which isn't the same as saying that every action should be allowed. Actions that try to keep down non-standard thoughts and actions and try to impose the standard ones by means of standardized institutions in a standardized state should be avoided.
In a truly free state, every form of thought and action should be allowed and the institutions should be standard free, i.e. objective.


So, does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will?
Yes it does. If the will is not free, i.e. if actions flowing from thought and thought itself are constrained or imposed by a principle of standardized accountability, the people representing the constraining or imposing power should be held accountable.

I don't know if the question is meaningful to someone in china or someone living in a remote village in the amazon. I do know it is in the western world. — Reformed Nihilist

Couldn't the same be said of causal determinism, a block universe, and physicalism? (For what it's worth, from what I recall, materialism was addressed in the history of Eastern thought.)

The western world has nowadays had global influences, yes, but I don't find that this necessitates all different cultures of the world then center their existential questions - such as those regarding free will - around whether a Creator Deity is real.

For clarity, are you intending to say that belief in free will's reality entails belief in a Creator Deity?

free will is rejected solely because at some point it was understood to be a product of a creator God. — Cheshire

I'm not a theist, but I don't reject free will.

Liability, accountability, responsibility guilt, etc. are just inventions to give people the false impression that they are in charge of their thoughts and actions, — Raymond

All language is just an invention to give people the impression that they are in charge of their thoughts and actions.

If the accountability is installed in people, then they have the false idea that it's them who are in charge of what they do or think, and are accountable for what they think or do, while it are in fact the imposers of the accountability who are in charge of the thoughts and actions they want to control by introducing accountability. — Raymond

If I lend you $100 with the understanding you will pay it back in a month, am I trying to impose my control when I ask for payment 30 days later?

So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will?

It makes sense to me. I would have to hold them accountable for any action they perform by the simple fact that it is them and only them that perform it.

How can the will be not free in the light of deterministic (or probabilistic) natural laws and processes? The premise of this question, the will not being free, is flawed upon closer inspection. The will needs these laws and processes to exist in the first place. The will is not constrained by these laws and processes. It is made possible by them. I understand the approach, but is it a justified one? Are there truly laws that tell the will how to evolve or determine its course? I know the thread doesn’t address this, but why then is the premise that the will is not free exactly in this aspect?

If the will is not free in this academic sense, then people are not accountable anymore for their thoughts and actions. It are the laws of nature that are made accountable for them, thereby taking their freedom away which is even more ridiculous than holding people themselves responsible.

You can still apply personal accountability though, as no one knows where the determined processes lead. In the second world war there were two kinds of people belonging to a religious group who preached predestination. One kind became fearless fighters against the nazis, as they saw themselves to be determined so, and another kind who couldn't care less as they thought the course of history was determined regardless their actions.

For clarity, are you intending to say that belief in free will's reality entails belief in a Creator Deity? — javra

I'm not. I am saying that the way that a culturally prevalent and deeply rooted force like religion effects language, the history of thought and therefore the current status quo beliefs and consensus understandings is an important piece of context when considering a question like the existence of free will. In a culture with a long history of religion whose central point is the immateriality and immortality of the soul, if free will didn't exist, it would be more likely to arise and be supported as a concept. That doesn't lead to any necessary conclusions, but it is a factor that should be added to a Bayesian analysis. Make sense?

In a culture with a long history of religion whose central point is the immateriality and immortality of the soul, if free will didn't exist, it would be more likely to arise and be supported as a concept. That doesn't lead to any necessary conclusions, but it is a factor that should be added to a Bayesian analysis. Make sense? — Reformed Nihilist

Yup. Thanks for the reply. No doubting what you say. At the same time, I'm one to believe that we ought not allow cultural prejudices to cloud our judgments. Its inevitable that they sometimes do to some extent, but its a good ideal to work toward: the ideal of objectivity. This to say, the issue of free will's reality ought to be judged independently of cultural biases and preconceptions: such as that of its association with a Creator Deity, or such as that of an emotive rejection of anything that can be associated with religion.

All language is just an invention to give people the impression that they are in charge of their thoughts and actions. — T Clark

I can't follow. Isn't language an invention to express what you think? Only the accountability idea, and the expression of this idea by language, is meant to give the idea that you are in charge. Or not, in the case of holding the laws of nature accountable.

If I lend you $100 with the understanding you will pay it back in a month, am I trying to impose my control when I ask for payment 30 days later? — T Clark

No, of course not. But that kind of accountability is not what I mean. I will (probably) pay you back. You can count on that. I have lend so many things to people, without them giving it back. I don't hold them accountable though. They just are...how to put it nicely...dunno.

I'm not a theist, but I don't reject free will. — T Clark

I should clarify the point. The belief that free will is historically an affirmative indication of a theist world. Not simply that one implies the other. Suggesting the existence of a historical bias, rather than a logical implication. Si?

Perhaps it would clarify the arguments if placed in the following stark scenario: A scientist creates a robot that he programs to kill the first human it encounters. This happens and the robot is secured and returned to the laboratory, but the scientist is nowhere to be found. Other scientists confer, some wanting to dismantle (destroy) the robot, others wanting to attempt to reprogram the creature. The latter group prevails. So the computer brain of the robot is scrutinized closely to see if it can be altered and the critter returned to society in a manner in which it helps humans. Several scientists say, yes, it's possible, but another few say, no, we can't be sure - if there is the slightest chance it might revert to its previous condition we must not proceed.

It is finally agreed the robot is to be destroyed. :meh:

Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark

Yes.

Defendant: Your honor, the universe made me do it, so please don’t sentence me.

Judge: Yes, true, it did, but we still have to lock you up until the universe doesn’t make you do it anymore, for we have to protect society, plus learning may happen, if you are able.

…

‘Free will’ is reduced to indicating that the will is able to operate, which is no great shake, or that one’s actions are not being coerced, whether by another person or by the weather or whatnot, which position is known as compatibilism, but this, too, grants us no real revelation or insight. Besides, the coercion was going to happen, too, as an effect from the causes that it had. The will is just the will—a neural network that votes according to what it has become up to that moment.

The judicial courts differentiate between ‘responsible’ versus ‘coerced’ (by another or via metal ills), this axis being orthogonal to the main axis of ‘free will’ versus ‘fixed will’ or ‘undetermined versus determined’, which the judges hardly get into, although there are cases in which defendants plead their bad nurture or nature, or, as of late, that addicts need help rather than being incarcerated as criminals.