None. Wether your action are because of free will or determinism, they’re still your actions.

If, say, a murderer kills someone, and we’re looking at it from a free-will point of view, we condemn him because his choices are inacceptable to our society. If we look at it from a deterministic point of view we simply extablished that people whose brains can lead to that kind of action are simply not suited to live among other people.

Whatever the reason, the responsability is still of the single individual: wether of his personality or of his brain doesn’t really matter.

I think the idea of “responsibility” becomes completely meaningless in a deterministic universe. It literally means nothing at that point.

That does not mean that behaviors shouldn’t have consequences. But the purpose of the consequence should really be rehabilitative, not punitive. (Even in a non-determined universe, I’m not sure I see any value in exclusively punitive consequences.)

I linked this on another thread but this is even more relevant here. From the most recent issue of PNAS, The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system.

Actually, it matters a lot. I prefer to assume that responsibility ceases to exist. Which works this way as i imagine it:

A deterministic universe is one where people only behave a certain way because of their specific genetic and memetic environments. So, when someone does something good or bad, it’s actually quite typical for someone who has their genes and who was exposed to the specific set of circumstances they’ve endured. That is, it shouldn’t be expected that they would behave any differently given their genetic and memetic environment.

The individual is a machine that outputs based on input. Change the input and you will change the output. (Which is why i favor rehab, as per @nikipedia) Determinism predicts that they won’t have any other choice but to obey the directives of the input they receive as it relates to the existing input.

Good decisions are simply ones that take into account as many things as possible so as to produce as desirable an outcome as possible.

—

However, perhaps a more palatable explanation is to say that the concept of responsibility is extended to become more practical and useful for shaping the world around us, including people.

Not only humans are responsible for what they do, but their input is responsible as well. So, you don’t just take your issues up with the individual who is behaving badly, you also take your issues up with the causes of the behavior. Society already implements this in many ways, for example accidents at dangerous intersections. Whoever causes the accident is held accountable via the merit system, however, signs get put up to help the intersection to become more safe and reduce accidents. Essentially, we take care to examine and blame the world around us for coercing undesirable behavior just as quickly as we might blame the individual for doing it.

—

Again, good (aka. “Moral”) ideas are simply the ones that produce the most desirable outcomes, all things considered. So, if awarding scientists encourages useful scientific research, then it would be “moral” to reward them for their work. If denying scientists awards for their work would cause a lack of progress, then it would be immoral to do without awarding them.

I determine what I do, when I do it and with whom I do it. I am also responsible for my family but I let them have input into what they want or need.

@Cruiser… define “I”

@Cruiser: How do you know?

If determinism is true, then our actions in attributing responsibility and punishing those who fall foul of the law are also pre-determined and the whole debate collapses in on itself. It wouldn’t matter what we decided, because nothing would change as a result of the decision.

everything that happens in one moment, affects the moments that follow.
in a deterministic universe, having a conversation about the best ways to attribute responsibility is a moment in history that will influence the way we live our lives going forward.

the conversation was determined to happen, and because of it, the consequences of having the conversation are determined to happen. the universe, including humanity, is forced to progress towards self-improvement in this way.

I agree with @FireMadeFlesh. At some point, it’s just semantics, because determinism will cause you to exhibit the attributes of responsibility, with exactly the same result.

What in the world makes you think that determinism has any validity in reality?

@davidbetterman it’s pretty obvious when you think about it. but maybe you should ask that to fluther since it’s a bit off topic. :)

@Shuttle128, I’ve wanted to ask this question for months but my conscience wouldn’t allow me for some reason. ha.

@YARNLADY i disagree that it’s just semantics, it’s definitely more than that. It’s similar to the difference that comes from understanding that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. It’s going beyond simple appearances and examining the complexities of reality. Ultimately, we’re given a better grasp of reality through our more accurate perspective.

Real life example of responsibility vs (what i like to call) the free will fallacy: A few days ago, a friend of mine said: “I’m losing my mojo! How could this happen?” because he got a D instead of his standard A+ on an exam. When pressed for the real cause of the lower grade, it was finally figured out that “losing my mojo” was a distracting metaphor for having studied less than usual. “Yea, I guess I could have studied more..” was the obvious conclusion. The most interesting thing about this was that he really really really didn’t consider his studying habits as the cause of it. He just assumed that he ought to be able to just “will” himself to continue getting good grades since he was, admittedly, a bit of a book worm. But good grades aren’t caused by will power, or by being known as a nerd.. they are caused by intense studying specific to the subject being examined. The belief in free will is deceptive and has exactly these kinds of adverse affects on a person’s comprehension of how the universe works and how to get it to produce the results you prefer to see from it.

What an excellent question. I would just say forget it as a defense in a legal proceeding. It’s been tried and it doesn’t work. Of course, if the laws of physics make you ignore this advice… :-)

@ninjacolin I as in my collective experiences in my life that I rely on to make the best possible choices I see fit for me. At my age I have been though very many trial and error moments and from the results of these past experiments I can assimilate this knowledge into a pretty good estimation of what future outcomes will be base on the conditions of each and every moment of my life…this is what keeps me in the driver seat.

@nikipedia I don’t and don’t want to. Knowing would take all the fun out of the adventure part of life.

@ninjacolin Scientists are finding more and more that our actions are influenced by the chemical reactions in our brain. Which came first, the tryptophan or the endorphin? Was it because of a lack of sufficient amino acids, or was a specific enzyme missing?

@YARNLADY i don’t understand the nature of your two questions.
starting with: what does it matter which came first between tryptophan or endorphins?

@ninjacolin This is a question similar to the which comes first, the chicken or the egg, when it comes to personal responsibility vs determinism. Is it the chemicals in the brain, or the ability to make ‘choices’?

lol. you mean because you have to get tryptophans into your diet but endorphins are naturally in you? haha so awesome

determinism comes first. the meme of responsibility came about memetically. responsibility isn’t real. it’s an invention.

If we assume determinism holds, I think the whole concept of “responsibility” sort of goes away. Responsibility assumes that there is a freedom for choice – not just for the wrongdoer, but those assigning consequences. If determinism in moral judgments is true, then not only cannot the murderer decide whether they murder or not, but also I cannot choose whether I condemn a murderer or not, and I cannot choose on what grounds I do that. Why discuss it, then? It won’t change anything.

Only, of course, if it is deterministic, then we cannot even avoid the discussion.

@Janka When we discuss things like this we can get a better grasp on the way the world actually works. When we know how the world actually works our methods of guiding behavior of people towards moral goals will be more effective. We can still have morality but responsibility seems to rest on blaming someone for not following it. Blaming and punitive measures seem not to get at the cause.

I agree that responsibility seems to go away when determinism is assumed, but discussing it does change things. Without discussion we will continue to stay on the current path of punishment and blame which are based on responsibility. I think it should be encouraged to discuss this so we can have a better understanding and more effective means of supporting morality.

Awesome, @Janka. “Why discuss it, then? It won’t change anything.”

Your conclusion is wrong. Everything that happens changes everything. For example, try believing that you never had this conversation. You’ll find it impossible. 3 days ago, however, you were a creature who never had this conversation, never learned the concepts that you’ve learned from this discussion. Now you’re a creature who has this experience. You are a different person as a result. Your brain has literally been physically altered by this experience. Change has already occurred and it’s permanent.

Same for all of us. Everything we ever experience physically changes our brains affecting future decisions.

@Janka said: “If determinism in moral judgments is true, then not only cannot the murderer decide whether they murder or not, but also I cannot choose whether I condemn a murderer or not, and I cannot choose on what grounds I do that.”

Exactly. This is awesome stuff. Now, if you were on a jury and you had to decide how the convict should be dealt with, your having this conversation will affect what decision you make about him. It seems like such a basic comment but, this is exactly why learning Truth is so important.

Imagine if you were raised to believe that a priest could determine whether someone was a witch and needed to be burned alive. You might condemn your own family members to death under this delusion. But because the world has experienced so much, collectively, many of us now knowthat all that witch stuff is stupid. We’ve ceased (at least in the western world) subscribing to such illogical notions.

The fact of the matter is simply this: We do whatever seems to make the most sense. At one time burning people who priests declared witches seemed like a good idea. But now we know better and we’re able to make better decisions. By @Cruiser‘s logic burning people alive would have been a more “fun” way to live. ;) No. Ignorance is evil. It’s not fun. It doesn’t help us in any way. It hurts us. It makes us stub our toes. It makes us slam into other cars. It makes us kill others when better solutions to our problems are available.

Gaining knowledge and truth about our situation is both inevitable and better for us. Refusing to fear it will speed up individual progress as well as societal progress.

@ninjacolin “Now, if you were on a jury and you had to decide how the convict should be dealt with, your having this conversation will affect what decision you make about him”

In a deterministic world, there is no such thing as a decision. Whether you have a choice or just the illusion of a choice, the outcome is the same because you do not feel averse to the apparent decision you make.

not true. you feel averse to every shitty decision you’ve ever made, don’t you?
i know i do. clearly then, in a deterministic universe it is not true that you can’t feel bad about your decisions. since, if this is a deterministic universe, we experience these feelings.

Decisions/Choices exist, but they are deterministic, not “free.”

@ninjacolin I feel averse to every shitty decision I’ve made, but only because hindsight gives me the understanding that it was a shitty decision. I have never felt like a third party observer, forced in some way to act in a way that I didn’t really want to.
If a decision or choice is not free, how does it exist? To make a decision, there must be multiple options. If these options are illusory, then the path is already mapped out and there is only the illusion of a decision. In a deterministic world, a decision may be defined as moments in time when the appearance of alternatives exists. In a world that allows freedom of actions, a decision has the ability to alter outcomes, which is an entirely different concept in my opinion.

oh, i see what you’re saying now. okay, i think we agree. decisions/choices define that illusory moment. they are short term causes of specific things.

so, the term “choice” simply defines the function or roll brains play in the causal order.

@FireMadeFlesh said: “To make a decision, there must be multiple options.”
In a deterministic universe, since there never are multiple options, this statement is false. :)

“I agree that responsibility seems to go away when determinism is assumed, but discussing it does change things.”

If these things are deterministic, then, no, it does not. Things will change, but since we cannot avoid having this discussion, and we cannot avoid its deterministic conclusion, it is unclear if you can say that the discussion as such is the cause of the change.

Not that I believe that these are deterministic, personally.

@ninjacolin I think we agree on definitions, but I still cannot accept a deterministic model of the universe. My statement would still hold true in a deterministic universe, it would just describe an imaginary concept rather than a real one.

@Janka When you say “what’s the point of discussing this?” it is a question about why things are done, not how. Sure, the discussion is inevitable but there is still a good reason to discuss it.

We can still discuss alternate possibilities even if the world is deterministic. Being able to discuss these abstract concepts allows us to better understand what’s going on. To say discussing it changes things is to say that had we not discussed this things would have been different. Sure discussing it was a direct result of previous circumstances, but we can still think about alternate possibilities. Thinking about these alternate possibilities has a direct impact on our future discussions as well.

Things may be determined but acting as if the choices we make are the only possibilities is detrimental to understanding how the world functions. There are different possibilities for every choice and a reason for choosing the outcome. To say the only possible outcome is the one that is chosen is not how determinism should be viewed.

“To say discussing it changes things is to say that had we not discussed this things would have been different.” Yes, but is that statement meaningless if the discussion is deterministic, as not only it could not have been different, because we could not avoid the discussion, but also you cannot avoid saying so?

To me, contrafactuals (“if this was different, then that would happen”) only seem to make sense as arguments if things actually can be different. If they cannot, we are just deterministically repeating phrases we cannot avoid repeating.

Difficult to explain.

@Janka To the best of our knowledge everything is pointless. Why does there have to be a universe? if you believe in god, why does there have to be a god? there’s no “point” to anything in either libertarianism or determinism.

The question “Why?” is pointless. And I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have asked it… hmm.. actually, look at it this way: The point to your asking “Why?” was for you to find out that “why?” is pointless to ask, since you didn’t know it before. But now that you do know it, you can stop asking. :)

Curious what you think of that.

@ninjacolin There is no such thing as an intrinsic point, but that doesn’t quite equate to pointlessness. Meaning is a human construct, therefore we can apply meaning to whatever we wish. Asking ‘why’ has the purpose of determining the meaning that another person attributes to the phenomenon in question.

The point of @Janka‘s argument against determinism, if I understand correctly, is that there is no way of knowing if an intelligence is behind your answers or if your body is forced by a pre-written script to provide the answers you do. Apologies if that sounds like an insult, I’m not sure how else to phrase it. Since asking ‘why’ is to determine your point of view, considering alternatives becomes ridiculous in a deterministic world because you would be unable to control your expression. Determinism does away with the need for intelligence, because no thought or consideration needs to exist to drive certain events.

“Determinism does away with the need for intelligence, because no thought or consideration needs to exist to drive certain events.”

You have to be careful with these statements. This is false. Determinism, if it is true in our world, clearly has not done away with intelligence.

Absolutely, without my having thought about applying for my job, I wouldn’t have gotten it. Thought and consideration were required for certain events to unfold.

@ninjacolin Maybe I should rephrase that – determinism does away with the need for conscious intelligence. If everything is a direct cause and effect relationship, that evidently must include neural processes, there is still no reason for humans to be aware of their actions. Self-awareness allows for choices (Can choices be made in the subconscious mind? I’d like to know.), but as I have said before determinism allows only for the illusion of choice. If determinism is correct then, self awareness is like a theatre in which a grand play of illusions are constructed and it is dangerous to trust any perception we may have. Maybe that is the case, and maybe not. If it is true though, there is no way to verify such a belief because all our measurements and conclusions are illusory too.

@FireMadeFlesh I really like how you phrased these comments. :)

Determinism suggests that everything works the way it does because reality demands that there can be no other way.

“there is still no reason for humans to be aware of their actions.”

still a false statement. if it exists in the real world and if the world is deterministic, and if self-awareness is a real observable phenomenon, then it too was required by the laws of nature, required to have accomplished whatever it has accomplished so far as well as required to produce whatever it will produce in the future.

Self-awareness isn’t more special than stars, or planets, or gravity, or flowers.. it’s just another thing that couldn’t help but come into existence. (At least memetically, if not actually.) Self-awareness is as real a thing as Superman and at the same time no less real than Shakespeare.

“Self-awareness allows for choices”

Determinism suggests that decision making is simply the function of a brain, in much the same way that making water fall downwards rather than upwards, is the function of a waterfall. Consider also the function of gravity, the function of super novas, etc…

“Self-awareness is like a theater in which a grand play of illusions are constructed and it is dangerous to trust any perception we may have.”

Absolutely true. Which is why The Scientific Method exists; to help us measure perceived knowledge. (And by “us” i do mean “the universe itself”)

“there is no way to verify such a belief because all our measurements and conclusions are illusory too.”

Again, this is what The Scientific Method is for. We’ve been very wrong in the past about knowing stuff. Our intention with The Scientific Method is to have a better way to ascertain what is real and what is not. It’s an attempt to understand without promise that we are correct in our understandings.

@ninjacolin Why do I get the feeling that there is a logical fallacy here? It seems what you are saying is:

P1: A deterministic universe would look like ours does, because it has no other option.
P2: The universe appears as we observe it to be.
Deduction: The universe is deterministic.

You are working from the assumption that the universe is deterministic, and then saying it couldn’t be any other way. Surely we should investigate what should and shouldn’t be possible in a deterministic universe, and then see if that matches our observations. The way things stand, we have no definitive way to tell whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, because the outcome is exactly the same (things are because they were destined to be vs. things are because happened to be – either way things are).

Non-deterministic theories can result in any one of a myriad of outcomes, while determinism results in one outcome only. Therefore determinism must make solid predictions to be taken seriously.

@FireMadeFlesh Not to butt in, but he did say ”if it exists in the real world and if the world is deterministic” He’s working from a premise, and what he’s saying holds, as long as we accept that premise. He’s right, if we accept the premise.

“You are working from the assumption that the universe is deterministic, and then saying it couldn’t be any other way” No, at least as far as i understand what he’s saying, he’s saying that a determinsit universe has only one single option for each given moment, a deterministc universe can’t be different from what it is.

The way i read this last post, seems to me that all he’s saying is clearly stated to apply only to a deterministic universe.

You’ll want to get familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

@FireMadeFlesh said: “You are working from the assumption that the universe is deterministic, and then saying it couldn’t be any other way.”

Actually, I’m working from the assumption that the Universe can only be described by the way ours is observed to behave. I’m not allowed to invent properties or characteristics that are not evident in the real world. I’m drawing my conclusion about the universe only from what I observe around me.

For example, consider the God vs No God debate. Imagine a Theist might fallaciously assert: “If there were no god, there would be no love in the world.” So, clearly, whether there is a god or not, the world stays the same as it always has been. Love as we know it is real and the question remains: does the loving world have a god or not.

Similarly an Atheist might fallaciously assert:“If there were a god, Hitler wouldn’t have ever been able to do what he did!” But again, clearly, hitler did do what he did. So, if there is a god, he is one that includes the existence of Hitler. Again, the question remains: does the Hitler-existent world have a god or not?

@Thammuz fallacy or not, I assert that no real jelly would ever mind your butting in! ;)

@FireMadeFlesh said: “Surely we should investigate what should and shouldn’t be possible in a deterministic universe, and then see if that matches our observations.”

This line of thinking defines the principals of science. Science is based on observations of the real world, not theories about how the world should work. It must be assumed that whether the universe is deterministic or not, it functions exactly as we have observed it so far.
hopefully, i’ve made this clear.. if anyone sees my meaning and can explain this better please do and thank you!

@FireMadeFlesh said: “Non-deterministic theories can result in any one of a myriad of outcomes, while determinism results in one outcome only. Therefore determinism must make solid predictions to be taken seriously.”

You have to be careful about what you’re asking for. Again, this is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It would be like me saying to my best friend: “If you loved me, you would write me up for 100% of the assets in your will.” But it may not be true that “love” equals “100% of assets in the will.” You’re essentially saying: “If determinism is true, I should be able to predict the next lottery numbers accurately.” But no.. clearly, we live in a world where such predictive ability does not belong to human-kind. So, we can’t expect that to be the sort of evidence we require to prove the case. We have to look at what is real in the world and then form our conclusions from those observations.

That said, determinism does make solid predictions. Humans have a measure of predictive ability to the point where most of our predictions come true. However, the universe is sooooo complex that our predictive abilities are not absolute. We have more predictive ability than a Tiger, certainly more than an Ant, and of course more than a tree or a rock.. We seem to have the best predictive ability out of all living things but just like all the other creatures, it seems we too have our limit. We get most things right, but not all things. as illustrated elsewhere

ugh.. i made a few errors in that post. feel the need to clarify:

Correction #1: For example, consider the God vs No God debate. Imagine a Theist might fallaciously assert: “If there were no god, there would be no love in the world.” However, the world in question must be assumed to contain love, since it is observed to exist. Whether there is a god or not, love exists. So, the question remains: does the loving world have a god or not.

Correction #2: @FireMadeFlesh said: “Surely we should investigate what should and shouldn’t be possible in a deterministic universe, and then see if that matches our observations.”

No, this line of thinking defies the principals of science. Our observance of the world is our investigation. We should expect our definition of the world, whether that be deterministic or free, to include an explanation for all observable phenomenon. Science is based on observations of the real world, not guesstimated theories about how the world should work. It must be assumed that whether the universe is deterministic or not, it functions exactly as we have observed it so far.
hopefully, i’ve made this clear.. if anyone sees my meaning and can explain this better please do and thank you!

@Janka “To me, contrafactuals (“if this was different, then that would happen”) only seem to make sense as arguments if things actually can be different. If they cannot, we are just deterministically repeating phrases we cannot avoid repeating.”

Science works on counterfactuals all the time. Even with the very most obviously couterfactual of concepts. Take Newton’s first law of motion for example, we know that there is no object that is not acted upon by a force. This would require a universe in which one object and only one object exists. However, we can understand these abstract ideas whether or not they come about in real life. Counterfactuals have great theoretical import due to their abilities to generalize about things. The abstraction of generalizations from counterfactuals is of extreme importance in science in order to understand the causal natures of observed and unobserved entities. The causal natures of entities can be entirely deterministic yet counterfactuals allow us to explain in better detail how the world works.

@ninjacolin I’m starting to regret answering your posts so late into the night when my mind is not working as well as it might. I think I should take up this discussion again on another thread at a later date.

regret? how come?

Its getting too complex to read through all these mind bending posts, and when I post late at night I don’t make as much sense. Especially when I’m only supposed to be up late to study. I might get back to this on the weekend.

No problem here…..In fact, I should be studying too…...right now.

If determinism is a reality or not the following are unavoidable:
Consciousness, Intelligence, Emotion, Morality, Choice, Responsibility, Punishment, etc.
The only thing that differs is the original source of these elements of human life.
Were they determined 14 billion years ago or yesterday?
Unless we philosophically dwell on how determinism might impact these aspects of life, and subsequently approach life from that philosophical direction, determinism does not affect us.