JanetK comments on Separate morality from free will - Less Wrong

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 10 April 2011 02:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (84)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JanetK 08 April 2011 07:29:35AM 1 point [-]

Right on. Free will is nonsense but morality is important. I see moral questions as questions that do not have a clear cut answer that can be found be consulting some rules (religious or not). We have to figure out what is the right thing to do. And we will be judged by how well we do it.

Comment author: Tiiba 08 April 2011 03:56:24PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: JanetK 09 April 2011 04:18:05AM -1 points [-]

I have been pointed at those pieces before. I read them originally and I have re-read them not long ago. Nothing in them changes my conviction (1) that it is dangerous to communication to use the term 'free will' in any sense other than freedom from causality, (2) I do not accept a non-material brain/mind nor a non-causal thought process. Also I believe that (3) using the phrase 'determinism' in any sense other that the ability to predict is dangerous to communication, and (4) we cannot predict in any effective way the processes of our own brain/minds. Therefore free will vs determinism is not a productive argument. Both concepts are flawed. In the end, we make decisions and we are (usually) responsible for them in a moral-ethical-legal sense. And those decision are neither the result of free will or of determinism. You can believe in magical free will or redefine the phrase to avoid the magic - but I decline to do either.

Comment author: Tiiba 09 April 2011 06:04:14AM 3 points [-]

"that it is dangerous to communication to use the term 'free will' in any sense other than freedom from causality"

Why is that? There are many things that can keep your will from being done. Eliminating them makes your will more free. Furthermore, freedom from causality is pretty much THE most dangerous definition for free will, because it makes absolutely, positively no sense. Freedom from causality is RANDOMNESS.

"Therefore free will vs determinism is not a productive argument."

We don't have this argument here. We believe that free will requires determinism. You aren't free if you have no idea what the hell is about to happen.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 April 2011 07:17:27AM 0 points [-]

FYI: You can make quotes look extra cool by placing a '>' at the start of the line. More information on comment formatting can be found in the help link below the comment box.

Comment author: Tiiba 10 April 2011 01:35:30AM *  -1 points [-]
Comment author: Peterdjones 07 July 2011 02:40:34PM 0 points [-]

I have been pointed at those pieces before. I read them originally and I have re-read them not long ago. Nothing in them changes my conviction (1) that it is dangerous to communication to use the term 'free will' in any sense other than freedom from causality,

Does that mean we should stop exonerating people who did bad things under duress? (iIOW, your stipulation about FW would change the way the word is used in law).

(3) using the phrase 'determinism' in any sense other that the ability to predict is dangerous to communication,

Does that mean we should stop saying that classical chaos is deterministic? (IOW, your stipulation about "deterministic" would change the way the word is used by physicists).