Sunday School

Sunday School 9th May 2021

This topic contains 71 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Autumn 1 month, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 72 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37653

    Unseen
    Participant

    @TheEncogita…whatever

    Abduction is how you make the vast majority of your daily decisions.

     

    You’re creating a shopping list. You look in the fridge and think the milk may be getting a little low. You can buy more today or in two more days on your regular shopping day. It’s unlikely your decision will be made deductively or inductively. You’ll guess whether you can make it 2 more days. Abduction introduces probability into the decision making process.

    #37654

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Abduction is how you make the vast majority of your daily decisions.

    Somehow I think you’re confusing it with the word “adduce”.

    #37655

    jakelafort
    Participant

    I put adduce on the second place horse in the ky derby at 27 to 1. Turns out the winner was disqualified for illegal substance and the second place horse will take the first place purse money. But the bettors get nunofit. What the duce?

    #37656

    Autumn
    Participant

    “Do we have free will?” is the outer shell of a deeper question “How are people morally/ethically responsible beings?”

    In the context where there is a god who is judging right and wrong, that question makes a lot more sense, as I stated at the beginning. It’s especially true if that god is a supposedly omniscient creator god because the question arises as to whether we ‘sin’ of our own freewill, or if we were merely programmed to sin by the god that will later judge us for what that god programmed us to do. What is the value of sin and judgment in that scenario?

    But when you remove that god, the question makes less sense. Harm and suffering still exist, and we have agency in that. A murderer has to murder for a murder to occur. It’s all well and fine to acknowledge that from the big bang a chain of events took place all leading to that murdered being who and what they are, in that circumstance, with that motive. But the murderer is still the key actor for the murder to take place. And the harm and suffering still occur.

    And how we respond to that murderer, how we shape our ethical and moral views around murder, victims, murderers, our own behaviour, societal values etc. is also in that chain of causality, but it still requires us to actually act. That chain of causality isn’t something apart from us, acting upon us. It is us. It is what we do. It is what we think and feel. It is the paradigm in which we exist, and so it’s really no challenge to accept that our moral and ethical considerations exist in that paradigm too.

    #37657

    _Robert_
    Participant

    It IS a scientific question, not a philosophical question in my mind and I am proposing a possible mechanism, (not a solution) whereby living creatures use stochastic processes to create choices just like they use them to evolve.

    No, it’s philosophical, and the reason is that it ties in to nonscientific (in terms of “hard” science) notions like responsibility, praise, blame, and justice. Are you seriously proposing that humans chose their own evolutionary path?

    You are not getting it, that’s fine.

    #37658

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It is the paradigm in which we exist, and so it’s really no challenge to accept that our moral and ethical considerations exist in that paradigm too.

    I think it is a case of living in the everyday (in the present) and applying everyday standards to everyday things.  In evolutionary psychology, as I understand it, there are two categories of reasons for doing things – ultimate, and proximate.  In other words, ancient evolutionary reasons, and present-day psychological reasons shaped by evolutionary forces.

    In moral judgements, i.e., of everyday phenomena, we usually use proximate reasons.  We usually don’t turn to an evolutionary reason, although we potentially might.  This is because everyday reasons are enough.

    In free will, we could go back to the start of the universe, or we could use somebody’s free choice as the judging criterion.

    #37659

    jakelafort
    Participant

    One thing is painfully obvious in these quotidian explorations of free will. Ya gotta define terms. It can easily be the case that members take opposing views without actually having a contradiction in their positions.

    #37660

    Unseen
    Participant

    Somehow I think you’re confusing it with the word “adduce”.

    Abduction was first identified and defined by the actually real philosopher C.S. Pearce. In all of my philosophy and logic courses, I never even heard the term “adduce.” I also can’t say I’ve ever heard it used anywhere in everyday discourse.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #37662

    Unseen
    Participant

    @autumn

    Making something happen, having a place in the causal chain, is distinct from being responsible for it. We judge people because it’s in our nature to do so, just as it’s in the offender’s nature to do as they do, but we have no control over our actions in any relevant moral/ethical sense. Ditto for the defender.

    #37663

    Unseen
    Participant

    One thing is painfully obvious in these quotidian explorations of free will. Ya gotta define terms. It can easily be the case that members take opposing views without actually having a contradiction in their positions.

    What does “will” mean, then, in terms of a free will discussion?

    #37664

    Unseen
    Participant

    You are not getting it, that’s fine.

    It’s fine with me as well. As I’ve said, I call myself an “ordinary language philosopher” who believes solutions need to be explainable to reasonably intelligent ordinary folk in language they don’t need a specialized background to comprehend. If I tried to explain a position on free will to my mother or even a close friend and dropped terminology like “stochastic,” I can imagine their eyes simply glazing over. I would not use such terminology or any other specialized jargon I’d have to attempt to define.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #37666

    Autumn
    Participant

    @autumn Making something happen, having a place in the causal chain, is distinct from being responsible for it.[/quote]

    Can’t say I agree. Our sense of responsibility is determined within that system, is accountable to that system and what happens within it…

    We judge people because it’s in our nature to do so, just as it’s in the offender’s nature to do as they do, but we have no control over our actions in any relevant moral/ethical sense. Ditto for the defender.

    …as are our systems of morality and ethics. There is a functional aspect to that which in itself helps moderate behaviour and has the potential for harm reduction in good cases and the infliction of harm in bad.

    #37667

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, will is a more or less meaningless word in the context of freewill. Little Johny defied me and i shall punish his willful behavior by withholding his allowance. The will in willful suggests he is a bad little agent who is acting of his own volition and selfishly. So it is implied that little Johny can be a good boy if he chooses. You WILL do as i say little Johny or you will not collect a dime for allowance. The will in this context is the imposition of the agency of a dominant parent.

    Implied in the use of the word will is freedom. We do as we choose. Of course reality is more like Freud’s anatomy is destiny (i think that was Freud) and a multitude of circumstances cause us to do what we do, decide what we decide. And as Autumn so synoptically captured the paradox in these debates. The thing that enables will is the thing that takes it away. It is a blatant contradiction. I can’t for the life of me figure out what free will or how free will is possible unless it is with AI.

    I was once at a conference of attorneys and made a comment using the word adduce. The next six speakers used adduce. I thought to myself my holy fuck are we a bunch of monkeys.

    The agent, both little Johny and parent are free to do as they will. But they can’t will as they will. (Not a fan of that Schopenhauer distinction)

    #37668

    jakelafort
    Participant

    I wonder whether any of us will disagree with the following assertion.

    If our universe is utterly and strictly determined so that cause precedes effect in an endless chain and everything unfolds in the only way it can and our persons are simply another manifestation of the universe then moral responsibility is inapposite. It is ludicrous under the aforementioned assumption to either credit an individual with doing good shit or condemn an individual for doing bad shit.

    #37669

    Autumn
    Participant

    I would disagree. It’s reductionism of a sort that tends to produce a less accurate description human experience rather than a more insightful, useful or accurate description.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 72 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.