Oh look, once again you are flatly refusing to even consider how agency could possibly work, while simultaneously making another baseless assertion that it is nondeterminisic AKA random.
For the last time, I was pointing out that the real work, there is nothing about real world justice systems that prohibits them working on killbots, or even lakes. There’s nothing about real world justice system that prevents us from putting clinically amoral sociopaths in jail.
I honestly think you’re misunderstanding what you’re quoting. On the one hand, there is judgement as in “what should the justice system do”, and on the other hand there is moral judgement, which is what happens within an agent’s head. These are not the same things and not interchangeable.
I assume it’s deduced from the baseless assertion “In the Max_S philosophy of consciousness agents are asserted not to be capable of conscious. Only people with spooky free will have consciousness, because I say so.”
Personally, I think that defining consciousness is way more squirrely than that, and arguably outside the context of this discussion!
You realize that “it’s turtles all the way down” is used as an argument from absurdity to prove a position false, right? When you say your thing works due to “infinite regress”, you’re literally disproving your own point.
Of course, you don’t actually mean “infinite regress of causes”. You actually mean, “I want to kick the can back a few causal iterations and then throw my hands up and say ‘there’s no way to know - must be God’.”
No - a generalization is something new that is derived from a combination of prior states.
The brain can work on solutions to a problem. A portion of the brain stimulates memory allowing the neurons to produce a waveform that the portion of the brain activating memory interprets.
I was fondling numbers a while back and wanted to come up with a novel way to do square root. A little bit of thought yielded (for integer squares):
N = integer square
Sqr root of N = 2((N/2)-T) Where T=nearest triangular number less than N/2
S0: N=169
169/2=84.5
84.5-78=6.5
6.5*2=13
You may find that in a book but it is not one I have read. So, it is a generalization from experience that was made by volition.
No, for example we do not yet know what mechanism causes quantum tunneling and it is possible that this mechanism is random rather than deterministic. In fact we do not know the answer to that question yet. So it is possible that there are mechanisms at the subatomic level that are random, not deterministic; and that these quantum effects propagate up to our level. But if so, the way that these initially random fluctuations in the quantum state of subatomic particles propagate up to our macroscopic level ARE based on deterministic processes.
Strict criminal liability for nonpersons is a novel and frankly ridiculous legal theory. Strict criminal liability for people is itself highly controversial, I can only think of statutory rape (highly controversial) and even then there are affirmative good-faith defenses.
I will not accept “I dunno” as an answer - it’s not helpful.
I maintain that generalization is a deterministic process - you take existing data and mix it together in a nonrandom way, according to rules and algorithmic processes.
There is of course the possibility that these processes are perturbed by randomity - though I really don’t they are.
But they’re not perturbed by spooky magic, in my opinion.
I’m quite certain that determinism doesn’t describe an infinite regress of causes - time starts at some point.
I am of the personal opinion that existence started with an arbitrary state and things proceeded from there.
But this is pretty far outside the context of the current discussion. So back to the point - how would you describe the functioning of libertarian free will?
But a generalization derives something new from a combination of prior states based on some set of rules in a deterministic fashion.
Take gravity. An apple falls towards the earth because of a simple set of rules about mass and acceleration.
But in fact the apple is also being pulled on by the moon, the sun, and every other body in the solar system. The actual path of the apple is based on all the gravitational bodies attracting it - an N body problem.
But just because there are multiple parameters affecting the path of the apple, even if this path was so complicated it melted your computer to try and simulate it, the process is still deterministic.
I will point you again to the three categories of event causation: infinite regress, randomness, and free agency.
If you believe in determinism but not infinite regress and not free agency, is it fair to say you think the initial “arbitrary state” of the deterministic universe was random? Does it make any sense for me to ask you what caused the initial and arbitrary state of the universe - what process or functioning is behind that?
A “mind” is an emergent result of entirely deterministic interactions in the brain; and much as I’d love for it to be true, I’ve never seen any evidence for the existence of a “soul”…
I don’t think we have a computer that can generalize; we have have neural networks that can be trained to provide a generalized output from a set of inputs, but their internal method of doing so is not the same as the method the human brain uses, I presume.
Is this your own argument, or are you just explaining what you see the libertarian argument to be? I can argue against the “god of the gaps” idea, but if you aren’t proposing it yourself I don’t see the point.
Here’s what I see as happening in this discussion.
Me: All there is determinism and randomity, because words have meanings and so on.
You: There is also a third thing called free will.
Me: (Pops the lid off of free will, looks at innards.) All I see in here are determinism and randomity.
You: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
It makes sense to ask that question, sure. It also makes sense to ask why the natural laws are are they are. Why is gravity? “Fucking magnets, how do they work?” You might recall a wise and handsome person posting those questions in this very thread.
The thing is, though, these questions are kind of outside the context of this discussion, because we don’t need to know the answers to them to understand free will. We don’t need to know where the initial state came from; the only thing that matters now is that the world is chugging forward in a causal way now. We don’t need to know why electricity is happening to understand how machines that use electricity function.