It really feels like you’re deliberately trying to misunderstand me. So let’s take a deep breath and look at what I’m actually saying here.
In real life, and in fully-deterministic models of real life, people have varying strengths of preferences. For example, I am VERY averse to spice, and between teriyaki and perpperoni I have a less extreme preference towards teriyaki. Additionally, in real life (both models), the circumstances of seemingly-simple decisions are actually effected by a variety of factors. For a very simple factor, I’ll present the fact that I tend to prefer variety, so when I’ve eaten some specific flavor recently, I will have a somewhat increased preference for other items.
Specifically, if I’ve recently had teriyaki, I will sometime choose pepperoni instead for variety. I will never choose anything spicy for variety though, regardless of how bored I might be with teriyaki.
So the effect this has is that, via the definitely-deterministic decision-making system in my actual real-life mind, if you do not have additional information about the state of my mind, you will not be able to predict my actions based solely on my usual preferences. This does not mean that I am not deterministic; it means that my deterministic thought processes account for a large number of factors when determining which course of action to choose.
It should be noted that even in such a simple game as the Sims, the sims don’t always react the same way to the same stimuli. There are crude mood simulators in place, which mean that depending on their mood their reactions are different. Also they often are tracking multiple different motivations at once, and depending upon which of their needs are more pressing at any given time they will choose different actions to take, based on their mood, needs, and environment.
It would also be pretty straightforward to create a system of this type such that the coder doesn’t predetermine the outcomes of every possible combination of factors in advance. They’ll probably be able to make a pretty good guess about how the sim will react if they look at all these factors, like any good God could, but going through the effort of pre-coding out the entire state+environment → reaction map isn’t necessary.
In fact, there’s a pretty good chance that sims voluntarily getting into a pool with no ladder and subsequently drowning wasn’t intentionally designed at all.
There is a massive difference in saying “the existence of any unfairness at all, no matter how slight makes the entire system invalid” and “all systems contain some degree of unfairness, so we must judge a system by just how fair it is rather than deal in unworkable absolutes.” Yes, that is a massive difference.
Read what was written:
This says in no uncertain terms that all punishment with specific mention of criminal justice is and I quote directly “an evil.”
That. Is. Patently. Ridiculous.
This says nothing about increasing fairness (and would in any practical reality decrease fairness), this is an argument for abolishing justice entirely.
No, you misunderstand the nuance. Perhaps I should elaborate on the issue:
Justice is absolutely required for a functional society. Societies break down even when justice is sufficiently called into question. An example of a breakdown of civil society is a blood feud, but that’s just a glaring example that immediately springs to mind.
Game Theory explains the underlying issue quite well. If you don’t want to go through the entire explanation, just skip to sandbox mode and run the simulation with 24 cooperators and just one cheater.
This phenomenon is more than enough to spur evolution to create drives that counter it (not having those drives would actually threaten survival). Specifically, the perception of “injustice” and the institution of revenge.
Long story short: if you do not address injustice with punishment (aka Cheating in response to Cheating), first the optimal strategy for any player in the game (or any actor in society, whatever terminology you want to use) is to cheat 100% of the time, and non-cheaters will quickly be crushed by cheaters (or wrongdoers will quickly exploit/kill/steal/whatever from “good” people). To prevent this, people have an inborn sense of injustice and lash out as a survival instinct that cannot be casually dismissed or simply overridden.
That manifests as blood feuds and violence. So yeah, it’s important to have punishment to prevent blood feuds, but that’s the tip of the iceberg and merely a manifestation of the underlying issue. Not only will you have feuds, and violence, but you will have created a society where the optimal method is to always cheat and never, ever cooperate. That’s total dysfunction.
Justice works universally better than not having a system of justice. Where such a system is absent, people take it upon themselves to deliver justice (I mentioned Vigilantism, if you recall).
No functional society in history has ever been without a system of justice, and in fact the oldest records of civilized society… are their justice (and yes, tax) systems. One can even go so far as to argue that the advancement of justice within a society is a direct predictor of the general success of that society at large. The less a centralized authority administers justice, the less cooperation exists, and the less the society is able to function at all.
Now, that is again not to claim that these systems are perfect. They need to be worked on and improved (again, a good argument can be made that successful societies have managed to become so because they had superior justice systems). But to abolish justice or call the entire concept evil? No.
Seems pretty clear he wants to eliminate the “evil” concept of punishing wrongdoing, ignore the impulse for revenge entirely, and live in some psuedo-anarchist utopian fantasy-land.
I’m all for a more fair justice system. Labeling the concept of punishment evil is just absurd, however.
You’re comparing a justice system that is, let’s arbitrarily say 82% “fair” with another justice system that is 92% fair. Sure, the 82% fair system would be the source of societal troubles that the 92% fair system would either not have or directly solve. Granted! No question. He is not making anything remotely like this comparison. He said in the text I quoted and responded to, that justice itself is evil, and wrong doing should not be punished. That’s not a 92% fair system, that’s exactly what I called it: insanity.
I reject the absolutist notion that “causing someone harm” is inherently evil. That is a ludicrously simplistic definition of evil in that virtually every action can be construed in some way to be “evil.” Its virtually impossible to interact in a society without causing some kind of “harm” to another person.
A definition of evil that turns everyone and everything evil is fairly useless and loses all other associations/meanings.
Sorry for my poor quality quoting skills, I have not yet figured out how this new system works.
Yes that is what I said, but taken out of context. All such punishment with the act to punish is revenge. It is revenge that is an evil. If the attempt is rehabilitation, or restitution that is not an evil. I think we have to acknowledge that we as a society use evil in the foundation of our society to be honest with ourselves. Note I did not say not to use evil, just the acknowledge we do use it. We use evil against evil as a basis of our law enforcement system. The enforcement act often involved evil acts against another. We allow it to keep control of society. Some believe that if something bad happens to a bad person that is good, but I disagree and would substitute if something (good or bad) that happens to a bad person to make them a good person, that is good.
The opposite is to not acknowledge that society does use evil, which appears to me to be blinding one self and also might be used to commit evil acts as a society against itself where perhaps other methods can be used to better itself. One such thing is a country with a large percentage of its population in prisoned, perhaps thinking it good will blind us to we as a society are suffering for it more than needed.
Took me a long while to get used to it. It’s counterintuitively-intuitive - this site overrides the normal user interface of your browser (control-F doesn’t bring up the search box, it brings up a in site search for example). So rather than do what every other board does, you just select the text you want to quote and it creates a quote button. In a vacuum, intuitive… in the context of how the rest of the internet works and has worked for decades? Not so much.
I reject this definition of evil. See, there’s a serious problem with redefining words like this. Let me give you an example:
Everyone agrees that drinking water is generally a good idea. But if I suddenly turn around and say “yeah, but water is everything that is liquid, including H2SO4,” then the fact that everyone agreed with the previous statement becomes invalid. It’s not a good idea to drink H2SO4. All the studies that say drink 8 glasses of water a day don’t say drink molten lava.
Your redefinition of evil not only invalidates every assessment of evil (one shouldn’t do evil things, evil people are bad, evil is wrong, etc), but it also creates a rather crazy contraction: evil is often times good.
Well that’s all well and good, but then how do you want to define evil? I have to admit that my definition comes from my understanding of mainly the Bible and my faith. A dictionary defines evil as:
adjective
profoundly immoral and wicked.
“his evil deeds” noun
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
So my definition seems to be in line with the standard definition. Added man is given the knowledge of good and evil, we are allowed to use this force.
I don’t believe that kanicbird gave a definition of evil though, just gave examples of things he believes are evil. So that metaphor doesn’t apply.
God does a lot of things that the bible itself (and even god himself directly) describes as evil.
The Bible itself is already inconsistent, so whatever moral stance kanicbird takes, if he also believes the Bible is the true word of god then his position is going to be inconsistent.
Well firstly, that’s irrelevant to my point.
I was just saying that the Bible is inconsistent on whether God is good. He’s defined to be good, but commits various acts that are themselves defined to be bad. That’s an internal inconsistency regardless of whether the word “evil” is concretely defined elsewhere.
But secondly, subjective isn’t the same thing as meaningless. The adjective “tasty” is highly subjective. But we’re all understand what that word means regardless of the fact that we disagree about what things qualify.
Seems like you should be in favor of putting the knife in jail.
And to anticipate your objection that no, it’s the person with the complex mental mechanisms that has to go to jail: Ok, it’s the complex system that consists of a brain, a body, and a knife in the hand that did the deed. As soon as the bloody knife is put down, it’s no longer the same entity. Ergo the “person” part can’t be held responsible.
Either you believe in free will and you choose to believe that people should be punished for bad actions that they commit freely (no contradiction). Or you do not have free will and you therefore lack agency to believe other than as you do, even if that appears to be irrational. The physical forces that moved the atoms and electrons around to the state where a particular configuration of them called “you” has a cognition state that implies a lack of belief in free will and simultaneously a desire to punish bad actors can be traced back to the zigging and zagging of particles created in the Big Bang. There is no possibility that things could have unfolded in any way other than they did and questions of “irrational/wrong” are utterly irrelevant. Things are what they are and could not be otherwise, so relax and have a cocktail.
Actually my objection is that if you can’t even identify what a person is as something separate from their environment, then that doesn’t mean that the person can’t be reasonably punished for their actions; it just means that you won’t be able to identify and locate them when the time comes to do so.
This is sort of like saying “There’s a conveyor belt that is rolling a bunch of babies inexorably towards a mincing machine; the conveyor belt and mincing machine are operating on mechanistic principles, so we might as well just sit back and have a cocktail rather than, say, turning the conveyor belt off.”
Let’s put aside the question of whether the entity in question has whatever-you-mean-by free will. What really matters is whether the entity’s behavior is desirable, and whether it can be altered via altering its environment or via altering it. If their behavior can be altered to be more desirable, then taking steps to alter their behavior is worth considering.
And to anticipate your objection that no, the entity is deterministic and thus their behavior can’t be changed by changing their environment: If that is your objection then you are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism is and how it works.
It’s even more like saying “There was a machine that minced up some babies but it’s already happened and there isn’t anything you can do about it now”. The only thing you can do is describe what has happened or is happening - including the things you “choose” to do.
My last clause was tongue in cheek. In a fully deterministic universe the OP could no more “choose” to relax and have a cocktail than they could “choose” to transform into an elephant. Things either happen or they don’t. Any sense of agency is an illusion.
I don’t see how determinism is compatible with any concept of “choice”, “agency”, or even “self identity”, let alone free will. I’m open to hear an explanation of determinism that changes my mind. But only because I don’t believe in determinism.
Ok, but we can stop the machine now so that no further babies are killed. That’s the point.
Imprisoning offenders makes sense even in a clockwork universe. But even better is rehabilitating them.
But why do you say that though? I think you’re confusing Determinism with Fatalism, as people often do.
Once again, consider the example of me being offered coffee or tea. I think to myself: I prefer the taste of coffee, but I had a coffee just an hour ago so I should drink something with less caffeine, so I choose tea,
It’s important to recognize that that reasoning that just happened is how my choice got made. My brain is a part of the universe, not something being dictated by it. There is no way anyone could predict my choice without simulating my brain going through that reasoning.
Also, how would the universe be non-deterministic help here?
Let’s say we all have souls, and souls are non-deterministic.
How does a soul choose between coffee and tea? Does it reason it out, based on its preferences and past history? If so, what’s the difference?
Rehabilitating them does make sense, but punishing them with prison does not seem to be effective. Prison should only ever be used for the most extreme cases that are too dangerous to ever be released.
Like I said, If that is your objection then you are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism is and how it works.
Here’s the thing about determinism. Determinism is when things happen for reasons. And here’s the thing about choices. Choices also happen for reasons. Consider, for the moment, the real world. When you choose to do something, you make the choice for reasons. Your own reasons. Suppose, for a moment, that you’re choosing which way to go at an intersection. Suppose you choose to go left. When you choose to go left, you do so for a reason. Perhaps there’s something in that direction that you want to visit. Perhaps you ended up in the turn lane by accident, and have reasons for not wanting to break the law. Perhaps you are lost, and chose to do eenie meenie miney mo and then chose to respect the result of that choice-making process becuase you lacked a better idea. When you make a choice you do so for a reason - which is acting deterministically.
“But wait!”, the reflexive contrarian shouts. “I don’t do things for reasons! Look at me - I’m dropping my pants! I’m so random!” they say, while dropping their pants because they want to seem random when they’re not. And to them I say, you’re not random. You’re never random. Nobody’s random. Everyone has these things called “thoughts”, which are in their heads, and which make them do things for reasons. And I know that your thoughts aren’t random because I’ve taken more than entry level math and actually know what randomity looks like. If your thoughts were actually random, you’d be lucky if you managed to drool properly.
“But wait!”, the person who uses a moronic definition of free will cries, “I believe in libertarian free will, where all that matters is that you’re unpredictable! If you are not dropping your pants and failing to drool then you are not a free agent!” And to them I say, your definition of free will is moronic and doesn’t make any sense. And it also doesn’t match the actual usage of the term in english. But fine, I’ll say, suppose I grant that people who lie there insensate on the ground, twitching a few times before expiring might indeed have been driven more by randomity than by determinism. I will not, however agree to describe what they were doing as “free will”.
“But wait!”, the person who doesn’t understand how words work shrieks, “I am neither deterministic nor nondeterministic! I’m a third thing! That’s in the middle! Or somewhere off to the side! My soul does it! With magic! And angel dust!” And to them I say, who said anything about the physical universe? I’m talking about how thought works, wherever it’s housed, however it’s implemented. I don’t care if you have a soul tucked away somewhere - it either does things for reasons, or you fail to drool. There is no magic escape clause - either the magic works for reasons, or you fail to drool. You have a mind, somewhere, it functions, somehow, and it either has thoughts and makes choices and does things for reasons - or you fail to drool.
So, that’s what determinism is - it’s when things happen for reasons. And when there’s something that can charitably called an ‘agent’ (like, for example, a machine that is running the video game Pong), then when that agent finds that its current motivation is to move the enemy paddle either up and down, it looks at the available information, assesses it to the best of its ability (which for pong is a pretty consistent level of ability, since it uses the same analysis method each time), and then makes a choice.
I just meant “make sense” in the context of free will and it not necessarily being irrational. Locking people up may work as a deterrent and/or keep the public safer. But I would certainly not advocate for the incredible incarceration rates of the US, let alone “3 strikes” rules and the like, which end up giving non-violent offenders decades in jail to the benefit of no-one.
Nope. Unless you consume the actual tea leaves, you will ingest less caffeine from a typical cup of tea than from a typical cup of coffee.
You’re just pushing the bubble around. You’ve taken everything objectionable from “moronic free will” and stuffed it into “choice”. If I lift a marble off the ground and let it go, it falls under the influence of gravity. We don’t normally say that it “chooses” to fall rather than hover. If you do say that, one point to you for consistency but minus ten points for redefining words into uselessness.
Can I ask - in your definition of “determinism” if we were able to rewind the universe to the exact state it was in one year ago and then let it play again would we find that one year later it would be exactly where it was before we rewound? If not, why not? If yes, doesn’t that imply that the future is the same as the past: completely determined? And if the future is as determined as the past, you can no more “choose” to turn off the baby mincing machine than you can “choose” to save the babies that are already minced. You might do a thing, but you can only describe what is done and not assign any agency to any party.