RE: Is Moral Responsibility Compatible With Determinism?
May 31, 2019 at 10:02 am
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2019 at 10:12 am by The Grand Nudger.)
One wonders why our own modern day abacus doesn't show this emergent property, being a complex symbol processor operating on a vast landscape of relationships between it's own internal mechanism and an unending stream of exterior prompts. While it may be true, emergentism often comes off to people as the classic step two in the three step "and then magic happens" explanation of phenomena.
Reductionists can (and will and do) point to that disparity and then contend that whatever it is you're saying, and however true it may be, there must then be some x that humans possess that the modern day abacus does not - and in that, we're right back round to reductionism again - and would you/could you argue with them on that point? Is there not some clear and effectual difference between the two complex symbolic relationship processors?
In your own allusions, for example, you continually refer to complexity as that x. Is that so different from a reductionist explaining why an abacus can't do what a pc can do? Could we be more specific with a pc/abacus comparison? Yes, needlingly specific, down to the parts list and circuit schem and the underlying principles of why each component works and, also, how to manufacture them. We can't do that with the human brain..but is there some reason to suppose that it couldn't be done? Are we saying anything by a vague reference to unspecified complexity that actually falls outside of the reductionists wheelhouse or really does suggest imply or empower a "free will"?
That much is unclear. Just as it's unclear how or why the addition or subtraction of free will would affect moral responsibility. We already posit that moral responsibility exists in the case of free will -and- in it's absence, and regardless of how (or by what) our moral agency is derived. Could be ghosts, or magic, or unspecified complexity, we may or may not have fundamental compulsions and we may or may not be able to override them, but which if any of these are actually incompatible with the notion?
Moral agency, and thus moral responsibility, is a bit of a free rider, lol. It doesn't have to affirm or deny the articles of any of those positions in order to provide demonstration of it's own.
Reductionists can (and will and do) point to that disparity and then contend that whatever it is you're saying, and however true it may be, there must then be some x that humans possess that the modern day abacus does not - and in that, we're right back round to reductionism again - and would you/could you argue with them on that point? Is there not some clear and effectual difference between the two complex symbolic relationship processors?
In your own allusions, for example, you continually refer to complexity as that x. Is that so different from a reductionist explaining why an abacus can't do what a pc can do? Could we be more specific with a pc/abacus comparison? Yes, needlingly specific, down to the parts list and circuit schem and the underlying principles of why each component works and, also, how to manufacture them. We can't do that with the human brain..but is there some reason to suppose that it couldn't be done? Are we saying anything by a vague reference to unspecified complexity that actually falls outside of the reductionists wheelhouse or really does suggest imply or empower a "free will"?
That much is unclear. Just as it's unclear how or why the addition or subtraction of free will would affect moral responsibility. We already posit that moral responsibility exists in the case of free will -and- in it's absence, and regardless of how (or by what) our moral agency is derived. Could be ghosts, or magic, or unspecified complexity, we may or may not have fundamental compulsions and we may or may not be able to override them, but which if any of these are actually incompatible with the notion?
Moral agency, and thus moral responsibility, is a bit of a free rider, lol. It doesn't have to affirm or deny the articles of any of those positions in order to provide demonstration of it's own.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
