Effect of consciousness on evolution

[Only_Humean]

The point would be that now we are not just punishing people for doing wrong: what is the point if they are not really acting freely?

And yet we delude ourselves that we are freely choosing to punish them?

In a deterministic process, what is the point of anything? It's how it is, and can be no other way.

[volchok]

I would not say that your own point of view is ridiculous. I would only point out the obvious implications of it for human interaction.

Basically you are saying that those who embraced the Holocaust and fought for it are essentially interchangable with those who detested it and fought against it.

Just different sets of dominos.

I would only suggest it is not necessarily ridiculous to speculate there might be more to it than that.

What is ridiculous, in other words, are those who speak of these things as though they can be understood in their entirety.

And maybe someday they will be. But if they are and you are right then that too is just another domino falling. Nature is the designer but it knows not of what it designs. Why? Because that would be like a heart knowing it is beating to keep me alive.

First of all, when I say that some argument or some point of view is ridiculous, I'm not insulting you. Please don't misinterpret my words.
Now, correct me if I´m wrong but, if memory serves me correctly, we have been over this in some old thread.
Hitler can not be held responsible for what he did even thought the things he did were awful. The fact that he can´t be held responsible does not mean he shouldn't be imprisoned were he alive today.

It's ok to speculate but, there's a difference between speculating and going against evidence for no good reason.

[Amorphos]

if the vehicle is conducive to changes made upon it, then any outside force affecting this change may be its determiner

The determiner can be the ‘I’, the experiencer and quale [unless you can show there is none - which you cannot!], or anything else which can make effect upon the determined! In short, be it the soul or chemicals, it makes no difference.

There is a free will, and it is no different to chemicals ~ but isn’t chemicals [see below here*].

Volchok

Putting aside how the brain works for a moment, I never denied that consciousness has an effect on the world or that it has evolutionary advantages. I'm not sure why you're insisting on that specific point.

that’s the whole thread/point. How the brain works is fundamental, is it a machine which operates itself or is it merely responsive.

You have just conceded, implicitly, by not addressing what I said, that you do not control the how sound is perceived.

Nope. ‘I’ [the experiencer] do not control how the instrumentation of the brain receives sound, I control what happens after that, I can ignore it [can be difficult but is possible] or communicate what the sound meant to me.

I think consciousness is the product of information being processed. A kind of self-referential process.

It may be, yet awareness is the ‘space’ in which the information resides, not to mention that info is not physical [as per my descriptions].

Actually if you throw the self out of the window, you have automatically thrown free will out of the window as well. After all, if there isn't something independent of the brain but that somehow affects it, how could you possibly have free will?

‘The experiencer’ is either an emergent property or is otherwise independent of the brain ~ as are other quale.
Please take proper note of this argument;

D63 wrote; Leibniz’s analogy, that if the brain were like a room we could walk through, we would be able to see activity, but not the actual thoughts, should present no more problem to us than our inability to decode a Mayan codex.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178695&p=2308552#p2308552
...
*I have a Viking analogy; if I take an axe and plunge it into a conscious living human head, then clasp my hands onto the split skull and open it up exposing the brains innards; would I see anything which resembles the mental experience? Would I literally see colours and if spliced carefully in some manner, would I see the image in our minds eye as if displayed on a monitor?
Perhaps the brain/body really is a machine, yet we have theoretically looked at it in every way and not seen any quale, the experiencer or perciever.

we know that different parts of the brain control different things to the point where a person can, for instance, be able to talk fluently but not be able to enunciate the function of a certain object. There really is no center. Certainly not from an objective point of view and I'm arguing that even from a subjective point of view, it doesn't exist.

The centre is everwhere. Different parts of any machine describe how it works or wouldn’t work if they were broken or arranged differently. There is always the experiencer even in a fucked up brain, it simply cannot use the machine properly if it is changed around.


_

[Amorphos]

I think we need to be able to define ‘being’ in terms of the material, before we can entirely state that there is no free will in life-forms.

[volchok]

If I'd been identical to them, I'd have been them and not me.

Indeed. And why are you not them? Luck.

And I'd of course deserve whatever punishment I got, just as they do. Unless you believe in some soul or essence, of course. This is part of the sneaky theistic hangover.

The word "deserve" doesn't make sense in this context. If free will is an illusion no one deserves anything.

I can see why you'd be more compassionate if you still thought that desert is related to making a choice. "He had no real choice, so he can't be blamed" assumes that blame should be related to some real choice, that you've already said doesn't exist.

Well, yeah. To blame someone you're assuming that the person is the cause of the event. And we know that is not the case.

I don't see why I should treat a malfunctioning machine compassionately, any more than I should treat it maliciously.

What is exactly a malfunctioning human being? Do psychopaths have malfunctions ?

So presumably we can choose not to feel hate or vengeance, based on reason? And if we can, do we have any responsibility to do so?

I'm not saying everyone is able to do this. Some are. Some monks (probably Buddhist, I'm not sure.) once claimed that their biggest fear while being tortured was to stop feeling compassion for their torturers.
I obviously cannot attest to the veracity of their claims. I don't know if they feel compassion for everyone or not. The point is that, if free will is an illusion, hate is irrational. But if you can't stop hating people, that´s ok , as long as we agree that free will is an illusion when we create policy.

I'm not saying it doesn't have consequences. Why is it important? Because your actions can affect others' behaviour, right?

Right.

Fatalism: you can choose what you like -> the result is already set up
Determinism: you can't choose -> the result is already set up

Determinism: Whatever you'll choose is set -> The result is set.
What you choose has an impact in the future.

I don't see where that deterrence has to be compassionate. If a hideous public torture and execution would act as a much more effective deterrent to serious crime, increasing overall well-being, would it be more compassionate to do that?

If a killer is not responsible for his actions why would you want to execute him? Retributive justice doesn't make sense. Yes, we want to deter certain behaviors but we also want to be as fair and humane as possible. I also don't think it would be more deterrent then imprisoning the person given that, and I'm not 100% sure about this but I think that violent crime rates in the US (where there is death penalty in some states) are much higher then in european countries (where death penalty doesn't exist).

[Amorphos]

We could look at love as evolutionary chemicals, but isn’t it just something consciousnesses want! Same applies to everything we are, our opposable thumbs and the whole shebang.

If you don’t have being/consciousness then there isn’t any need for such things.

[volchok]

if the vehicle is conducive to changes made upon it, then any outside force affecting this change may be its determiner

The determiner can be the ‘I’, the experiencer and quale [unless you can show there is none - which you cannot!], or anything else which can make effect upon the determined! In short, be it the soul or chemicals, it makes no difference.

There is a free will, and it is no different to chemicals ~ but isn’t chemicals [see below here*].

This makes no sense to me. I can't even follow your rationale here.

Nope. ‘I’ [the experiencer] do not control how the instrumentation of the brain receives sound, I control what happens after that, I can ignore it [can be difficult but is possible] or communicate what the sound meant to me.

What happens after that is controlled (as opposed to controlled by "me") and it can be ignored or communicated...

It may be, yet awareness is the ‘space’ in which the information resides, not to mention that info is not physical [as per my descriptions].

Awareness is not like some data/memory data base. You know many things which you are not aware 99% of the time. I bet you were not even aware of your little finger in your left foot as you were reading the previous sentence. I also cannot comprehend how information could ever be something other then physical.

‘The experiencer’ is either an emergent property or is otherwise independent of the brain ~ as are other quale.
Please take proper note of this argument;

We have no evidence that something produced by a brain could be independent from it.
We also have no evidence of an "experiencer". On the contrary.

...

*I have a Viking analogy; if I take an axe and plunge it into a conscious living human head, then clasp my hands onto the split skull and open it up exposing the brains innards; would I see anything which resembles the mental experience? Would I literally see colours and if spliced carefully in some manner, would I see the image in our minds eye as if displayed on a monitor?

No.

Perhaps the brain/body really is a machine, yet we have theoretically looked at it in every way and not seen any quale, the experiencer or perciever.

Indeed hence why the problem may be the way we conceptualize things.

There is always the experiencer even in a fucked up brain, it simply cannot use the machine properly if it is changed around.

Here, you're arguing for a soul for all intents and purposes. And unless you're gonna reduce the soul to some sort of magical energy, then I can assure you that the soul does change when the brain is fucked up. I gave you the example of someone who lost a cognitive ability or function but I can also talk about people who's personalities changed. Their entire demeanor and interests and mannerisms and desires, everything changed once their brain was damaged.

[Only_Humean]

If I'd been identical to them, I'd have been them and not me.

Indeed. And why are you not them? Luck.

So you don't believe in free will or the self, but you believe in luck?

I can see why you'd be more compassionate if you still thought that desert is related to making a choice. "He had no real choice, so he can't be blamed" assumes that blame should be related to some real choice, that you've already said doesn't exist.

Well, yeah. To blame someone you're assuming that the person is the cause of the event. And we know that is not the case.

So are we causal agents or not? Because I could have sworn we were just here. And the choices that we make are a result of all sorts of facts about ourselves - genetics, dispositions, brain chemistry etc.

I don't see why I should treat a malfunctioning machine compassionately, any more than I should treat it maliciously.

What is exactly a malfunctioning human being? Do psychopaths have malfunctions ?

A malfunctioning machine is one which doesn't do as it ought, surely? Psychopaths would seem necessarily to be malfunctioning. In any case, swap out "malfunctioning" for "undesirably-behaving".

So presumably we can choose not to feel hate or vengeance, based on reason? And if we can, do we have any responsibility to do so?

I'm not saying everyone is able to do this. Some are. Some monks (probably Buddhist, I'm not sure.) once claimed that their biggest fear while being tortured was to stop feeling compassion for their torturers.
I obviously cannot attest to the veracity of their claims. I don't know if they feel compassion for everyone or not. The point is that, if free will is an illusion, hate is irrational. But if you can't stop hating people, that´s ok , as long as we agree that free will is an illusion when we create policy.

So these monks can choose to choose what they do, but criminals can't choose not to choose what they do. And we create the policy which our genetics and subconscious dictate to us. Or do we choose our policies?

I'm not saying it doesn't have consequences. Why is it important? Because your actions can affect others' behaviour, right?

Right.

So if blame affects other people's behaviours, what's wrong with it?

I don't see where that deterrence has to be compassionate. If a hideous public torture and execution would act as a much more effective deterrent to serious crime, increasing overall well-being, would it be more compassionate to do that?

If a killer is not responsible for his actions why would you want to execute him? Retributive justice doesn't make sense.

Explicitly, deterrence to others in the case I just mentioned. And note the if - this is a hypothetical. I'm hoping for an answer to that, rather than a digression to the comparitive US/European social policy.

Yes, we want to deter certain behaviors but we also want to be as fair and humane as possible.

Why "fair"? Do people deserve to be treated fairly?

[Amorphos]

This makes no sense to me. I can't even follow your rationale here.

Where the human machine is the vehicle [like a car [perhaps which can drive itself]] it renders itself conducive to the driver/external forces. In human terms this means you could inject chemicals into it to affect a change, or you could have a soul to affect the machine informationally.

What happens after that is controlled (as opposed to controlled by "me") and it can be ignored or communicated...

Information has an effect and hence control, consciousness affects info. Neurons only control collocative information ~ perhaps not even that, it controls physical shapes and patterns [chemicals and signals] which are thereafter collocative in the mental sense.

Awareness is not like some data/memory data base. You know many things which you are not aware 99% of the time. I bet you were not even aware of your little finger in your left foot as you were reading the previous sentence. I also cannot comprehend how information could ever be something other then physical.

I agree that we are only aware of what’s within the conscious sphere.
Describe information as physical? Specifically the conceptual and linguistic thoughts you are having now.

We have no evidence that something produced by a brain could be independent from it.
We also have no evidence of an "experiencer". On the contrary.

perhaps independent but related in an almost seamless manner. A peice of art is independant of the brain in the literal sense.
You are the evidence! that’s my whole problem, I’d happily go with the material argument but it just doesn’t describe our experience.

No.

We are agreed then. The entire mental experience and quale are not in the material!

Indeed hence why the problem may be the way we conceptualize things.

The lack of imagery in the brain as we looked at it in my Viking scenario, has nothing to do with how we conceptualise it. It has everything to do with what the brain physically is! From microscopic to macroscopic we only see the physical thing and NOT the mental thing.

Here, you're arguing for a soul for all intents and purposes. And unless you're gonna reduce the soul to some sort of magical energy, then I can assure you that the soul does change when the brain is fucked up. I gave you the example of someone who lost a cognitive ability or function but I can also talk about people who's personalities changed. Their entire demeanor and interests and mannerisms and desires, everything changed once their brain was damaged.

I have already agreed that personality is changeable and non-fundamental. I use the term ’soul’ as a euphemism for the mental, you wont accept the experiencer so I have to use another term.
Consciousness includes the workings of both the soul and the machine. I could use the notion of Buddha being which is without self ~ as that’s how I am really thinking of it, but that’s a complex philosophical ‘entity’. if I use the term ‘mental being’ then you’d think of it as the brain and I’d think of it as the ‘soul’, so shall we stick with ‘the experiencer‘?


_

[iambiguous]

Now, correct me if I´m wrong but, if memory serves me correctly, we have been over this in some old thread.
Hitler can not be held responsible for what he did even thought the things he did were awful. The fact that he can´t be held responsible does not mean he shouldn't be imprisoned were he alive today.

And we will no doubt go over it again. Why? Because it truly fascinates me how determinists are able to not really acknolwedge the implications of shutting down automomy in human interactions.

Now, that doesn't mean they are wrong of course. On the contrary, their arguments can be quite convincing.

But no less difficult [for me] to imagine being true.

After all, what does it really mean to say Hitler should be imprisoned when those who imprison him are just another set of dominos? It makes no sense to imprison the tiger because the tiger isn't able to make sense out of killing the wild boar. Killing really is like breathing to it.

And what difference does it make if I speculate [or what I speculate about] when it was all inevitable anyway? What in the world does evidence have to do with anything here? What point of view gets to choose that when all points of view are really just the illusion of choice?

I think determinism makes sense if mind is just matter but there is no way I am really able to wrap my own mind around it without thinking maybe it's more than just that.

[Joe Schmoe]

We'd jail Hitler because we value the life of Jews higher than Hitler's freedom. The guy regardless of the source, is doing harm to others. If we could cure him, then that would be the goal, however, until we find the cure, we must choose the lesser 'crime' in accordance with our values, which is to take away Hitler's freedom.

There is no 'should' until you have a measuring stick, and it's a general consensus that we want to live, hence anything that stops this goal, 'should' not happen if we want to achieve the goal.

[lizbethrose]

vol, we have gone over this before. The reason for crime, if crime is the result of determinism, would mean crime cannot be stopped and no one could be found guilty of crime--nor could they be found innocent. Given your philosophy, there is no guilt--"The 'devil' made me do it"--"I had no choice"--"Guilt implies intent, but any intent was caused by something out of my control and was inevitable."

According to the rule of law, how can someone be prosecuted if the prosecution cannot prove intent? This is what bothers me about your determinism--and it's something you've never really explained.

What do you do with someone who is a serial killer because of a difunctional amygdala? S/he was born that way--It wasn't their fault, it was what prior 'causes' led to. Not only that, but they became serial killers because of a disfuntional amygdala. So they not only didn't cause how they were born; they had no control because of the way they were born. How would you defend someone like that in a court of law?

Do you say something like, "S/he was led--by circumstances beyond her/his control--to do what s/he did; in that sense s/he is innocent. Furthermore, Your Honor, s/he was 'determined' by past occurrences within the development of the universe. to be here today and in front of this court; therefore I argue the Prosecution cannot prove intent (which is necessary in a capital offense) and the case should be thrown out of court."

That's really scarey from someone studying psychology, as far as I'm concerned.

[lizbethrose]

I think the original question was whether or not consciousness has an affect on evolution? IOW, does a result of evolution (consciousness) affect the future development of consciousness? Why shouldn't it?

[volchok]

So you don't believe in free will or the self, but you believe in luck?

Luck: something that occurs beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result.

So are we causal agents or not? Because I could have sworn we were just here. And the choices that we make are a result of all sorts of facts about ourselves - genetics, dispositions, brain chemistry etc.

"We" are causal agents but "we" are not self caused. Actions, thoughts, intentions and desires simply move trough us.

A malfunctioning machine is one which doesn't do as it ought, surely? Psychopaths would seem necessarily to be malfunctioning. In any case, swap out "malfunctioning" for "undesirably-behaving".

So, a malfunctioning human being is one that doesn't do as it ought? Pretty ironic statement for someone who doesn't believe in objective morals.
There aren't malfunctioning human beings. There are human beings that behave or act or think out of the norm. And since they can't be held responsible for anything, nothing should be done to them besides what is necessary to ensure their well being and the well being of others. A killer should be imprisoned, not executed. A psychopath should receive treatment and/or be imprisoned if it's necessary or he should go to a psychiatric hospital.

So these monks can choose to choose what they do, but criminals can't choose not to choose what they do. And we create the policy which our genetics and subconscious dictate to us. Or do we choose our policies?

Who said they could choose to choose what they do?
They have supposedly realized that hate is irrational and therefor no longer feel that emotion. This doesn't imply any free will. On the contrary, it's pretty straight-forward causality.

Let's say you hate someone and then you find out that they have a brain tumor. And this tumor explains their violent behavior and inability to regulate emotions. Upon this discovery your moral intuitions would shift almost immediately. You would no longer hate this person, certainly not to the same extent you used to anyway. Why ? Because you realize it's not rational. The person has no choice. Now imagine that no one has any free choice, regardless of having a tumor or a perfectly healthy brain... Hate no longer makes any sense.

So if blame affects other people's behaviours, what's wrong with it?

Well for one, it is immoral.
Furthermore you don't need personal responsibility in order to have a functional justice system.

Explicitly, deterrence to others in the case I just mentioned. And note the if - this is a hypothetical. I'm hoping for an answer to that, rather than a digression to the comparitive US/European social policy.

Our need to deter certain behaviors does not mean that we have to become amoral.

Why "fair"? Do people deserve to be treated fairly?

Why wouldn't they?
And why is the answer to that question dependent on free will?

[volchok]

After all, what does it really mean to say Hitler should be imprisoned when those who imprison him are just another set of dominos? It makes no sense to imprison the tiger because the tiger isn't able to make sense out of killing the wild boar. Killing really is like breathing to it.

We imprison people who display certain behaviors simply because everyone else will be better off if we do it. We don't have to lie to ourselves and entertain notions of free will to justify that.

And what difference does it make if I speculate [or what I speculate about] when it was all inevitable anyway?

You're mixing determinism with fatalism.

[volchok]

If we could cure him, then that would be the goal,

This.

[volchok]

vol, we have gone over this before. The reason for crime, if crime is the result of determinism, would mean crime cannot be stopped and no one could be found guilty of crime--nor could they be found innocent.

Let's start by forgetting about determinism. My case is not depend on determinism and determinism is irrelevant. You can't have personal responsibility in a random world. So forget the determinism vs randomness debate.

According to the rule of law, how can someone be prosecuted if the prosecution cannot prove intent?

People have intentions. They just weren't free to have intentions other then the ones they have.
That's why we should be more concerned with a criminal that does not show any remorse then with a criminal who seems interested in changing his life around.

What do you do with someone who is a serial killer because of a difunctional amygdala? S/he was born that way--It wasn't their fault, it was what prior 'causes' led to. Not only that, but they became serial killers because of a disfuntional amygdala. So they not only didn't cause how they were born; they had no control because of the way they were born. How would you defend someone like that in a court of law?

In a perfect scenario we would give a pill to that person and the problem would go away. We can't do that yet so, in order to protect everyone else, we have to imprison that person. Pretty simple really.

That's really scarey from someone studying psychology, as far as I'm concerned.

You seem to think that I'm against imprisoning people. I'm not.

[iambiguous]

Let's say you hate someone and then you find out that they have a brain tumor. And this tumor explains their violent behavior and inability to regulate emotions. Upon this discovery your moral intuitions would shift almost immediately. You would no longer hate this person, certainly not to the same extent you used to anyway. Why ? Because you realize it's not rational. The person has no choice. Now imagine that no one has any free choice, regardless of having a tumor or a perfectly healthy brain... Hate no longer makes any sense.

But it would seem you don't really choose to hate him anymore than you choose not to hate him. Here you are like the tiger to me [or a watch?]: a human "mechanism" that "chooses" what it was programed by nature to choose.

Your realization is just another domino. And what does "making sense" really mean in a world that unfolds like clockwork? We don't ask, "does it make sense for the tiger to kill the wild boar?" or, "does it make sense for the watch to measure time?".

[iambiguous]

After all, what does it really mean to say Hitler should be imprisoned when those who imprison him are just another set of dominos? It makes no sense to imprison the tiger because the tiger isn't able to make sense out of killing the wild boar. Killing really is like breathing to it.

We imprison people who display certain behaviors simply because everyone else will be better off if we do it. We don't have to lie to ourselves and entertain notions of free will to justify that.

I really do try to "get" what you are saying here but it just won't "stick".

Those who break the law, those who punish them for breaking the law by putting them in prison and the rest of us who are now safe from them are in this extraordinary charade of choice. We really have none at all. We only think we do but that too is all part of the illusion that is free will. Now you and I are part of it here.

I could type, "the blue ferret at Mitt Romney's barbecue told a dirty joke about Michelle Obama that made even the charcoal laugh", and it's all just more dominos from the point of view of nature.

And what difference does it make if I speculate [or what I speculate about] when it was all inevitable anyway?

You're mixing determinism with fatalism.

Yes, but that is because it makes sense to. Or does to me.

If something was determined to happen how is that really diiferent from it being fated to happen? The tiger's behavior was fated/determined by the evolution of life on earth. Which was fated/determined by the unfolding of matter/energy all the way back to...what exactly?

As for existence itself, what determined/fated that?

[Amorphos]

Joe Schmoe

The guy regardless of the source, is doing harm to others. If we could cure him, then that would be the goal, however, until we find the cure, we must choose the lesser 'crime' in accordance with our values, which is to take away Hitler's freedom.

I agree, and add that; the cure for Hitler and the cure for the people who support him are one in the same. You need to remove power positions, by apportioning them and accountability out to as many sources as possible.

[volchok]

But it would seem you don't really choose to hate him anymore than you choose not to hate him. Here you are like the tiger to me [or a watch?]: a human "mechanism" that "chooses" what it was programed by nature to choose.Your realization is just another domino. And what does "making sense" really mean in a world that unfolds like clockwork? We don't ask, "does it make sense for the tiger to kill the wild boar?" or, "does it make sense for the watch to measure time?".

You're loosing me. What ?

Here's my advice, try to understand each concept at a time. You're discussing free will and determinism at the same time...

[volchok]

I really do try to "get" what you are saying here

It's all I can ask for.

Those who break the law, those who punish them for breaking the law by putting them in prison and the rest of us who are now safe from them are in this extraordinary charade of choice. We really have none at all. We only think we do but that too is all part of the illusion that is free will. Now you and I are part of it here.

So, I guess we're talking determinism now.
Well, yes. But I think you're mistaking determinism with fatalism. It seems to me like you think that whatever you do doesn't matter. That it is irrelevant if you close your eyes or not when you cross the street because what will happen is already determined. But, actually, it does matter. You closing your eyes while crossing the road does have consequences. It's just that it is already set if you're gonna close your eyes or not. And it is already set what the consequences of that action will be.

As for existence itself, what determined/fated that?

I suppose that question might not make sense but, we do not know why or how existence began. There are several theories. Some more credible then others.
It's all I can say really.
And I recommend reading a Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

[iambiguous]

But it would seem you don't really choose to hate him anymore than you choose not to hate him. Here you are like the tiger to me [or a watch?]: a human "mechanism" that "chooses" what it was programed by nature to choose. Your realization is just another domino. And what does "making sense" really mean in a world that unfolds like clockwork? We don't ask, "does it make sense for the tiger to kill the wild boar?" or, "does it make sense for the watch to measure time?".

You're loosing me. What ?

Here's my advice, try to understand each concept at a time. You're discussing free will and determinism at the same time...

It's not concepts I am trying to understand though. It is how the concepts of others either are or are not applicable to understanding our interactions out in the world. Or, perhaps, the extent to which they are.

If we are not really free to choose to hate someone then that hatred to me is like the tiger's hunger. Or the parts in a clock. It's matter moving ineluctably in tune with the laws of physics.

And I can't tell you how many times I've followed discussions like this in which folks broached free will and determinism in the same argument. Or even the same sentence.

[iambiguous]

Those who break the law, those who punish them for breaking the law by putting them in prison and the rest of us who are now safe from them are in this extraordinary charade of choice. We really have none at all. We only think we do but that too is all part of the illusion that is free will. Now you and I are part of it here.

So, I guess we're talking determinism now.
Well, yes. But I think you're mistaking determinism with fatalism. It seems to me like you think that whatever you do doesn't matter. That it is irrelevant if you close your eyes or not when you cross the street because what will happen is already determined. But, actually, it does matter. You closing your eyes while crossing the road does have consequences. It's just that it is already set if you're gonna close your eyes or not. And it is already set what the consequences of that action will be.

No, I would never suggest it doesn't matter what we choose. That to me would be absurd. Of course it matters that I open my eyes when I cross the street. But: Did I of my own volition choose not to one day because I of my own volition chose to commit suicide?

Remember that classic scene from Shane:

Joe Starrett: Don't forget to close the gate on your way out.

Shane: Would you put down that gun? Then I'll leave.

Joe Starrett: What's the difference? You're leaving anyway.

Shane: I'd like it to be my idea.

[Only_Humean]

So are we causal agents or not? Because I could have sworn we were just here. And the choices that we make are a result of all sorts of facts about ourselves - genetics, dispositions, brain chemistry etc.

"We" are causal agents but "we" are not self caused. Actions, thoughts, intentions and desires simply move trough us.

So when you said "To blame someone you're assuming that the person is the cause of the event. And we know that is not the case" - did you mean we need to believe in someone as a first cause in order to blame them? Because I don't think that's the case.

A malfunctioning machine is one which doesn't do as it ought, surely? Psychopaths would seem necessarily to be malfunctioning. In any case, swap out "malfunctioning" for "undesirably-behaving".

So, a malfunctioning human being is one that doesn't do as it ought? Pretty ironic statement for someone who doesn't believe in objective morals.

I'm stepping into your argument, here, to see where it leads.

There aren't malfunctioning human beings. There are human beings that behave or act or think out of the norm. And since they can't be held responsible for anything, nothing should be done to them besides what is necessary to ensure their well being and the well being of others.

And if I petition to have them publically humiliated, tortured and executed, you won't hold it against me? I can't take responsibility for it.

Let's say you hate someone and then you find out that they have a brain tumor. And this tumor explains their violent behavior and inability to regulate emotions. Upon this discovery your moral intuitions would shift almost immediately. You would no longer hate this person, certainly not to the same extent you used to anyway. Why ? Because you realize it's not rational. The person has no choice. Now imagine that no one has any free choice, regardless of having a tumor or a perfectly healthy brain... Hate no longer makes any sense.

Neither does love - it's not rational. Welcome to Asperger's Syndrome heaven.

So if blame affects other people's behaviours, what's wrong with it?

Well for one, it is immoral.

Why? Knowing we'll be blamed for unacceptable things that are our fault can significantly influence us to ensure an acceptable outcome.

If we can't blame people for doing things wrong, we can't credit them for doing things well. Does this seem like a fair statement?

Explicitly, deterrence to others in the case I just mentioned. And note the if - this is a hypothetical. I'm hoping for an answer to that, rather than a digression to the comparitive US/European social policy.

Our need to deter certain behaviors does not mean that we have to become amoral.

I thought that increasing the overall well-being was a good thing? That's consequentialism.

Why "fair"? Do people deserve to be treated fairly?

Why wouldn't they?
And why is the answer to that question dependent on free will?

Well, in the words of a wise and incisive philosopher I have had the pleasure of talking to:

If free will is an illusion no one deserves anything.