(IFF) Free-Will is True (THEN) what?

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 59
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    (IFF) free-will is proportional to intelligence (animals and infants have less, adult humans have more)

    (AND) free-will is proportional to moral culpability (without free-will there is no moral culpability)

    (THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.

    Please feel free to modify any of the above statements (axioms) to better fit your "moral intuition".
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. That's not a high threshold. Once that threshold is reached, any additional intelligence will not increase your free will. And by intelligence I assume you mean possessing higher cognitive abilities like weighing decisions, introspection, planning ahead, etc. Intelligence of this sort should not be conflated with an IQ score.

    Your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others determines your level of moral culpability, not your intelligence. It's plausible many people have high IQ scores but very low emotional intelligence. 



  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. That's not a high threshold.
    Does a dog or an ape or a human toddler "have the ability to have chosen otherwise"?

    Once that threshold is reached, any additional intelligence will not increase your free will.
    Please explain exactly where this threshold lies.

    And by intelligence I assume you mean possessing higher cognitive abilities like weighing decisions, introspection, planning ahead, etc. Intelligence of this sort should not be conflated with an IQ score.
    IQ is highly correlated with pattern recognition and the ability to reason logically.

    The sole function of our human pre-frontal-cortex is to better be able to predict likely outcomes.

    The better you are able to predict outcomes, the higher your IQ.

    A con-man is able to fool their mark into believing they (the mark) made a decision "all by themselves, of their own free will",  however, the con-man is able to manipulate the mark's decision making process and subsequent action by being better able to predict their actions than the mark themself.

    In the con-man example, would you say that the con-man has more "free-will" than the mark?

    Or would you say that the con-man's (binary) "free-will" was somehow leveraged to undermine the (binary) "free-will" of the mark?

    Your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others determines your level of moral culpability, not your intelligence.
    If "your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others" is not "intelligence" (yatbaohyaao) please explain how it (yatbaohyaao) can be Quantified, measured, identified, or determined to exist in others and how we can tell if someone has more or less of it?

    It's plausible many people have high IQ scores but very low emotional intelligence. 
    Are you suggesting that "emotional intelligence" = "free-will"?

    Or would you say that "some minimum threshold of IQ" + "some minimum threshold of emotional intelligence" = "free-will"?
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @3RU7AL
    axiom: free-will requires intelligence.
    axiom: moral culpability requires free-will.(note change of order)(without free-will there is no moral culpability)

    hence: moral culpability requires intelligence.

    axiom: animals and infants have less, adult humans have more intelligence.
    lemma: culpabiity is 'proportional' to intelligence (currently assumed pending formal proof!)

    hence: adults are more morally culpable than infants or animals.





  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    You have free will at the point where you realize you can make alternative decisions. I don't know exactly at what stage of development this happens. Probably very young in humans and maybe not ever in animals. 

    I don't have an equation for free will, only the defintion. No, emotional intelligence does not equal free will. Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @keithprosser
    axiom: free-will requires intelligence.
    axiom: moral culpability requires free-will.(note change of order)(without free-will there is no moral culpability)

    hence: moral culpability requires intelligence.

    axiom: animals and infants have less, adult humans have more intelligence.
    lemma: culpabiity is 'proportional' to intelligence (currently assumed pending formal proof!) 

    hence: adults are more morally culpable than infants or animals.
    Well stated.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    You have free will at the point where you realize you can make alternative decisions. I don't know exactly at what stage of development this happens. Probably very young in humans and maybe not ever in animals. 
    I don't have an equation for free will, only the defintion. No, emotional intelligence does not equal free will. Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ.
    A psychopath is a person who is presumed to have a very high IQ and nearly zero "emotional intelligence".

    Do you believe a psychopath has no "free-will"?
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @3RU7AL
    I would characterise a psychopath as an individual who's brain circuits prioiritise 'harm/benefit to self' over 'harm/benefit to others' significantly more than the population norm.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @keithprosser
    I would characterise a psychopath as an individual who's brain circuits prioiritise 'harm/benefit to self' over 'harm/benefit to others' significantly more than the population norm.
    I agree.  Empathy = "Emotional Intelligence"

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @3RU7AL
    On that basis there is no reason to suppose psychpaths have less freewill than anybody else  - they only exercise it differenty.  We agree?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @keithprosser
    On that basis there is no reason to suppose psychpaths have less freewill than anybody else  - they only exercise it differenty.  We agree?
    Well, Fallaneze modified his definition of free-will to, "Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ."

    I am trying to Quantify Fallaneze's "moral intuition".
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @3RU7AL
    If it's correct that "Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ." then nice people should be punished more than nasty people if/when they do something bad.

    I'm not sure that's a good idea!
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,285
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Without free will, there is no "moral culpability".

    And isn't that really what all this is about?










  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Mopac
    Without free will, there is no "moral culpability".
    That is taken as axiomatic.  It's the relationship between intelligence and free will/moral culpability that is under discussion.

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @keithprosser
    If it's correct that "Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ." then nice people should be punished more than nasty people if/when they do something bad.

    I'm not sure that's a good idea!
    I would tend to agree.

    Do you believe the reverse better fits your "moral intuition"?

    In other words, should people with a low IQ and high "emotional intelligence" (empathy) be given more leniency and people with a high IQ and low "emotional intelligence" (empathy) be given less leniency regarding moral culpability? 

    Is high IQ + high EI (super ego) more morally-culpable than low IQ + high EI (naive nurturer)?

    Is high IQ + low EI (psychopath) more morally-culpable than low IQ + high EI (naive nurturer)?

    Is low IQ + low EI (infant) more morally-culpable than low IQ + high EI (naive nurturer)?

    My "moral intuition" seems to indicate that "psychopaths" are the most evil and "infants" are the least evil.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @3RU7AL
    I said that moral culpability is better described by emotional intelligence than IQ. This was a comparison between two options and I selected an option that better fits. This does not mean that moral culpability is equal to your emotional intelligence. I've said previously that your moral culpability is based on your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    I said that moral culpability is better described by emotional intelligence than IQ.
    Please explain why you would think this.  A "psychopath" has a near zero EQ, do you believe a "psychopath" has no moral-culpability?

    This was a comparison between two options and I selected an option that better fits.
    If you can think of an even better criteria, please let me know.  You're the one who thinks "moral" is "real".

    If something is "real" then, axiomatically, it is measurable.  If you insist that it is not measurable, then it can't be "real".

    This does not mean that moral culpability is equal to your emotional intelligence.
    Either "moral-culpability" correlates with EQ or it does not.  Please choose one.  If you can think of a better way of measuring "moral-culpability" please let me know, I'm trying to detect logical coherence in your "moral-intuition".  Please feel free to modify or completely re-write any of your proposed statements at any time.

    I've said previously that your moral culpability is based on your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others [YATBAOHYAAO].
    This is the key point.  Is YATBAOHYAAO IQ?  Is YATBAOHYAAO EQ?  Is YATBAOHYAAO some complex calculation of IQ and EQ?

    Is YATBAOHYAAO something else entirely?

    It seems to me that YATBAOHYAAO is what we need to be measuring.


  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @3RU7AL
    Someone who is severely mentally retarded, to the point where they don't understand that people have personal belongings, is less morally culpable, or not at all, for stealing than someone who does have the cognitive capability of understanding that stealing is wrong.

    The second layer, which is independent from cognitive capability, is your motive for doing something. Intentions matter. You are less culpable for accidentally taking someone else's personal belongings than if you do it deliberately.
     
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Fallaneze
    Someone who is severely mentally retarded, to the point where they don't understand that people have personal belongings, is less morally culpable, or not at all, for stealing than someone who does have the cognitive capability of understanding that stealing is wrong.
    My personal "moral-intuition" seems to corroborate this assessment.  But is this scalable?  Does "moral-culpability" scale (proportionally) based on (YATBAOHYAAO) cognitive function?

    The second layer, which is independent from cognitive capability, is your motive for doing something. Intentions matter. You are less culpable for accidentally taking someone else's personal belongings than if you do it deliberately.
    Intentionality (YATBAOHYAAO) would also seem to be proportionally relative to one's cognitive function.

    If you habitually act (impulsively) without considering longer term consequences (like a child or a dog), this is a strong indication of lower IQ (and possibly EQ if you ignore emotional consequences).

    For example, if you purchase and then consume a piece of delicious, succulent chocolate and never consider the wider moral implications of the near-slavery conditions of the Theobroma cacao plantations that produced your practically irresistible treat, are you less "morally-culpable" than someone who knows exactly how much human suffering was rendered in service of their appetite? 

    If you think the short-term-minded-person is less "morally-culpable", then STUPID = GOOD and SMART = BAD.
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @3RU7AL
    (THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability

    Morals stem only from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts via{ preceded by } emotional { sensorial/consciousnss } experiences. 

    Ego * i * is base reference for morals and the knowledge that other egos * i * exist.

    Golden Rule Variations On Earth

    The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- has a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

    Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
    humanity or its distinct tribes. "

    Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God/Universe is instantaneous, forgiveness by humans takes time.

    Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and tooth for a tooth. iOnly the human animal practice this concept

    Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have them share with you."

    Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all humans, does not neccessitate chaos."

     Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is rendition of Ram Dass’sBe-Here-Now---




194 days later

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @keithprosser
    axiom: free-will requires intelligence.
    axiom: moral culpability requires free-will.(note change of order)(without free-will there is no moral culpability)

    hence: moral culpability requires intelligence.

    axiom: animals and infants have less, adult humans have more intelligence.
    lemma: culpabiity is 'proportional' to intelligence (currently assumed pending formal proof!) 

    hence: adults are more morally culpable than infants or animals.
    Well stated.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @3RU7AL
    Thanks, but I don't even remember posting it!



  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @keithprosser
    axiom: free-will requires intelligence.
    False. 

    Axiom: intelligence is related to the ability to find more options --not free-will-- and all such actions, their root/core cause stem from cause and effect determinism.

    Degrees-of-freedom are finite.

    Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and  related to intelligence  aka brain power.



  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,865
    3
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @mustardness
    False.  

    Axiom: intelligence is related to the ability to find more options --not free-will-- and all such actions, their root/core cause stem from cause and effect determinism.

    Degrees-of-freedom are finite.

    Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and  related to intelligence  aka brain power.
    Hypothetically speaking.

    (IFF) freewill is true (THEN) how do you think it might function?

    We're not talking about freewill being true or false.  The hypothesis makes freewill necessarily true for the purposes of this particular discussion.
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @3RU7AL
    The hypothesis makes freewill necessarily true for the purposes of this particular discussion.
    Fair enough, so Ive taken out word "false" ergo the other still applies, as stated, with addition of the word 'necessarily'. If still not correct, please feel free to correct my error again. Thanks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Axiom: intelligence is related to the ability to find more options --not  'neccessarily'  free-will-- and all such actions  root/core source stem from cause and effect determinism.

    Degrees-of-freedom are finite.

    Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and  related to intelligence  aka brain power.