Often, when (most typically) defending criminal youth, their advocates will say something like, "This one mistake shouldn't affect the entire rest of his/her life."
What was the "mistake"? Often, it's something like one of these:

Armed robbery of a convenience store.
Assaulting a homeless person.
Driving way too fast and causing an accident.
Killing someone.
Stealing from his employer's inventory.

My problem is that none of these things are actual mistakes. A mistake is, literally, a missed take. A misunderstanding. Understood that way, none of the above crimes are mistakes.

One characteristic of a true mistake is that it involves, in part, a lack of intentionality. Consider some real mistakes:

I go around the house looking for my glasses until I realize to my chagrin that I'm already wearing them.
I ask someone how his father is doing, forgetting that his father had died.
I add 286+37,206 and come up with 37,493.
I show up at Josh's party in street clothes. It turns out to be a costume party.
I am wondering why my key isn't opening my car's door until I realize that it's not my car; it just looks like my car.

Have you ever thought about this? Do you agree with me?

Tags: mistakes

Views: 1650

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

De facto free will isn't free will, as you've freely (LOL) admitted. It's just feeling free when, in fact, you are not. "De facto" does not (as many might think) mean "in fact" but rather "in practice." Free will is not a fact. De facto free will is just pretending one has free will so that one can stop worrying about it. It's pseudo-free will much in the way that pseudorandom numbers are "random numbers. In other words, an attempt to manufacture something through stipulation.

Hawking provides no solution to the actual philosophical issue of free will. Rather, he just provides a way for people to feel a little better about the issue.

De facto free will isn't free will, as you've freely (LOL) admitted.

Yes, Unseen. De facto free will is not the same as free will. The former satisfies the same operational testing conditions as the latter. (As explained by Hawking below.)

Why is the distinction funny? Explain the humor in the point (besides your ongoing propensity to ignore or restate it falsely to make it easier to attack, rather than address it honestly).

Steven Hawking: The ultimate objective test of free will would seem to be: Can one predict the behavior of the organism? If one can, then it clearly doesn't have free will but is predetermined. On the other hand, if one cannot predict the behavior, one could take that as an operational definition that the organism has free will.

It's just feeling free when, in fact, you are not.

That's a strawman fallacy.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. As I've said, It's about the time barrier. Behavior can be predicted in fact, but not in practice (because the problem is too complex to solve).  

Dismissed.

"De facto" does not (as many might think) mean "in fact" but rather "in practice." Free will is not a fact.

Yes, thank you Unseen. I explained the meaning of de facto and included a link to the definition in my last post here.

De facto free will is just pretending one has free will so that one can stop worrying about it.

That's a strawman fallacy.

It's not pretend.

Highly complex behavior cannot be predicted in practice due to the limited amount of time and processing power in the universe.

Likewise with 256-bit AES encryption, which can be broken in fact, but not in practice (for the similar reasons of limited time and limited processing power).

We do not "pretend" that data so encrypted is safe so we can stop worrying about it. We acknowledge that it really is safe, in addition to acknowledging the paradox that makes it so. 256-bit AES encryption is not unbreakable, but it is de facto unbreakable.

It's pseudo-free will much in the way that pseudorandom numbers are "random numbers.

That's a strawman fallacy.

Pseudo means disingenuous; a sham; not true. Here you simply declare the position to be false and then compare it to something that is false, but never address the actual position and explain why it is faulty.

Dismissed.

In other words, an attempt to manufacture something through stipulation.

That's a strawman fallacy.

I'm not demanding a special condition in exchange for making this work. There are none. It works for exactly the reasons I've explained and that you refuse to address.

Dismissed.

Hawking provides no solution to the actual philosophical issue of free will. Rather, he just provides a way for people to feel a little better about the issue.

That's a strawman fallacy.

Hawking has provided an actual solution, exactly as I've explained it. Here you simply declare it is no solution without addressing it or explaining why.

Dismissed.

@Gallups Mirror:

Why is the distinction funny? Explain the humor in the point (besides your ongoing propensity to ignore or restate it falsely to make it easier to attack, rather than address it honestly).

The humor wasn't about the distinction. It was about word play. But you generally don't "get" lots of things.

Steven Hawking: The ultimate objective test of free will would seem to be: Can one predict the behavior of the organism? If one can, then it clearly doesn't have free will but is predetermined. On the other hand, if one cannot predict the behavior, one could take that as an operational definition that the organism has free will.

We don't need operational free will in order to, for example, hold people responsible for their actions, we need free will.

It's just feeling free when, in fact, you are not.

That's a strawman fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman).

Since you are not REALLY free, it's not a strawman.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. As I've said, It's about the time barrier. Behavior can be predicted in fact, but not in practice (because the problem is too complex to solve).

Yes, we feel free because of our ignorance of the subsurface determinism

"De facto" does not (as many might think) mean "in fact" but rather "in practice." Free will is not a fact.

Yes, thank you Unseen. I explained the meaning of de facto (http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:1435508) and included a link to the definition in my last post here.

A reminder.

Highly complex behavior cannot be predicted in practice due to the limited amount of time and processing power in the universe.

Determinism doesn't require predicability. It's not based on predicability but on the form real world events which are based on immutable, unavoidable physical laws.

We do not "pretend" that data so encrypted is safe so we can stop worrying about it. We acknowledge that it really is safe, in addition to acknowledging the paradox that makes it so. 256-bit AES encryption is not unbreakable, but it is de facto unbreakable.

So you would hold someone accountable based on evidence obsucred using uncrackable encryption?

It's pseudo-free will much in the way that pseudorandom numbers are "random numbers.

That's a strawman fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman).

I have not misrepresented Hawking's argument. Simply unpacked it. Showed the implications.

Pseudo means disingenuous; a sham; not true. Here you simply declare the position to be false and then compare it to something that is false, but never address the actual position and explain why it is faulty.

Hawking's position is irrelevant. It doesn't salvage free will so it doesn't salvage personal responsibility.

That's a strawman fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman).

It's only a strawman fallacy if it's a strawman fallacy. Every single strawman invocation you have used involves psychologizing my intentions, and yet you have no way of knowing, much less proving, my intentions.

I'm not demanding a special condition in exchange for making this work. There are none. It works for exactly the reasons I've explained and that you refuse to address.

I have addressed the notion that while I understand the motivation for de facto free will, it only functions to reinforce the false belief we have free will. It doesn't (as you admit) salvage it.

Hawking provides no solution to the actual philosophical issue of free will. Rather, he just provides a way for people to feel a little better about the issue.

That's a strawman fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman).

Hawking has provided an actual solution, exactly as I've explained it. Here you simply declare it is false without addressing it or explaining why.

I've explained why many times. It's irrelevant. It doesn't solve the problem but rather provides a way to get around it. An easy way out.

BTW, we don't believe in physical laws just on the overwhelming evidence that everything happens due to antecedent events, we are forced to assume as much. It's built into our thought processes.

Gallup: Why is the distinction funny? Explain the humor in the point (besides your ongoing propensity to ignore or restate it falsely to make it easier to attack, rather than address it honestly).
Unseen: The humor wasn't about the distinction. It was about word play. But you generally don't "get" lots of things.

Told a joke and heard nothing but crickets? That's a poor comedian, not his poor audience.

Steven Hawking: The ultimate objective test of free will would seem to be: Can one predict the behavior of the organism? If one can, then it clearly doesn't have free will but is predetermined. On the other hand, if one cannot predict the behavior, one could take that as an operational definition that the organism has free will.

Unseen: We don't need operational free will in order to, for example, hold people responsible for their actions, we need free will.

The usual proclamation sans explanation. What does necessity have to do with it?

Unseen: It's just feeling free when, in fact, you are not.

Gallup: That's a strawman fallacy. Feelings have nothing to do with it. As I've said, It's about the time barrier. Behavior can be predicted in fact, but not in practice (because the problem is too complex to solve).

Unseen: Since you are not REALLY free, it's not a strawman.

Your statement above is simple gainsaying. I'm not going to play these stupid games where you ignore what I say and repeat yourself more emphatically.

Gallup: Feelings have nothing to do with it. As I've said, It's about the time barrier. Behavior can be predicted in fact, but not in practice (because the problem is too complex to solve).
Unseen: Yes, we feel free because of our ignorance of the subsurface determinism

More gainsaying, unless you're actually suggesting that how we feel about the natural laws of the universe (like the time barrier) has any bearing on them.

Gallup: Highly complex behavior cannot be predicted in practice due to the limited amount of time and processing power in the universe.
Unseen: Determinism doesn't require predicability.

Determinism does not exclude predictability: "Some forms of determinism can be empirically tested with ideas from physics and its philosophy." We are specifically addressing physicist Steven Hawking's operational (empirical) test of human free will. Or rather, I am addressing it. You are trying (and failing) to disqualify the idea on imaginary 'procedural' grounds so you can continue not addressing it.

Concepts of determinism and free will that have no empirical basis, no operational test, or no applicable use simply don't interest me. You might as well explore the concept that the solar system is just an atom in the fingernail of a giant.

Unseen: Determinism is not based on predicability but on the form real world events which are based on immutable, unavoidable physical laws.

This includes the immutable, unavoidable physical laws of the time and the limited processing power of the universe which, as Hawking points out, keep us from reaching a solution.

Gallup: We do not "pretend" that data so encrypted is safe so we can stop worrying about it. We acknowledge that it really is safe, in addition to acknowledging the paradox that makes it so. 256-bit AES encryption is not unbreakable, but it is de facto unbreakable.

Unseen: So you would hold someone accountable based on evidence obsucred using uncrackable encryption?

If you have a rebuttal or counterpoint to make, I really wish you would just make it for change.

Unseen: It's pseudo-free will much in the way that pseudorandom numbers are "random numbers.

Gallup: That's a strawman fallacy. Pseudo means disingenuous; a sham; not true. Here you simply declare the position to be false and then compare it to something that is false, but never address the actual position and explain why it is faulty.

Unseen: I have not misrepresented Hawking's argument. Simply unpacked it. Showed the implications.

You haven't "unpacked" or showed anything. You've done exactly what I said: issued a proclamation that Hawking's position is disqualified...

Gallup: Pseudo means disingenuous; a sham; not true. Here you simply declare the position to be false and then compare it to something that is false, but never address the actual position and explain why it is faulty.

Unseen: Hawking's position is irrelevant. It doesn't salvage free will so it doesn't salvage personal responsibility.

...and now "irrelevant" as well. This, rather than address the point and explain why it is faulty.

Unseen: It's only a strawman fallacy if it's a strawman fallacy. Every single strawman invocation you have used involves psychologizing my intentions,

That, and demonstrating specifically how you misrepresent me or Hawking each time.

and yet you have no way of knowing, much less proving, my intentions.

I have no way of knowing because because you only insist that Hawking's work is invalid rather than explain why it's invalid or not true (which is really quite funny, at least in the short term). The only reasonable conclusion I have is that you don't have a legitimate counter-argument.

Unseen: In other words, [your and Hawking's position is] an attempt to manufacture something through stipulation.

Gallup: I'm not demanding a special condition in exchange for making this work. There are none. It works for exactly the reasons I've explained and that you refuse to address.

Unseen: I have addressed the notion that while I understand the motivation for de facto free will, it only functions to reinforce the false belief we have free will. It doesn't (as you admit) salvage it.

Hawking's actual argument is for de facto free will, which explicitly includes that we don't have free will (and does not equate the two).

But according to you, the fault in Hawking's position (de facto free will) isn't that the position itself is false, but rather that it encourages the adoption of a different position (free will) which is false.

That's not the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, but it's close.

Hawking provides no solution to the actual philosophical issue of free will.

Actually, he does. But it seems you expect others to disregard it because you deny it and disqualify it...

Rather, he just provides a way for people to feel a little better about the issue.

...for specious reasons, which you repeat with rising insistence.

Gallup: Hawking has provided an actual solution, exactly as I've explained it. Here you simply declare it is false without addressing it or explaining why.

Unseen: I've explained why many times. It's irrelevant. It doesn't solve the problem but rather provides a way to get around it. An easy way out.

Hawking's position is that the problem of free will cannot be solved operationally. Declaring that to be irrelevant-- not connected with free will or determinism-- is absurd. Your proclamation of irrelevancy is also a (false) disqualification, not an explanation of why it is not connected or why Hawking's position is faulty. You're not saying anything.

All you're going to do now is keep finding new ways to repeat that Hawking's point is disqualified (because it's unnecessary, not required, not needed, irrelevant, too easy, encourages the adoption of different and untrue positions, and whatever else you can conjure up). If you don't have anything legitimate to offer, there's no reason for me to respond. As I said, I'm not playing these stupid games.

As for me, I've made my two points in bringing this up here: demonstrating Hawking's position and your ongoing failure to address that position honestly. So we're done here, Unseen.

You can use "mistake" or "poor judgement" interchangeably in this regard. There still remains the aspect of accountability. 

Yep to what Ed said.

Sometimes. Not every mistake is a poor judgment, unless you adopt an unjustifiably definition of "mistake." 

We would not describe 23+43=67 as poor judgment, but rather as a mistake. 

@Unseen:

I think the concept that underlays Ed's post (and what I'm agreeing with) is no matter what term a person uses (mistake, poor judgement, act of doG) to describe their action in breaking a rule, it was a conscious decision and the person is still accountable for breaking the rule.

To say someone's accountable is not a natural fact like "all metals expand when heated" or "parents are always older than their offspring." Rather, it's a contingent fact which reflects a system of accountability designed to manage a set of rules/laws/proscriptions.

Agreed. none of them are mistakes. Mistakes are just unintentional results whether good or evil intentions. If someone were to murder someone and is found guilty. The mistake is that the person got caught. 

And to comment about alternatives. Send them to live with like individuals forever. Kind of like that movie "the one"

I must add:

Pushing the wrong way on a bank door...;p(

Confusing two similar sounding words...

Mis-pronouncing words..  (Ex: My loving significant)

For me, 'spelling errors'...

Forgeting or mis-memory of history, math constants, names, experimental results, or qoutes.

In short, common or standard SNAFU's, distracted cognition, computational overload, un-thought or over-thought moments, planning details overload, and pre-coffee computational demands/load.

Now I wonder how much we should falt each other for these?

  

@James Cox:

"Now I wonder how much we should falt each other for these?"

I falt doG for everything. :) LOL

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Science Isn't About Truth

Started by Ari E. S. in Philosophy. Last reply by Unseen 58 minutes ago. 21 Replies

Blog Posts

Seeing the man in the child.

Posted by Diane on April 19, 2014 at 9:52am 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service