We have names for emotions, states of mind, relationships with others. Guilt,
responsibility, and others. We can have these states regardless of knowing
there is no free will, and can use these words to describe them. I'm not greatly
concerned with what people who believe in the magic of free will, might be
implying when they use such words.

Arthur Noll

--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@...> wrote:
>
> "One more try at this. Some people do not feel the laws of society apply to
them. They commit crimes, hurt or kill other people. They did not have free will
about doing this. Are you suggesting that this behavior should be tolerated
because these people did not have free will? They did not *earn* some kind of
response to this, like being walled off from the rest of society like
tuberculosis bacteria?"
>
> No, they have not "earned" anything - that's precisely what I'm saying. Such a
person as in your example is "guilty" of nothing more than being born with the
wrong set of genes and/or in the wrong environment. Normally, when we say that
someone has "earned" something, we imply that the person was free to choose to
do otherwise.
>
> Now, this does not automatically imply that society should do nothing about
such people. Such people should be removed from society - quarantined - in order
to prevent them from doing harm to others. But, preventing them from doing harm
should be the sole justification for having them quarantined - rehabilitation
and justice make no sense if the person doesn't have free will.
>
> "Behavior of a certain kind *earns* an outcome of a certain kind, in a
> certain set of circumstances"
>
> I agree if we are talking about "earns" in the sense that society should
respond a certain way to a certain behavior, but not if "earns" is meant to
imply that people are free to choose to do otherwise. It might be better to say
that behavior of a certain kind simply *results* in an outcome of a certain
kind, in a certain set of circumstances. The word "earns" brings along a certain
connotation which implies that the agent was responsible for their actions,
which is why I say that "no one earns anything (good or bad) if free will does
not exist."
>
> Basically, in order to understand my argument, you need to distinguish between
these two senses of the word "earns." If you are using "earns" to simply mean
cause and effect, then that's fine - a certain behavior is the cause of a
certain effect. If you are using "earns" to mean that a person was responsible
for their actions, then you are saying something quite different.
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur C." <arthurcnoll@> wrote:
> >
> > One more try at this. Some people do not feel the laws of society apply to
them. They commit crimes, hurt or kill other people. They did not have free
will about doing this. Are you suggesting that this behavior should be tolerated
because these people did not have free will? They did not *earn* some kind of
response to this, like being walled off from the rest of society like
tuberculosis bacteria?
> >
> > Of course if enough people agree that laws are wrong, they might be
changed, or if only a significant fraction of people are in agreement that they
are wrong, you have divisions in society that could result in splits or in
fighting and one side winning or both sides losing. But while nobody had free
will in any of this, these results as a matter of behavior, happened anyway.
Cause and effect working in people's brains means they do not have free will, it
also makes cause and effect things happen with their behavior and the behavior
of others. Behavior of a certain kind *earns* an outcome of a certain kind, in
a certain set of circumstances.
> >
> > An individual's thought process about how people should behave is part of
the environment of other people, and that may affect them. Thinking and behavior
might be changed in some or all. But arguing that lack of free will by itself
is a reason for people not to earn things, not to get certain outcomes for
behavior, is irrational. It is like saying that cause and effect works inside
the brain, but not outside it.
> >
> > Arthur Noll
> >
> > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, replace "can be given" with "can have." Does that satisfy you?
Besides, it is not really that flawed since it is society as a whole that does
the giving, i.e., resource allocation, through social contracts.
> > >
> > > "in a halfway free system, they will earn or win the resources that they
want."
> > >
> > > How does anyone earn anything if human behavior is the result of nature
and nurture? We've already been over this before.
> > >
> > > "that somebody else will accept in return for their own resources or
product."
> > >
> > > But, how on earth did those resources become the individual's in the first
place? Did they take it be force? Did they create it themselves? That might work
for some resources but not for others, i.e., for natural resources. So, who
decides how natural resources are dived? This is either done by the individual
without society's consent and is therefore tyranny, or it is done with society's
consent, i.e., through a social contract. I don't see what value being testing
empirically has anything to do with this.
> > >
> > > -Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Abernethy, Virginia Deane"
<virginia.abernethy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your point C, below, includes that phrase, "can be given".
> > > >
> > > > This phraseology is flawed. For starters, who is going to do the giving?
> > > >
> > > > Language reveals the underlying thought. The phrasing and the thinking
are flawed because people of more value do not need to be given anything. In a
halfway free system, they will earn or win the resources that they want.
> > > >
> > > > Value, BTW, is defined as being able to produce something [even wisdom
and original ideas will do, sometimes] that somebody else will accept in return
for their own resources or product.
> > > >
> > > > That is, value is tested empirically.... not by some self-appointed
sage.
> > > >
> > > > Virginia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [energyresources@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of pmccleery5 [pmccleery5@]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:06 AM
> > > > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Fwd: [toeslist] The Occupy Effect
> > > >
> > > > Arthur,
> > > >
> > > > Let me see if I follow you:
> > > >
> > > > A: There are not enough resources in a given area to guarantee the
survival of everyone who lives in that area
> > > > B: Some people are more valuable than others - the loss of some
individuals effects society's ability to function more than the loss of other
people
> > > > C: Inequality is necessary so that those members of society who are most
valuable can be given the resources they need to ensure their survival.
> > > >
> > > > A and B therefore C.
> > > >
> > > > I can see how in conditions of scarcity your argument applies. However,
what if there are more than enough resources in a given area to guarantee the
livelihoods of all who live there? What possible advantage could inequality
bring to such a society? I can see how it could lead to all kinds of social
strife and conflict, but cannot see any advantage in such a situation.
> > > >
> > > > -Patrick
> > > >
> > > > --- In
energyresources@yahoogroups.com<mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Arthur C." <arthurcnoll@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have answered this before. But before I answer it again, all
morality to me has to be utilitarian. I'm quite sure that the instincts we
generally have about what is fair, what is right, were selected by the fact that
people operating on these instincts, got good results. Societies functioned.
However, not all human instincts are working properly with the new situation we
have of being able to take just about as much as we want from the rest of
nature. Some instincts of what is right and wrong have been put in serious
confusion. When taking from nature was hard, limited by primitive technology,
people who could do better at it, were seen as more valuable. Now, when it is
possible to destroy resources by taking too much, instincts about this are not
doing anyone any good. That isn't the only problem, but it is enough of an
example for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > I only see one reason why someone on a team might get more resources
than others, and that is a utilitarian reason. With teams, you often have "most
valuable players". They have more central importance to the group, the group
falls apart without them to greater degrees than losing someone else. Groups in
history have sometimes been completely scattered or destroyed simply by killing
one person. That problem has increasingly led to systems set up to avoid that
kind of trouble, to have successions worked out. That replaces someone more
quickly, but the extra energy needed to find appropriate talent and educate it,
is still there, is still making that person worth more care than others. It is
this greater replacement energy, that makes such people more valuable. By
agreement, they can get more care to keep them functioning, than others get. As
I've often pointed out, nature does this in the body. The brain gets more
protection than any of the other organs. You can lose many small parts of your
body and still function without much trouble, but lose equivalent amount of
neurons in your brain, and you could be in very serious trouble. So the brain is
in a skull, and is further protected by a special membrane to filter blood.
There are also instinctive reactions to sacrifice hands to protect your head,
protect eyes, another quite valuable organ. Eyes by their nature cannot be
protected completely by bone, so they get active protection of eyelids and
hands. And there is a progression of this, the lungs and heart are in the rib
cage, and the hands also reflexively protect. Not as much protection as the
brain, but quite a bit more than what the hands, feet, the skin gets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Selection has no doubt walked a line on just how much extra protection
various organs get, with all species. Skulls vary in thickness, the thickness
and spacing of ribs varies. Animals have more or less hair or fur, etc. It
depends on what the threats are, as to how much protection gets selected for
various organs.
> > > > >
> > > > > If people do not make accurate assessments of value and threats with
their social organism, they can be hurting themselves to put resources in the
wrong places. They might give protection the equivalent of a skull and blood
brain barrier to someone who in actuality is leading them dangerously, or they
might be protecting a parasite. Parasites are known to get into the brains of
organisms and control them like puppets. That is an immune system failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a human society is not highly specialized, divisions of people
into brains, eyes, hands, etc, does not happen to a highly specialized degree,
though it does happen. Human society is not going to specialize to the same
degree as the body is specialized, not anytime soon, anyway. Specialization does
have benefits, though. Specialists can become much more highly competent at
various tasks than a generalist is ever going to do. But being a generalist can
be a specialization by itself. Obviously, current society has specialized head
work into many different specializations, too, so it is not so simple as just
one person being the brain for society, it can be many doing that.
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, that is the answer to why societies should not be
completely egalitarian. There are some players who are objectively more central
to the workings of the team, and more difficult to replace. If how this is
determined is not objective, everyone potentially suffers, the group may
completely fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Money market systems are really laughable for how value is assigned.
Someone who can hit, throw, or catch a ball with great skill, can be given more
value than good brains for analyzing and solving problems. As in the first
paragraph, people who destroy resources more effectively, are given enormous
value. I would say there are brains on this list of far more value than being
able to do these kinds of physical feats. When talented brains are easily
recruited to serve people destroying resources, things have gone haywire. It
isn't much different from a parasite taking control of the brain, when things
get as confused as this. Resource use must stay within sustainable limits except
for emergencies that hopefully do not eat completely through factors of safety.
Logically, nobody is worth unsustainable resource use as a common thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Arthur Noll.
> > > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>