Just because I can’t lift a car with my bare hands does not absolve me of the responsibility of lifting a car with my bare hands? What?
BTW, in a world with no free will the concept of responsibility is meaningless. There is no “should” without “decision”.
Let’s dissolve “responsibility”, then:
If your children are trapped under a burning car and the only means you have to lift that car is your bare hands, your inability to lift that car with your bare hands does not absolve you of the consequence of your children burning to death.
If you have something to protect, your definition of ‘responsibility’ changes. And everyone has something to protect, even if it’s only themselves.
Let’s not. It’s one of the pillars of our civilization.
If your children are trapped under a burning car and the only means you have to lift that car is your bare hands, your inability to lift that car with your bare hands does not absolve you of the consequence of your children burning to death.
You know, contracts, rule of law, the works. All under the assumption of free will.
Never mind. Look, from your original post it just seemed to me that “updating” doesn’t work for you. Try something else. Just because you like to imagine yourself as some sort of Bayesian Machine doesn’t make you one.
Consequence is perfectly fine in a deterministic universe. Things just happen one after the other. You don’t repair the car, your children burn to death. You don’t go to the doctor, you die of bone cancer. There is no need for free will. Hell, there is no need for qualia, you and burning children may all be p-zombies.
Responsibility, on the other hand, implies a world of free will (whatever it is). It means you can choose between doing something you ought to, and not doing it.
No, I can’t. (Of course, if you were a p-zombie, you wouldn’t be able to notice anything. So, if you notice yourself reading this sentence, you are not a p-zombie.)
Let’s dissolve “responsibility”, then:
If your children are trapped under a burning car and the only means you have to lift that car is your bare hands, your inability to lift that car with your bare hands does not absolve you of the consequence of your children burning to death.
If you have something to protect, your definition of ‘responsibility’ changes. And everyone has something to protect, even if it’s only themselves.
Let’s not. It’s one of the pillars of our civilization.
This has nothing do to with responsibility.
Huh?
You know, contracts, rule of law, the works. All under the assumption of free will.
Never mind. Look, from your original post it just seemed to me that “updating” doesn’t work for you. Try something else. Just because you like to imagine yourself as some sort of Bayesian Machine doesn’t make you one.
I didn’t say to dissolve responsibility. I said to dissolve “responsibility”.
OK, but you chose to replace it with “consequence”. Those are different concepts, at least in my book.
Also, you don’t have to link EY everywhere. It doesn’t make things cleaner.
Can you explain how you see them as different concepts?
Consequence is perfectly fine in a deterministic universe. Things just happen one after the other. You don’t repair the car, your children burn to death. You don’t go to the doctor, you die of bone cancer. There is no need for free will. Hell, there is no need for qualia, you and burning children may all be p-zombies.
Responsibility, on the other hand, implies a world of free will (whatever it is). It means you can choose between doing something you ought to, and not doing it.
Can you describe things that one would notice if one was in one of those worlds, but not the other?
No, I can’t. (Of course, if you were a p-zombie, you wouldn’t be able to notice anything. So, if you notice yourself reading this sentence, you are not a p-zombie.)