Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't know the whole of the compatibilism arguments but they're just defining a moral framework within which you're still accountable. It doesn't say that free will is real.

It can all be broken down as follows:

Rewind time by a certain amount where the entire universe is exactly as it was at that instant. Start the replay. Do you make all the exact same choices, is the universe exactly the same when we get back to the present time?

If the answer is yes, then most people will accept that rejects the most common understanding of free will.

If the answer is no, then by what mechanism were different choices made? How did the neurons in your brain fire differently to make different choices? It must be random. And if it is just random, then that, to me (and many others) also rejects the most common understanding of free will.

But, that doesn't reject the idea of accountability within this system, because accountability is the feedback that directs the neurons to fire in a certain manner to make choices that soiciety prefers. If there was no accountability, no punishment for behaviour that was harmful to other individuals, it would not have good outcomes. So the system creates accountability. It must, because that accountability is part of the physical process by which choices are made.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: