But if free will doesn't exist then punishment will do nothing to modify behavior or dissuade a criminal from repeat behavior.300ccs of medicine said:
Does free will exist?
- Thread starter JC175
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That is a startlingly good point.MoganFreeman said:
I applaud you, sir.
Oh, aye. Your sadistic side really comes out when you're given absolute control over people you don't know.MaxTheReaper said:
For example, deleting the toilet and the only door that leads out of the bathroom, and watching someone slowly die in a puddle of their own piss. That sounds much more graphic than it really is, but it's quite disturbing when you think about it.
It's even more disturbing when you consider that people believe that there's someone that has that kind of control over us, and created us in his image. That pretty much means that there could be someone watching all of us, with the same dickish tendencies that all of us humans have.
I refer to my earlier post in which I described a model of "partial will" that is masked with the illusion of free will.MoganFreeman said:
If a persons decisions stem from reflex arcs trained by external stimuli, then punishing undesireable behavior will change it. Which is demonstrated rather thoroughly.
And even so, if by "punishment" you mean incarceration, then yes, locking someone in a hole will in fact keep them from stealing cars, regardless of whether or not they have free will.
Actually you not jumping into lava is a voluntary action. Although you could be pushed into the lava against your "free will".Gitsnik said:
It's a paradox, we can make our own choices and we'd like to think that those choices are personal, which they are, but at the same time we decide before a situation even occurs.Gitsnik said:
Yes. That is what I am saying and free action, although I'm slightly confused by what you mean by that term, I'm going to assume that free action is the ability to choose between the choices given to us. Which I do not debate.Gitsnik said:
Great I think we're on the same page.DoW Lowen said:
Free action, to continue whipping the lava reference, is: "Even if I am pushed into this pit I can escape it unscathed". Being pushed into the lava might go against your free will, but you have still chosen not to be pushed into it. The actual action of being pushed in has nothing to do with it - it is all about what you want to do, not necessarily what is forced on you.
You can choose to ignore the consequences (i.e. if you jump into the lava you will die), but that does not mean the consequences will not catch you up - instantly in the case of the lava, or - if we were to use a murder or theft as the point - when the law enforcement personnel catch up with you. Either way you have made a choice and are free to make that choice, but ultimately it is only a choice you have made - depending on environmental constraints you may be forced to do something else.
The problem is the two operations - free will and free action - are so closely tied into each other that it can be hard to differentiate. Free will is the ability to make choices in your head, determining whether or not you wish to accept, ignore or deal with the consequences is part of this choice. Free action, on the other hand, is the ability to do what you like without fear of retribution or consequence.
Edit: And then we get into the predestination argument of what your "free will" choices are going to be - what influences your environment and so forth are going to cause you to evaluate and decide. That said you can still choose to take the more dangerous path if you have two options, though I think that only certain people would do that sort of thing - heading back into nature vs nurture there.
Theoretically possible = "I have no idea if this theory is correct or not and hence no evidence to determine whether this is possible or not". Hence, it's equivalent to saying "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument."JC175 said:
To declare that something is possible, you need evidence, hence the hilarious juxtaposition of your various points. But people inclined to this kind of pointless mental wanking generally wander all over the map in what they erroneously refer to as their "thinking" anyway, so it's not like I'm *surprised*.
I've yet to see your list of references. Thanks for such an illuminating contribution to the discussion. Next time instead of "thinking" I'll just wander around and randomly criticise people's grammar in response to criticism, or mock amusement at the plebs, who are just like little ants running about in an enclosed field, in order to convince the public that I'm some kind of high class twat.JMeganSnow said:
I think that someones course in life isn't predetermined, but one might be more likely than the rest, depending.
EG) You can always do whatever you want whenever you want, you just to be alright with the consequences of your actions. Even if it goes against what might be natural, if you really want to do it, there's nothing mentally stopping you.
EG) You can always do whatever you want whenever you want, you just to be alright with the consequences of your actions. Even if it goes against what might be natural, if you really want to do it, there's nothing mentally stopping you.
Actually no. To begin with, we're talking a hypothetical situation based on technology that is incrementally (albeit geometrically) more advanced than ours. We already have the ability to "read minds" through the use of various electronic arrays and scanners - we can tell which centres of the mind stimulate pleasure and pain, which give euphoria and which do not. As with most theories (and I suggest you either go back to school or study black hole theory some time) we have some basic evidence (let's take gravity for example) and a theory that we can, with enough power or force, lift ourselves away from it and break gravity. The theory that people could fly like birds. This theory is, as you said "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument." but never the less a theory that has been held for hundreds if not thousands of years. Amazingly enough, way back in the 1900's, someone turned around and say "hey wow, we can actually fly" and built a damned aircraft to support the theory.JMeganSnow said:
Any good theory (in this case the theory that we can read an entire human mind at will) is based on already known facts and built from there - Einstein had "theories" (relativity springs to mind) and I think if you postulated that he had no idea what he was talking about, most if not all, people would throw large heavy objects at you because his theories have proven to be correct. Yet he had no way to test them because the technology of the time did not provide him with the equipment to do so.
Theory is a basic concept in both the scientific community and in your every day life, please try and use some imagination when you think of things before you come back.
We have evidence, as I said above, we have ways of seeing what people are doing in their mind - we see their reaction to external stimuli. There is no sane or intelligent reason to think we will not be able to increase this technology further, especially in light of the recent advances to help quadriplegics move things with their minds and aide those who are otherwise unable to operate certain things.JMeganSnow said:
Which reminds me, if I can find my original notes on the AI theory that I composed (roughly two years ago now) I'll paste them here. No promises though as I've moved house twice since then.JC175 said:
It is a tricky boat. On the one hand, people may often always make choices along a strict set of morals, so in a way they have no free will but at the same time, people make choices expressly based on things around them, but that is in a way the same thing. In the end it really doesn't matter, sure you can look back and think maybe you should have done something different but you can't change things.
I believe we have free will. Being able to predict a persons actions by (theoretically) reading a persons mind as described by JC175 is probably possible but more due to the delay between the brain conceiving actions and the body acting them out rather than because that action was predetermined. The original conception of the action was an act of free will.
Are you saying that nuclear physicists are simply fools "mental wanking"? There is presently no way to prove that the currently accepted model of the atom (that is neutron and proton nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons)is correct. It is a theory and one which could conceivably be wrong. Rutherford made this theory based on the suggestions of his experimental evidence and told his peers that he believed this is how an atom was arranged (Known as the splitting of the atom). So by saying he thought it theoretically possible that the atom was structured thus was he actually saying "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument." No he was saying using this assumption we can learn more about the world we live in. This model has been used to draw many conclusions about nuclear physics. The fact is it is hard to prove something for a fact so we must have theories. The OP is simply asking you make an assumption to help you explore more about the world you live in.JMeganSnow said: