Free will and determinism

[DamianWarS]

In truth, not a lot. Because the illusion holds for everyone in any case. What I'd like to see change are aspects of the justice system.

Let's be more honest, except for discussion like this it doesn't change a thing.

In thestic determinism however both free will and derterminism have greater meaning. Since an outside influencer may disrupt natural determinism it can be purpose driven. The outsider may know the results so free will is arguably still an illusion, but it does allow for tailored made opportunities so that individuals have clear paths to produce better outcomes, ones that natural determinism may restrict.

Regarding changes to the judicial system under a determinism we are not responsible for our actions, nor are those actions innately moral or immoral so judging them would be arbitrary. So I'm curious what aspects would you want change?

Under a theistic determinism however we are responsible for our own actions so we must conclude an amount of disrupting events have to occur that allow a clear path for better outcomes before a judgment can made.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's an excellent book called, "The Hidden Face Of God" by Gerald L. Shroeder.

I haven't read this book, but I have seen some of Schroeder's material. I don't know how much of it applies to the question of free will.

He presents scientific data that is refutable.

It is indeed rather refutable. I have refuted some of it myself on this board. His cosmology was garbage.

For me nobody can explain where our morality comes from and why it's there. Or why we have feelings of Love, Hate, Ambition, Depression, Joy, Sorrow, and so forth. We know when we do bad things and good things. Even sociopaths know when they committed a crime. Serial Killers hide they tracks and try to avoid capture.

There are whole separate discussion on the natural origin of emotion and morality, but this is not the thread.

I am not a smart guy by all means. But when I look around at the world, especially at the stars above, I am not imagine that all this is random or chaos that spinning out of control and somehow made me?

The stars are themselves very random. The "patterns" on the sky are just things we construct because we tend to form patterns even when there are no real patterns. The stars that seem associated are for the most case not associated. Even the formation of stars and their spins are driven by the random motions and fluctuations of the gas in regions where stars form. Small differences in density get magnified as gravity pulls a proto-star together.

 

[o_mlly]

You suggested that locomotion could be some sort of illusion. That's nonsensical, so I opposed it as noted. And compared it to free will, which is an illusion.

? Another strawman . I suggested that locomotion could be no more an illusion than free will. Absent an argument in rebuttal, you revert as usual to construct a strawman.

I have not seen anything that you have posted as evidence or any cogent reasoning that free will is an illusion. Unless you have a designed, controlled, repeatable experiment that could evidence your claim, your claim remains in the realm of severe doubt as it is clearly counter-intuitive.

I will leave you and Sapolsky with your imagined beliefs. You both have every right to be wrong.

 

[ladodgers6]

I haven't read this book, but I have seen some of Schroeder's material. I don't know how much of it applies to the question of free will.

I am curious to his thoughts.

It is indeed rather refutable. I have refuted some of it myself on this board. His cosmology was garbage.

Really, how would you address the splitting of living cells? To replicate themselves they would need a written DNA/RNA code. Even Hawking knew that this code didn't write itself.
​

There are whole separate discussion on the natural origin of emotion and morality, but this is not the thread.

Again I wanted to get his gist on it. Is it okay to ask him this question, here?

The stars are themselves very random. The "patterns" on the sky are just things we construct because we tend to form patterns even when there are no real patterns. The stars that seem associated are for the most case not associated. Even the formation of stars and their spins are driven by the random motions and fluctuations of the gas in regions where stars form. Small differences in density get magnified as gravity pulls a proto-star together.

Not so simple, because dark matter for one cannot be explained. They can try to explain it, but all of it falls short. For example gravity what causes it and how does it come into existence?

And as far as your explanation of random motions and fluctuations of the gas. Do you not see the obvious question here? Where does all of this come from? The Energy and Material? And if all of the universe is random and chaotic without rhyme or reason. Where does our reasoning come from? Makes no sense. If you think you are in America, zoom out, and see that we are all floating through space on a big rock, through nothingness; through dark matter.

Let me ask you if you don't mind. Where does Love come from if everything is random and chaotic? Why morals, reasoning, and intellect?​

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am curious to his thoughts.

Really, how would you address the splitting of living cells? To replicate themselves they would need a written DNA/RNA code. Even Hawking knew that this code didn't write itself.
​

Schroeder is not a biologist and neither am I. None of this is relevant to the topic of the thread.

Again I wanted to get his gist on it. Is it okay to ask him this question, here?

I see you did anyway.

Not so simple, because dark matter for one cannot be explained. They can try to explain it, but all of it falls short. For example gravity what causes it and how does it come into existence?​

Gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. Dark matter is largely irrelevant to the thing I mentioned -- star formation. I'm not going to expand, but rather contract this off topic side discussion.

And as far as your explanation of random motions and fluctuations of the gas. Do you not see the obvious question here? Where does all of this come from?​

It comes from a cloud of interstellar gas.

The Energy and Material? And if all of the universe is random and chaotic without rhyme or reason.​

There is plenty of order in the Universe, and much of it is self-organizing. Matter organizes itself into galaxies and stars through the action of gravity and other forces.

Where does our reasoning come from? Makes no sense. If you think you are in America, zoom out, and see that we are all floating through space on a big rock, through nothingness; through dark matter.
​

Not at all relevant to the little side trip to star formation or at all to dark matter.

Let me ask you if you don't mind. Where does Love come from if everything is random and chaotic? Why morals, reasoning, and intellect?​

Everything isn't random and chaotic. I didn't say that. Morals don't have anything to do with stars. All of these things are the product of thinking brains. As pointed out in the talk from Mitchell I referenced above, they evolved that way in humans.

 

[Bradskii]

But just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true, right?

True.

For example, how do you explain morality...?

Morality is a term for what we consider right or wrong. Right is generally what works. Wrong is what doesn't - that which causes harm.

Or for that matter where did DNA come from?

We think it evolved from RNA.

 

[ladodgers6]

Schroeder is not a biologist and neither am I. None of this is relevant to the topic of the thread.

One doesn't need a PHD or any degree to understand biology. I am a Convinced Calvinist when I discuss topics with other people they always tend either avoid tough questions or say it's off topic. What Schroeder emphasizes is valid living cells cannot replicate without a written DNA/RNA code, period.
​

I see you did anyway.

Yup

Gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. Dark matter is largely irrelevant to the thing I mentioned -- star formation. I'm not going to expand, but rather contract this off topic side discussion.

This is only a theory, correct? Dark Matter is Space isn't it? It's where the stars, planets float away, yes? To excuse it as off topic again is avoiding it.

It comes from a cloud of interstellar gas.

A cloud of interstellar gas? What is this gas and where does it come from?

There is plenty of order in the Universe, and much of it is self-organizing. Matter organizes itself into galaxies and stars through the action of gravity and other forces.

Wait, inanimate matter can organize itself through order and action? Where does this order and action come from? I am glad you brought up forces, because forces need law of nature and directions to function. They need to be designed to do their effects.​

Not at all relevant to the little side trip to star formation or at all to dark matter.

Everything isn't random and chaotic. I didn't say that. Morals don't have anything to do with stars. All of these things are the product of thinking brains. As pointed out in the talk from Mitchell I referenced above, they evolved that way in humans.

Here you go, thinking brains? Suggesting that morals, reasoning, and intellect evolved from inanimate objects is absurd. Only living things have a DNA strand. And DNA strands are written codes that even Hawking said somebody had to write. The complexity of this DNA strand that if stretched out would be about 120 billion miles long, which is more than twice the diameter of the solar system.

But as far as Love in rocks goes, there's no such thing.​

 

[Bradskii]

Regarding changes to the judicial system under a determinism we are not responsible for our actions, nor are those actions innately moral or immoral so judging them would be arbitrary. So I'm curious what aspects would you want change?

If someone breaks into your house and you can convince yourself then he is not really to blame then we need to consider two things. First deterrence. We need to deter others who are like minded. So some sort of punishment can be considered applicable to that end. Second - rehabilitation. Try to address the cause rather than the act. If you can rehabilitate someone then he won't do it again. if he does, then punish him again as a deterrence and as protection from him until he does stop.

Retributive punishment is emotionally satisfying. But rationally?

 

[Bradskii]

? Another strawman.

I'm beginning to realise that you don't know what a strawman is.

I suggested that locomotion could be no more an illusion than free will. Absent an argument in rebuttal, you revert as usual to construct a strawman.

One is obviously not. The jury is out on the other. If you wanted an analogy for free will as an illusion then you could have used consciousness or the self. Walking to the fridge didn't really work.

I have not seen anything that you have posted as evidence or any cogent reasoning that free will is an illusion. Unless you have a designed, controlled, repeatable experiment that could evidence your claim, your claim remains in the realm of severe doubt as it is clearly counter-intuitive.

The experiment is this: Get as many people together as you consider worthwhile. Use whatever controls you think necessary.

1. Ask them to give an example of an event without a cause.
2. Ask them for a decision they made that wasn't determined by anything at all.
3. Ask them if deciding to walk to the fridge is an example of free will.

Repeat as often as you like and then write up your conclusions. let me know how you get on. And feel free to comment on Mitchell's comments.

 

[ladodgers6]

If someone breaks into your house and you can convince yourself then he is not really to blame then we need to consider two things. First deterrence. We need to deter others who are like minded. So some sort of punishment can be considered applicable to that end. Second - rehabilitation. Try to address the cause rather than the act. If you can rehabilitate someone then he won't do it again. if he does, then punish him again as a deterrence and as protection from him until he does stop.

Retributive punishment is emotionally satisfying. But rationally?

Easily said, try saying that after someone murders your whole family or rapes your daughter, wife. Criminals need to pay for the consequences of their actions, period. Nobody coerces them to commit crime, they do it by their volition.

Retributive punishment? It's called justice for the victims who go about their day, working hard and abiding the Law. While these habitual criminals prey upon them. You have your priorities mixed up. These criminals get break and break, a slap on the hand to just victimized again. All this sympathy for these monsters, and nothing for the victims and their families who suffer a life sentence.​

 

[Bradskii]

Easily said, try saying that after someone murders your whole family or rapes your daughter, wife. Criminals need to pay for the consequences of their actions, period. Nobody coerces them to commit crime, they do it by their volition.

Retributive punishment? It's called justice for the victims who go about their day, working hard and abiding the Law. While these habitual criminals prey upon them. You have your priorities mixed up. These criminals get break and break, a slap on the hand to just victimized again. All this sympathy for these monsters, and nothing for the victims and their families who suffer a life sentence.​

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, it would be exceptionally difficult to maintain my position in those circumstances. Do you think I should take the easier emotional path?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's few debates of less consequence than free will vs determinism. If reality is deterministic, we'll still continue as if it were one where we made free will choices....as the understanding of determinism changes nothing about the illusion free will nor our belief in it.

In other words...it quite literally does not matter, at all, who is truthfully correct in this debate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One doesn't need a PHD or any degree to understand biology. I am a Convinced Calvinist when I discuss topics with other people they always tend either avoid tough questions or say it's off topic. What Schroeder emphasizes is valid living cells cannot replicate without a written DNA/RNA code, period.
​

DNA isn't relevant to this thread and neither is Gerald Schroeder. (And I don't care what religion you are.)

Yup

This is only a theory, correct? Dark Matter is Space isn't it? It's where the stars, planets float away, yes?

Dark matter is not space. Where are you getting these nonsense ideas.

To excuse it as off topic again is avoiding it.

If you want to talk about it. Go to the right board and find a thread or make a new one.

A cloud of interstellar gas? What is this gas and where does it come from?

It was left over from not being made into stars before, or ejected from stars by wind or explosion. This is not the topic of this thread.

Wait, inanimate matter can organize itself through order and action? Where does this order and action come from? I am glad you brought up forces, because forces need law of nature and directions to function. They need to be designed to do their effects.​

Laws of nature are things humans create to describe what natural things do. Forces exist without us. Not on topic.

Here you go, thinking brains? Suggesting that morals, reasoning, and intellect evolved from inanimate objects is absurd. Only living things have a DNA strand. And DNA strands are written codes that even Hawking said somebody had to write. The complexity of this DNA strand that if stretched out would be about 120 billion miles long, which is more than twice the diameter of the solar system.
​

I also don't care what Hawking said about DNA. It is off topic anyway.

But as far as Love in rocks goes, there's no such thing.​

At least the rocks don't make off topic posts.

 

[ladodgers6]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, it would be exceptionally difficult to maintain my position in those circumstances. Do you think I should take the easier emotional path?

We must protect the law-abiding citizens and ensure our children have a safe environment. And not spend million of tax dollars on rehab programs on criminals. These criminals must now earn the right through very hard work to re-enter our communities. The hard working blue collar workers should receive tax dollars to help them achieve their goals and to hard working students who are putting in the effort to success.

I have no emotions for convicts, sorry. They prey upon the most vulnerable; our kids; our daughters, wives, grand parents. Where's the emotion for them?

The irony is that when criminals get victimized, then there's an uproar. I could never get my head wrap around that. But if innocent people get raped, killed and tortured there's no uproar or protests. Where's our morals, justice, common sense? Enough of giving criminals chances. I am going to send a video of a habitual criminal who has 90 felons and liberals want to still rehab him. He victimized 90 people who suffered at the hand of this monster. How is this justice? I believe that the parole board who release these monster back into society must also face criminals charges for releasing these monsters. Or maybe they should be released in their neighborhoods and see if they have a change of mind.

I really want to know who would want a pedophile being released from prison living next to their neighbor where children live. Sorry for the long post. But this really gets under my skin.

If a person is committing a crime their rights must be revoked. Because these criminals hide behind the Law, and plead deal after savaging murdering, raping kids, mothers, daughters and so forth.​

 

[DamianWarS]

If someone breaks into your house and you can convince yourself then he is not really to blame then we need to consider two things. First deterrence. We need to deter others who are like minded. So some sort of punishment can be considered applicable to that end. Second - rehabilitation. Try to address the cause rather than the act. If you can rehabilitate someone then he won't do it again. if he does, then punish him again as a deterrence and as protection from him until he does stop.

Retributive punishment is emotionally satisfying. But rationally?

This is verbatim utilitarianism

 

[ladodgers6]

DNA isn't relevant to this thread and neither is Gerald Schroeder. (And I don't care what religion you are.)

It's all relative, sir. See, even science supports theology. Because once someone acknowledges that the DNA sequence is not random, then it leads to an intelligent design. Which then leads to free-will, creation, morals, reasoning and so forth.

Dark matter is not space. Where are you getting these nonsense ideas.

Dark matter is not space? What do you see when you look up? All that darkness.

If you want to talk about it. Go to the right board and find a thread or make a new one.

I was having a discussion with someone you jump into this, right?

It was left over from not being made into stars before, or ejected from stars by wind or explosion. This is not the topic of this thread.

Same reply to what I wrote above this.

Laws of nature are things humans create to describe what natural things do. Forces exist without us. Not on topic.

Exactly they exist regardless of us. Because they are not from us or created by us, but created by God the designer of it all. But God gave the faculties to see them; understand some of them, but not all of them. Reasoning and intellect are not random acts, but created and given.​

I also don't care what Hawking said about DNA. It is off topic anyway.

Well I do care. Because he is not a Christians so he presents an unbiased conclusion.

At least the rocks don't make off topic posts.

It's randomness, not on purpose.

 

[Bradskii]

We must protect the law-abiding citizens and ensure our children have a safe environment.​

That's exactly the idea. If someone is continually violent then society needs to be protected from him (I'll assume a male). So we both agree with that.

I have no emotions for convicts, sorry.​

It was a very emotional response. So let's keep emotion out of it and address it rationally.

The person is locked up. Primarily to protect society. And also as a deterrent to others. We're agreeing so far. Now do you think that we should try to rehabilitate the guy? So that when he is eventually released he is less likely to commit a violent act? I'll assume that you agree with that. The question then becomes how much time and effort we put into rehabilitation programs.

The recidivism rates in most countries is depressing. But there is one country that leads the world in keeping the percentage of criminals who re-offend as low as possible. From here: Rehabilitation Lessons from Norway's Prison System.

'In the 1990’s, Norway had a problem. Roughly 70% of all released prisoners recommitted crimes within two years of release. That rate is nearly equal to the recidivism rate in the United States today.

At that time, Norway’s prison system was structured similar to the prison system in the United States. It was built on the idea that punishment is a deterrent. Prisoners were often given lengthy sentences in harsh conditions to send a message to others.

However, Norwegian lawmakers realized that the existing system wasn’t working. Crime was high, as was recidivism. Prisons were plagued with assaults, riots, and escapes. The system needed reform.

Norway’s government acted boldly, completely overhauling the country’s prison system. Today, Norway's prison system has become a model for the rest of the world, and some states in the U.S. are following Norway’s lead.'

The rate now is around 20%. It's obvious that Norway's citizenry is now a lot safer than it was. I'd like to think that you'd prefer that to be the case in the US. But they treat their prisoners a lot better than you do. So the question for you is: Would you prefer better conditions if it resulted in a safer outcome or harsher conditions as retribution?

Give the article a quick look and let me know what you think.

 

[Bradskii]

This is verbatim utilitarianism

It's the typical justice system in almost all countries. The question to be answered is how much do we put into rehabilitation as opposed to pure retribution style punishment. See the post above and let me know your thoughts.

 

[DamianWarS]

It's the typical justice system in almost all countries. The question to be answered is how much do we put into rehabilitation as opposed to pure retribution style punishment. See the post above and let me know your thoughts.

My thoughts are it's superficial determinism. Is utilitarianism your agenda here?

 

[Bradskii]

My thoughts are it's superficial determinism. Is utilitarianism your agenda here?

If it was I would have titled the thread accordingly.

Is the justice system superficial? I don't think so. The question is only whether you think it can be improved. Read the article and let me know.