Free will and determinism

[DamianWarS]

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.

How does this direction relate to the OP

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Nope, that won't tell us much. Here's a better design:

1. Put a sign outside your house, "I don't believe in free will or retribution".
2. Wait.
3. If you haven't had all your gear taken in~7 days then you may have something.

Rationale: Those underprivileged angels, you know, the ones with acne, will think, "Gee, if we take his stuff and get caught not only will this guy not want his stuff back (no retribution), but he'll tell the court to let us go 'cause we could not have done otherwise. Back up the truck."

 

[Bradskii]

How does this direction relate to the OP

It's a practical extension. If we have no free will then how does it affect our sense of morality and how do we apportion praise and blame. What effect does it have on our system of justice. In fact, what effect does it have on our sense of justice.

See upstream for my views. Comment on them as you see fit.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, that won't tell us much.

I thought you were leaving the thread. At least the last three times you said so (or is it 4?).

No, it will first tell us if there examples of indeterminism we can examine. And second it will tell us if anyone thinks that they have made a decision with no antecedent conditions, so we can examine that as well. And thirdly it will give an indication as to what people think free will actually is.

Mmm. Data. That's what experiments are for. And your sign wasn't very accurate. Make it match what I've been telling you and it might be worth trying if we extended it to enough properties.

Do you want to answer the questions? We're well over 700 posts and nobody has done so yet, so here's a chance to be first.

 

[DamianWarS]

It's a practical extension. If we have no free will then how does it affect our sense of morality and how do we apportion praise and blame. What effect does it have on our system of justice. In fact, what effect does it have on our sense of justice.

See upstream for my views. Comment on them as you see fit.

there are no practical extensions of determinism. You're just rebranding utilitarianism (and now trying to pull back). In a deterministic worldview morality, praise, blame, justice, etc... have the same fate as free will. The only way to inject purpose where things like justice and morality make sense is through theistic determinism. theistic determinism differs because an outsider may disrupt the natural order to allow for better outcomes because only an outsider is immune to deterministic paradoxes and can alter the outcomes. So rather than one cause begetting all causes it is a continuous interaction that allows causes to go in guided directions and is the only logical source of purpose. The whole premise of the Christian concept of being "born-again" is dying to self and being resurrected or "born again" with new purpose and guidance. This describes a disruption event where a cause's trajectory is altered and would be impossible with natural determinism as causes are locked in place and no insider can alter their direction even with a utilitarian outlook. only theistic determinism would allow for such a change. Failing this, in a deterministic vacuum, it is arbitrary to discuss things like justice and morality when they are just illusions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's all relative, sir. See, even science supports theology.

No it doesn't.

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.

Wrong board, wrong thread.

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

Space is space. Space is not matter. Darkness is not "dark matter". Darkness is a lack of light you can see. You clearly do NOT know what dark matter. It is still the wrong board and wrong thread.

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

I pounce on wrongness. You were wrong multiple times about science in the same post. It was also off topic.

Same reply to what I wrote above this.

I fee like I am repeating myself.

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.​

There is no evidence of this.

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

Hawking also thought your god wasn't real. Do you consider *that* opinion to be unbiased? Hawking was not a biologist, you are not, I am not. This board is not for biology discussions. The thread is about Free Will. Are you interested in that at all?

 

[o_mlly]

I thought you were leaving the thread. At least the last three times you said so (or is it 4?).

I login to see if there's a new thread in this forum that interests me. Finding none, I never tire of pointing out just how this one is nonsense.

... if anyone thinks that they have made a decision with no antecedent conditions ... 700 posts and nobody has done so yet.

Reason: it's just a nonsense question; it's not what you claim.

Let me try to help here. First, we're in the "Ethics and Morality" forum so choices on one's favorite pastry or flavor of ice cream belong in the "Kitchen Sink" forum. Secondly, you make the absolute claim that all human moral choices are determined, ie., there is no human agency in the moment, one could not do otherwise. Others claim that while externalities/biology may influence but they do not determine choice.

So, the question you must answer is: Show us a novel moral decision that did not involve reflective thinking. Good luck.

 

[Ana the Ist]

there are no practical extensions of determinism. You're just rebranding utilitarianism (and now trying to pull back). In a deterministic worldview morality, praise, blame, justice, etc... have the same fate as free will. The only way to inject purpose where things like justice and morality make sense is through theistic determinism. theistic determinism differs because an outsider may disrupt the natural order to allow for better outcomes because only an outsider is immune to deterministic paradoxes and can alter the outcomes. So rather than one cause begetting all causes it is a continuous interaction that allows causes to go in guided directions and is the only logical source of purpose. The whole premise of the Christian concept of being "born-again" is dying to self and being resurrected or "born again" with new purpose and guidance. This describes a disruption event where a cause's trajectory is altered and would be impossible with natural determinism as causes are locked in place and no insider can alter their direction even with a utilitarian outlook. only theistic determinism would allow for such a change. Failing this, in a deterministic vacuum, it is arbitrary to discuss things like justice and morality when they are just illusions.

This is typically the reason for such arguments.

Unfortunately, utilitarianism isn't how morality works....not even for utilitarians.

The question is pretty simple for anyone arguing hard determinism....

Why punish anyone at all?

If causality led to the inevitable behaviors which violated the laws, and could be no other way, why would we hold anyone responsible for their behavior?

As I said in my last post....no dumber debate, no argument of less consequence, because even if you are a hard determinist....you're also human, a social being, and will judge others according to their behavior....just as if they have free will.

 

[durangodawood]

....
The question is pretty simple for anyone arguing hard determinism....

Why punish anyone at all?
.....

To establish deterrents against bad behavior.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To establish deterrents against bad behavior.

Does it matter what reasons?

Edit- to elaborate...behaviors in this context, implies choice, not mere cause and effect. Did you mean "to establish causes for future effects"?

 

[ladodgers6]

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.

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

Sure. But we are human and keeping emotions out of it is tough, right? But I'll try.

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.

I disagree, here's why. First, you can't rehab someone who doesn't want to. And Second, habitual career criminals who lived a life time doing crimes, drugs, rapes, murders, child molesters will say they want to, but will not change.

For instance there was a guest on the Joe Rogan podcast a ex-con who swore up & down he was rehabilitated. Less than a month later he chopped off somebody head. Look this up.​

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.

Thanks for the receipts. I love researching data to support programs and successes and losses.

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.

Actions must have consequences. Criminals who prey on victims must be punished, correct? Or what message is being sent? Is it okay to commit crimes and only face being rehabilitation? Is a slap the hand the answer because they had a rough childhood? I had a rough childhood grew up in a single parent home, migrated to this great nation. And instead of resorting to crime, we took every advantage this great nation has to offer: education, sports programs, employment opportunities to advance. Was it tough of course but well worth it. Because now I have my kids going to Sanford, UCLA, USC on full scholarships. See, if I can do it, anyone can do it. There's absolutely no excuses. Watch the video of Morgan Freeman when the CNN host tries to bait him into a systemic racism. These are traps to keep people down and trapped.

We had to learn a new language when we got here and still succeeded. Sorry, got a bit off topic. But should we not be tough on pedophiles, murders, rapists and the such? Should prison life be as pleasant as possible for them? Because if we are tough on them they can't be rehabilitated? Didn't they make their own free-will choice to rape, murder, and molest a child? You show empathy towards these monster but neglect to say anything about the victims? Why? Their families are facing life sentences full of pain and suffering every single day. But we must go easy on these monsters?​

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.

Want to know why there's escapes and riots, because the tax dollars that go to prison rehabilitation programs instead of more guards to help controls prison security and inmates is the major problem. They are in there for a reason, not because they are innocent. But instead of being reactive the communities should be proactive. Why not fund education and trade learning centers to help the youth. Oh wait, they do and still crime in Los Angeles is on the rise. If people do not want to be law-abiding citizens you can't make them. Here's lies the problems with the youth. It's cool to be a rebel and smoke dope and walk into stores and loot. Watch videos of this, on social media. In San Francisco all major retailers closed stores due to theft and the major did nothing about it. Look this up. Please do not be fooled by these criminals. Defund the police is their battle cry. Of course criminals want less police so that they can rob, kill, rape, molest children.​

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.

Sorry, but I don't see it, because the numbers do not reflect the low-level petty crooks with the major monster that should never be let out again.

 

[Bradskii]

there are no practical extensions of determinism. You're just rebranding utilitarianism (and now trying to pull back). In a deterministic worldview morality, praise, blame, justice, etc... have the same fate as free will. The only way to inject purpose where things like justice and morality make sense is through theistic determinism.

Someone else might like to discuss that with you. I'm going to excuse myself. But you are still free to comment on whether changes to ours system of justice could be considered.

 

[Bradskii]

I login to see if there's a new thread in this forum that interests me. Finding none, I never tire of pointing out just how this one is nonsense.

You must have a busy day pointing out all the nonsensical threads and posts in this forum.

Let me try to help here. First, we're in the "Ethics and Morality" forum so choices on one's favorite pastry or flavor of ice cream belong in the "Kitchen Sink" forum.

You can see where the thread is going. See the post following this one (and chip in as you see fit). Free will has a significant affect on our positions on ethics and morality. You shouldn't be surprised about that.

Secondly, you make the absolute claim that all human moral choices are determined, ie., there is no human agency in the moment, one could not do otherwise. Others claim that while externalities/biology may influence but they do not determine choice.

So, the question you must answer is: Show us a novel moral decision that did not involve reflective thinking. Good luck.

You keep making the same mistakes. At least this one is slightly different.

Agency doesn't equate to free will. It's one step up from acting instinctively. Where you might think that agency appears, from bacteria to Man is a debateable point (but you will remember I pointed out that Mitchell thought that bacteria had agency - we might both disagree with that). Our friends at Stanford say this:

'In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and 'agency' denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.'

I'm quite happy with that. It's the ability to make conscious decisions as opposed to instinctive ones. So if an amoeba moves away from an area with a higher temperature isn't exhibiting agency. You moving away from a hot fire is exhibiting it. You have thought about it and made a decision. That process is absent in the first case.

Now, does making a decision equate with free will? No, it doesn't. I keep having to tell you this. From the OP:

'...free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events...'

Them was the ground rules. That was the definition of free will. It's been that for umpteen pages of very many posts. A few people have suggested that we do have free will and the world is not deterministic etc but no-one has said 'That definition doesn't hold'. S'bit late for that...

So it's the case that we do have agency. It's required for making decisions. And those decisions do, as you say, ' involve reflective thinking'. It's that third level thought process I talked about earlier. Nobody denies that happens. So please don't suggest otherwise.

It's then the case that we need to decide whether those decisions are free will choices or not (not determined...etc). Hence the mini experiment. Ask people if they think that some events have no causes and ask for an example. And ask them if they have ever had a thought that wasn't determined by antecedent conditions.

This is a waste of a sentence...but you are fee to answer those questions yourself.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure. But we are human and keeping emotions out of it is tough, right? But I'll try.

It is a tough gig, isn't it.

I disagree, here's why. First, you can't rehab someone who doesn't want to. And Second, habitual career criminals who lived a life time doing crimes, drugs, rapes, murders, child molesters will say they want to, but will not change.​

Well, by definition you can't rehabilitate someone who refuses to be rehabilitated. And if someone refuses to participate or he does and we are convinced he's not rehabilitated, then we keep them locked up (the question of length of sentence then enters the picture and I have heard an argument that someone stays locked up until we are convinced of that, whatever the crime. But there should be a reasonable deterrent. So you get a few months for stealing a car, and a few years for causing a death).

Actions must have consequences. Criminals who prey on victims must be punished, correct? Or what message is being sent? Is it okay to commit crimes and only face being rehabilitation? Is a slap the hand the answer because they had a rough childhood?​

Criminals must be punished as I've already agreed. It's what we do while they are incarcerated is the question. How is that time best utilised? And we often do take mitigating circumstances into account for crimes. That's part of the justice system already. I don't want to change that.

But should we not be tough on pedophiles, murders, rapists and the such? Should prison life be as pleasant as possible for them? Because if we are tough on them they can't be rehabilitated?

​

What we could do is look at systems that spend minimal amounts of time and effort and money at rehabilitation and ones that do. Luckily we have those examples. And we can see the results. It definitely appears to work in Norway. You do seem to be taking an emotional position on this - which I agree is difficult not to do. So what we could do is ask the victims themselves what they think. See here: https://www.allianceforsafetyandjus...ds/documents/Crime Survivors Speak Report.pdf

Page 5 is an eye opener. I'll just quote some of the findings, but please check them all out. It'll only take a couple of minutes:

6 in 10 victims prefer shorter prison sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation to prison sentences that keep people incarcerated for as long as possible.

By a margin of nearly 3 to 1, victims believe that prison makes people more likely to commit crimes than to rehabilitate them.

Seven in 10 victims prefer that prosecutors focus on solving neighborhood problems and stopping repeat crimes through rehabilitation, even if it means fewer convictions and prison sentences.

It's seems obvious that the majority of victims themselves would prefer the time and effort and money be redirected to preventing crime and reducing recidivism rather than simply punishing offenders.

 

[DamianWarS]

Someone else might like to discuss that with you. I'm going to excuse myself. But you are still free to comment on whether changes to ours system of justice could be considered.

Under a deterministic vacuum it's arbitrary to consider justice. It is an illusion like every other purpose driven choice. Call it what you will and we can zoom out to more abstract levels if you're uncomfortable with specifics but you must conceed the only possibility of purpose to be injected into derterminism, where we can consider things like justice, is by way of outside influence.

 

[Bradskii]

Under a deterministic vacuum it's arbitrary to consider justice. It is an illusion like every other purpose driven choice. Call it what you will and we can zoom out to more abstract levels if you're uncomfortable with specifics but you must conceed the only possibility of purpose to be injected into derterminism, where we can consider things like justice, is by way of outside influence.

We still have choices. I'll assume that you'd be the type of guy that would want things to improve. That doesn't change whether you have free will or not. If you do, then you'll make decisions to try to improve the justice system (assuming that you'd want to). And the same would happen if you had no free will.

People run around suggesting all manner of dire consequences should we think (or realise in my case) that we don't have free will. But very little changes. Except with our views on blame and praise. And how that impacts, for example, justice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We still have choices.

Not if you're arguing determinism.

 

[DamianWarS]

We still have choices. I'll assume that you'd be the type of guy that would want things to improve. That doesn't change whether you have free will or not. If you do, then you'll make decisions to try to improve the justice system (assuming that you'd want to). And the same would happen if you had no free will.

People run around suggesting all manner of dire consequences should we think (or realise in my case) that we don't have free will. But very little changes. Except with our views on blame and praise. And how that impacts, for example, justice.

Free will is the ability to make a choice. Under determinism choice is an illusion and is just a harmony of causes that lead to a given direction that we call "choice". How we feel about it however is arbratary to the outcome regardless what terminology you use.

But I get it despite your previous protest we live in a superficial layer that is indeterministically driven. This doesn't mean we don't react to causes it means we have no ability and comprehension to react to determinism as it relates to things like morality and justice and anything we do react to is superficial (but it just doesn't feel that way)

natural determinism is going to have its peaks and troughs (as it relates to a subject like human condition, justice, morality, etc...) and it may be on a climbing trajectory so long as it's sustainable but will level out or start to collapse at some point. Where we relate to that will impact how we "feel" we are contributing or not.

Certainly brainstorming justice and morality to better humanity is laudable but just know in determinism it's all an illusion of choice and the perception of progress is just part of the equation. Determinism itself is not goal driven or have any meaning attached to it, it just is, so any persception of meaning is also an illusion. Certainly for some organisms or even people groups their perspective is in a collapsing state that can't be fixed.

No amount of our choices, influence, deterrence, etc.. will change things in natural determinism and only from a force that influences from the outside can disrupt this natural order. If it's an intelligent force than purpose can be injected where matters of justice and morality have meaning but even then they only have meaning as it relates to the outsider so we must adopt the outsiders perspective for it to have meaning for us as well. This of course is the foundational driving-value of pretty much all religion.

 

[ladodgers6]

It is a tough gig, isn't it.

Thanks for agreeing with me here.

Well, by definition you can't rehabilitate someone who refuses to be rehabilitated. And if someone refuses to participate or he does and we are convinced he's not rehabilitated, then we keep them locked up (the question of length of sentence then enters the picture and I have heard an argument that someone stays locked up until we are convinced of that, whatever the crime. But there should be a reasonable deterrent. So you get a few months for stealing a car, and a few years for causing a death).

But here's where I scratch my head at people who say people who murder should only get years. I am for the death penalty for those who commit murder. And state laws must be changed to fit the crime. For example why should a murderer get a second chance when the victim cannot ever get a second chance at life. And the families of the victims receive a life sentence, while the murderer gets out, is absolutely absurd to me. This is common sense that Laws should fit the crime. Or give the judge autonomy of self discretion to sentence accordingly that will fit the crime. Take a life get life, with no chance of parole. This is better than releasing them, and slapping the victim and their families in the face.

Now for those petty crooks maybe we can provide some guidance to hopefully set them on the right path. But they must earn this right and pay for the suffering they caused, right? So, how is this accomplished? If they do not comprehend how they destroyed lives, then what use is rehab? Do me a favor and look up Russia prison operation. Prisoners there do not have TV, weights, recreational activities until the inmate demonstrates good behavior after 10 years. I understand they're various sentencing. But maybe we look into that, right? Rewarding inmates with TV pledges, weights, recreational activities before they earn it is beyond me. Are we running summer camps or prisons? It seems the way to go is to rob, kill, pillage and whatever else, because nothing really bad happens. I am going to get another chance, and I have a bed, food, clothes, and fun time.​

Criminals must be punished as I've already agreed. It's what we do while they are incarcerated is the question. How is that time best utilised? And we often do take mitigating circumstances into account for crimes. That's part of the justice system already. I don't want to change that.

What we could do is look at systems that spend minimal amounts of time and effort and money at rehabilitation and ones that do. Luckily we have those examples. And we can see the results. It definitely appears to work in Norway. You do seem to be taking an emotional position on this - which I agree is difficult not to do. So what we could do is ask the victims themselves what they think. See here: https://www.allianceforsafetyandjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/Crime Survivors Speak Report.pdf

Page 5 is an eye opener. I'll just quote some of the findings, but please check them all out. It'll only take a couple of minutes:

6 in 10 victims prefer shorter prison sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation to prison sentences that keep people incarcerated for as long as possible.

By a margin of nearly 3 to 1, victims believe that prison makes people more likely to commit crimes than to rehabilitate them.

Seven in 10 victims prefer that prosecutors focus on solving neighborhood problems and stopping repeat crimes through rehabilitation, even if it means fewer convictions and prison sentences.

It's seems obvious that the majority of victims themselves would prefer the time and effort and money be redirected to preventing crime and reducing recidivism rather than simply punishing offenders.

Anyways, thanks for hearing me out. We both have opposing views and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to one. It's what makes America great. To believe what you believe in.

I am curious though, have you personally experience any really tragic crime in your family or with friends? Or seen any? How did that make you feel? When I see mass shooting where little kids get killed it infuriates me. I have no compassion for those monsters, and wished the death penalty was the automatic sentence for that. Same with Pedophiles, automatic death sentence.

 

[ladodgers6]

Watch, "Sound of Freedom".