But the evidence for lack of free will is as simple as the argument brain = matter, matter = bound by causality
Except possibly in certain quantum situations. Causality may well break down: the other option is a non-causal world.
What about biochemical imbalances causing behavior changes? We have direct evidence that many behavioral patterns and decisions are the direct result of chemical changes in the brain, and we can produce very particular responses by changing these chemical levels.
Oh, humans almost definitely don't have free will. To to claim that free will is objectively disallowed assumes a causal universe. It is correct for all intents and purposes, but not objectively so.
But the evidence for lack of free will is as simple as the argument brain = matter, matter = bound by causality
Except possibly in certain quantum situations. Causality may well break down: the other option is a non-causal world.
Non-causal =/= free will. In fact, the very idea of free will is nonsensical; there is no definition for free will that isn't either actually causality or simply bullshit misdirection and weasel words. You can objectively say there is no free will because there isn't even a consistant and logical discription of what free will is supposed to be.
To to claim that free will is objectively disallowed assumes a causal universe.
I don't believe the statement was a declaration of free will being a universal impossibility. I took that statement to mean that human free will is impossible.
To to claim that free will is objectively disallowed assumes a causal universe.
To claim that it is universally disallowed, yes. To claim that it is impossible for humans, no. All that would mean is that we're about as self-determining as quarks.
But we could define our terms better. "Free will," when I use it, refers only to the ability of humans to exercise what we perceive as self-determination. With that narrower scope, we can demonstrate objectively that the thing we refer to as "free will" does not exist in humans. This is like saying that the Christian god does not exist; we're not denying all gods, just the one specific set of claims.
Perhaps there is a definition of "free will" out there that we cannot reject. I'd like to hear it.
Someone murders a few thousand children over the course of several years.
They videoed every death from multiple angles. They kept DNA samples of each, as well as the bodies themselves. They further held prisoners who had been forced to witness the murders. They further kept detailed records, and even performed autopsies, which matched those performed by forensic investigators after the fact.
The only possible way to argue that they didn't commit the murders is to invoke solipsism and claim that nothing can ever be proven.
Now what?
(Hint: the Nazis kept detailed records. We hung several of them).
It would be hard to not argue mental illness in this case...
Non-causal =/= free will. In fact, the very idea of free will is nonsensical; there is no definition for free will that isn't either actually causality or simply bullshit misdirection and weasel words. You can objectively say there is no free will because there isn't even a consistant and logical discription of what free will is supposed to be.
Here's a definition. A discrete causal chain with an origin independent of all parallel chains.
Here's another. A point capable of generating spontaneous discrete causal chains irrespective of input or prior states.
Non-causal =/= free will. In fact, the very idea of free will is nonsensical; there is no definition for free will that isn't either actually causality or simply bullshit misdirection and weasel words. You can objectively say there is no free will because there isn't even a consistant and logical discription of what free will is supposed to be.
Here's a definition. A discrete causal chain with an origin independent of all parallel chains.
Here's another. A point capable of generating spontaneous discrete causal chains irrespective of input or prior states.
1) Still just causality, but based on hidden values.
1) Still just causality, but based on hidden values.
What if there are no values preceding? Can you objectively discount spontaneous action with no precedent?
2) Wouldn't this just be randomness?
I didn't say it wouldn't be. One way to provide for a world with "free" will is to allow for actually random behavior at some level, rather than deterministic behavior. Point sources of true randomness inside, say, a brain, would be the genesis of a discrete causal chain independent of any other origin. Just as useless as causally-denied free will, but nonetheless distinct from a purely causal universe.
1) Still just causality, but based on hidden values.
What if there are no values preceding? Can you objectively discount spontaneous action with no precedent?
2) Wouldn't this just be randomness?
I didn't say it wouldn't be. One way to provide for a world with "free" will is to allow for actually random behavior at some level, rather than deterministic behavior. Point sources of true randomness inside, say, a brain, would be the genesis of a discrete causal chain independent of any other origin. Just as useless as causally-denied free will, but nonetheless distinct from a purely causal universe.
I suppose that is true, and as the universe we live in is (probably) semi-random due to quantum uncertainty, I suppose objectively disproving the idea of spontaneously generated dicision-making somewhere is impossible. I'd argue, however, that is objectively disproven in humans as seperate from the semi-random causality chains of everyday matter.
Someone murders a few thousand children over the course of several years.
They videoed every death from multiple angles. They kept DNA samples of each, as well as the bodies themselves. They further held prisoners who had been forced to witness the murders. They further kept detailed records, and even performed autopsies, which matched those performed by forensic investigators after the fact.
Damn. I missed a discussion on free will. Regardless, I agree mostly with this:
Sure? Our neurons exist in physical space. All things in physical space are bound by casuality. The only non-casual effect is the random nature of quantum mechanics. Therefore, your brain operates on a combination of casuality and randomness. Neither of which are free will.
I have rarely seen a coherent idea of what the concept of "free will" even means, nor even a decent argument as to why the concept of "free will" matters at all. Also, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (which, by Occam's razor, is the superior interpretation) is entirely deterministic, though there remains the question of the Born probabilities.
Free will is the extraordinary claim. Bring me 1 gram of free will.
Objective lack of free well, as opposed to unevidenced lack of free will, is equally extraordinary.
Claiming there is no Christian god is an ordinary claim, as there is evidence against and no evidence for. Claiming there are objectively no gods of any sort whatsoever in all the universe is an extraordinary claim, as it implies gnosis. Claiming that no gods likely exist is an ordinary claim, as it is evidenced but can not be proven. It is true for all intents and purposes.
It's only the objective claim I disagree with.
I don't agree with the idea that objective = proven. Nothing is "objective" in that sense. You don't need infinite certainty to make objective judgements about reality.
A spontaneous causal chain of the kind Rym suggests is definitely "free", but it is not "will" in any meaningful sense. So, what is "free will" and why should anyone care at all about it?
I don't think it's justified in the vast majority of circumstances as opposed to, say, life imprisonment without parole.
What's the point of imprisoning someone for the rest of their life with no chance of ever being forgiven or having a chance to re-enter society? Is the goal to remove them from society? Or to treat them in the case of mental illness? In the case of the former, how is it different from the death penalty? In the latter, what's the point of treatment if there is no chance of a cure (since you've removed any hope of ever letting them go even if you "cure" them completely)?
I don't think it's justified in the vast majority of circumstances as opposed to, say, life imprisonment without parole.
What's the point of imprisoning someone for the rest of their life with no chance of ever being forgiven or having a chance to re-enter society? Is the goal to remove them from society? Or to treat them in the case of mental illness? In the case of the former, how is it different from the death penalty? In the latter, what's the point of treatment if there is no chance of a cure (since you've removed any hope of ever letting them go even if you "cure" them completely)?
The only advantage of life without parole as opposed to the death penalty is that if the person is later proven to be innocent, they are at least not dead. But as you stated earlier, if it's a case of there being absolutely no doubt whatsoever that said person committed the crime and is sane, then it becomes much fuzzier.
What's the point of imprisoning someone for the rest of their life with no chance of ever being forgiven or having a chance to re-enter society? Is the goal to remove them from society? Or to treat them in the case of mental illness? In the case of the former, how is it different from the death penalty? In the latter, what's the point of treatment if there is no chance of a cure (since you've removed any hope of ever letting them go even if you "cure" them completely)?
Having read a few cases where a guy has been let off after being found innocent where he would have otherwise been put to death already (If he had resided in Texas) I'm willing to put up with the added expense EXCEPT, that life in prison is actually cheaper overall then putting someone to death in this day in age (due to court expenses.)
life in prison is actually cheaper overall then putting someone to death in this day in age (due to court expenses.)
Shouldn't we fix that somehow?
Having read a few cases where a guy has been let off after being found innocent where he would have otherwise been put to death already (If he had resided in Texas) I'm willing to put up with the added expense
My question is thus: why the stipulation of no parole? Why the insistence that this particular person is 100% irredeemable, yet simultaneously that we are not willing to kill them? We're clearly unwilling to treat them, if there is no possibility of resuming any meaningful life. Is there any purpose to life without the possibility of parole but for punishment? There is no real evidence of a deterrent effect.
The parts of life imprisonment I take issue with are:
1. Removing the possibility of parole belies our intent. 2. We make no real attempt at treating or studying the imprisoned.
Life without parole is justifiable only when the potential risk to society of that person re-entering society is too great to allow. It's still clearly preferable to the death penalty, especially when we consider the possibility of innocence.
In most cases I would say that parole should indeed be allowed.
In what case should it not be considered? Not not allowed, but not even considered? How could that possibly be justified?
If the criminal is so dangerous that the risk of them receiving parole through deception of some kind is too great.
As a side note, we should definitely offer euthanasia to those who are imprisoned for life; there is definitely no need to make people suffer a fate worse than death. However, the choice between a death sentence and a life sentence should definitely go to the person receiving it.
My question is thus: why the stipulation of no parole? Why the insistence that this particular person is 100% irredeemable, yet simultaneously that we are not willing to kill them? We're clearly unwilling to treat them, if there is no possibility of resuming any meaningful life. Is there any purpose to life without the possibility of parole but for punishment? There is no real evidence of a deterrent effect.
The parts of life imprisonment I take issue with are:
1. Removing the possibility of parole belies our intent. 2. We make no real attempt at treating or studying the imprisoned.
If you notice I never said anything about parole? I take issue with nearly the entire way the justice and prison system work. (but I am a flaming liberal :-p) We should be spending time and money trying to get people mental help, work help and all sorts of other things.
At the very least they should be studied :-p
but that's kinda a perfect world situation, my pragmatic self shoots for way less then the ideal.
Comments
But we could define our terms better. "Free will," when I use it, refers only to the ability of humans to exercise what we perceive as self-determination. With that narrower scope, we can demonstrate objectively that the thing we refer to as "free will" does not exist in humans. This is like saying that the Christian god does not exist; we're not denying all gods, just the one specific set of claims.
Perhaps there is a definition of "free will" out there that we cannot reject. I'd like to hear it.
Here's another. A point capable of generating spontaneous discrete causal chains irrespective of input or prior states.
2) Wouldn't this just be randomness?
EDIT: I kid, I kid.
I meant Libertarian.
Also, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (which, by Occam's razor, is the superior interpretation) is entirely deterministic, though there remains the question of the Born probabilities. I don't agree with the idea that objective = proven. Nothing is "objective" in that sense. You don't need infinite certainty to make objective judgements about reality.
A spontaneous causal chain of the kind Rym suggests is definitely "free", but it is not "will" in any meaningful sense. So, what is "free will" and why should anyone care at all about it?
The parts of life imprisonment I take issue with are:
1. Removing the possibility of parole belies our intent.
2. We make no real attempt at treating or studying the imprisoned.
As a side note, we should definitely offer euthanasia to those who are imprisoned for life; there is definitely no need to make people suffer a fate worse than death. However, the choice between a death sentence and a life sentence should definitely go to the person receiving it.
At the very least they should be studied :-p
but that's kinda a perfect world situation, my pragmatic self shoots for way less then the ideal.