The Free Will Thread

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
There is (or at least there is an illusion) free will. Each of us has enough neuronal connections where the possibilities for us doing something is approaching infinity. Don't get how that hurr durrs the entire justice system
 

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
I really don't think it undermines our justice system or the concept of intent. I choose not to kill the bitch in front of me in line at the store. There is no one thing that leads to that choice, it does not arise from the aether of my mind spontaneously. Like everything else that exists that choice is just a chemical reaction, guided by infinite reactions that preceded it stretching back to the big bang or whatever the fuck. That doesn't mean that I could not have chosen to kill that bitch, I could have, maybe I would have given different circumstances that would alter that chemical reaction ever so slightly. And if I chose to do it, the intent was still there, whether or not I have free will ultimately does not affect that.
I think you're not getting just how basic the distinction is here. You don't have a choice if they're right. There is no infinite. You didn't choose. You think you did. You think you have the option. You thinking that also isn't an option. It's beyond your grasp. You're just a witness, a tool, to the actions of an organ that is pursuing its own goal which you're only tangentially aware of. IF we have no free will.

If we do have free will, you're right.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
46,815
78,428
I think you're not getting just how basic the distinction is here. You don't have a choice if they're right. There is no infinite. You didn't choose. You think you did. You think you have the option. You thinking that also isn't an option. It's beyond your grasp. You're just a witness, a tool, to the actions of an organ that is pursuing its own goal which you're only tangentially aware of. IF we have no free will.

If we do have free will, you're right.
He's right in both instances. It's how I feel too.
 

Szlia

Member
6,627
1,373
I don't know if free will exists, but I am pretty sure trying to say it does not exist based on that single experiment that is mentioned over and over is pants on head retarded because it does not withstand the simplest of contacts with reality.
 

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
He's right in both instances. It's how I feel too.
Negative. And you're conflating two issues. 1) You say the results should be the same regardless, so intent isn't relevant. 2) He's saying choice exists even if an object beyond our control them entirely on its own and we only think they're our choices. That's a complete contradiction, and can't be correct. He's arguing that free will exists while saying that even if it didn't, it does. Like...what?
 

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
Doesn't not having a free will make the current justice system even more important. The fact that we are able to speculate the outcome of our actions and comprehend the negative impact they have on others makes the fact that we lock people up for performing undesirable action part of the system that informs the decisions our subconscious comes up with.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
46,815
78,428
Negative. And you're conflating two issues. 1) You say the results should be the same regardless, so intent isn't relevant. 2) He's saying choice exists even if an object beyond our control them entirely on its own and we only think they're our choices. That's a complete contradiction, and can't be correct. He's arguing that free will exists while saying that even if it didn't, it does. Like...what?
Correct.
 

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Is this thread about our brains operating on physical mechanisms instead of magical metaphysical brain power housed just above our realm of being?

I don't think the physical simplicity from which consciousness is ultimately derived from undermines free will. If you put every particle in my body in the same place in the same environment I'll perform the same, if you change the environment I won't. That's free will enough for me.
Trying to prove either way is probably a sure fire way to end up crazy as fuck though.
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
Amazon.com: Books

41gDp0vKLSL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


I was skeptical but ended up being convinced. We do not have a will that is free. Even if you think about who to marry for several years, the moment the decision is made is still subject to at least some determinism at a physical level. We can build a mental framework for ourselves and steer our consciousness over time and with effort, slowly like a large ship, but the ship is going forward whether we like it or not, and the default setting is that of it steering itself.

I walked away from this book thinking of the free will of consciousness sort of like evolution or natural selection. By understanding how it works, we can make an effort to take the reins a bit and try to steer or guide its direction. But if we make no such effort, nature will guide the process for us.
 

Alexzander

Golden Knight of the Realm
520
39
Firstly, I'm 'C' on the poll. I'm still undecided. I don't think science is really firm on either side yet.
I think it's bullshit, or at least my brain decided I would type that.

We have free will. And Aldarion is right, without it, morality and our justice system can't function properly. Many laws specifically require intent.
The justice system can still function fine if free will isn't real. We would just need to shift away from punitive and towards preventative. Which is to say, the purpose of locking someone up would be to protect the population from them rather than to give them a spanking for what they did.
 

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
26,113
39,383
The justice system can still function fine if free will isn't real. We would just need to shift away from punitive and towards preventative. Which is to say, the purpose of locking someone up would be to protect the population from them rather than to give them a spanking for what they did.
Now how would that work? Aside some system like a few premonition psychics floating in some pool warning us of the things people would do? Since most criminal acts are spontaneous.
 

Alexzander

Golden Knight of the Realm
520
39
Now how would that work? Aside some system like a few premonition psychics floating in some pool warning us of the things people would do? Since most criminal acts are spontaneous.
They're still locked up afterwards. It would make it clear--or rather ought to-- that the priorities of the criminal justice system should shift from punishment to rehabilitation.
 

Kaines

Potato Supreme
17,687
48,957
They're still locked up afterwards. It would make it clear--or rather ought to-- that the priorities of the criminal justice system should shift from punishment to rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is worthless if the person doesn't have the free will to change their behavior.
 

Malakriss

Golden Baronet of the Realm
12,639
11,968
They would move the goal posts to the only "subjective" area left once free will is out of the game: learned behavior. You would see arguments that their genes and instincts aren't bad, they simply had awful experiences in their childhood which caused them to develop this way. But the flaws of rehabilition works both ways because if we're devoid of free will (which is not bound by genetic or learned behaviors) then you're trying to convince a system that it is corrupted and force it to regress from that corrupted state without will.

The much more likely result would be harsher punishments until medical science catches up and then we would see something similar to Babylon 5 sci-fi with "death of personality" sentences. If it gets beyond the glorified brainwashing stages and we can actually destroy all of the memory/experiences/personality of a person and implant a new one then there goes any arguments against artificial minds being inserted into grown/cloned bodies. Hell, we can justify body hopping and living forever then too.
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,011
14,948
I really don't think it undermines our justice system or the concept of intent. I choose not to kill the bitch in front of me in line at the store. There is no one thing that leads to that choice, it does not arise from the aether of my mind spontaneously. Like everything else that exists that choice is just a chemical reaction, guided by infinite reactions that preceded it stretching back to the big bang or whatever the fuck. That doesn't mean that I could not have chosen to kill that bitch, I could have, maybe I would have given different circumstances that would alter that chemical reaction ever so slightly. And if I chose to do it, the intent was still there, whether or not I have free will ultimately does not affect that.
I think you're confused. What you're describing is free will. People are saying if free will does NOT exist, the justice system is undermined.

Also, this poll is dildoes. No tomatoe option.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I don't think I am confused, I think I get it, I just don't have really good language to speak about this stuff. If I take an action caused by some combination of chemistry in my body, past input to the brain, environment, etc then that isn't free will. I "make a choice". And I could have "made another choice". But there's no little man in my head weighing things this way and that, making decisions. There's no choice, there's only action. Multiple actions COULD happen, with "you" as the initiator of said action, but there's really no "you". What you perceive to be "you" is your brain tricking you. There's no you, there's no self, there's no choice, there's no god, we're all alone and then we die. And yet, the justice system is still not undermined. intent still exists. Water still tastes delicious, the sun still shines. The universe is indifferent to our crisis of self.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I think you're not getting just how basic the distinction is here. You don't have a choice if they're right. There is no infinite. You didn't choose. You think you did. You think you have the option. You thinking that also isn't an option. It's beyond your grasp. You're just a witness, a tool, to the actions of an organ that is pursuing its own goal which you're only tangentially aware of. IF we have no free will.

If we do have free will, you're right.
I don't think "I" have an option. I think there are multiple options. Again, I'm really bad at explaining this stuff. But when I first heard it, it fucked me up. Because a guy like Harris, he's a very smart neuroscientist and the instinct is to think he gets something that I don't. Similar to how I get something he just doesn't in the privacy debate. He doesn't see the forest, I do. In this case I couldn't see the forest, only my own dread at what that meant if he was right and I had no free will. But really, what he's saying is just really obvious. Or it seems so to me. And I've heard other people say similar things.

Saying "you" make a choice is to say that there is a "you" independent of your body. Which, there just isn't. When you reconcile that, then "your brain" makes a choice. But your brain is just chemical soup storing conditioning and environmental variables and processing input. Every "choice" is the focal point of a million different factors coming into play all at once. It's a bunch of XOR gates, processing output. The action is the output.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,336
48,484
Doesn't this all depend on how you define "you" making the choice? If you want to say "your brain" made the choice as a result of some chemical alchemy, isn't your brain you? Didn't you still make that choice, even if it was by chemical process rather than whatever you thought it was prior? To act like we aren't chemical/electrical beings and so chemical processes aren't "us" sounds pretty hokey.