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.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.
He's right in both instances. It's how I feel too.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.
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?He's right in both instances. It's how I feel too.
Correct.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Rehabilitation is worthless if the person doesn't have the free will to change their behavior.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.
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.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 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.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.