|
On May 19 2012 20:00 guN-viCe wrote:
This isn't black and white. Free will does and does not exist. You do the math.
You can't both have free will and not. It is a black and white topic. I'd love to see a situation where you show that it's possible to both have and not have, because the moment you can't free will in one situation you don't have free will period. The whole idea of "us" having free will is at the corner stone of society, despite the fact that there are a ridiculous number of arguments arguing that we don't.
|
While it is true that psychology is not a "hard science", there is clear progress on psychopathy and other mental conditions in neuroscience, which is a hard science. Think of the brain as a big car. With a true psychopath, there are parts missing. Or, perhaps these parts are wired incorrectly. Perhaps it's due to genetic errors affecting developmental programs. Perhaps it's due to environmental conditions during post-natal development. Or most likely it's a combination of the two, given the 80% heredity it evidently shows (source: new york times)
In the future neuroscience will play the role of detecting these individuals early on. It's possible that with the right therapy, these compromised brain regions could be "trained" to improve in function. But then maybe some individuals could be found to have such a severe lack of what I'll loosely call "the empathy region (even though this doesn't really exist), that there is no way for them to develop it after birth. After being able to more accurately detect these individuals with malformed brains who are at risk, then maybe something could be done to physically intervene, but I think that's more in the realm of science fiction vs. simply detecting the problem -- which we're already just bareeely beginning to be able to do, today
|
Yeah I personally don't see things from a standard moral perspective when I judge people. They are only doing what their mental idiosyncrasies force them to. However, the 'ultimate resolution' of these idiosyncrasies is that people act in a way that is hard to predict unless you know everything about them - which is very similar to the concept of free will. In reality, the appellation 'evil' means 'the brain is composed in such a way as to create a person which holds little to no regard for the feelings of others and is interested in inflicting pain on living things'.
|
I don't really see how 'free will' is relevant in this conversation, to be honest. If you're making a choice and weighing your options, then your consciousness is still making that choice and weighing your options. It's not like we're all 'fated' to do one thing or another. Our brains and bodies react to the world around them, including abstract information (like "4:00" or "Whites are the superior race"). The fact that we can easily admit that we react to something as abstract as information means that free will isn't that necessary.
The idea that free will is a 'cornerstone of society' is bullshit. You don't need free will for that at all. Free will is a lot more useless than people initially assume.
|
Whether free will exists or doesn't exist, you have to be held accountable for your actions based on the rules that exist in society. It's complete anarchy to have a society in which we can all blame our physiology or environment for everything we do; in that case, there's no purpose in having laws at all. The man in question is a sick fuck, but he doesn't deserve any special treatment for the fact that he's mentally ill. No doubt everybody who's ever gone to prison, from Jeffrey Dahmer to the guy who stole $500 from a liquor store, each has their own mitigating circumstances. That should not excuse their crimes.
|
On May 19 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:
The idea that free will is a 'cornerstone of society' is bullshit. You don't need free will for that at all. Free will is a lot more useless than people initially assume.
Disregard justice, morality, personal responsability and achievements, amrite?
|
On May 19 2012 22:11 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:
The idea that free will is a 'cornerstone of society' is bullshit. You don't need free will for that at all. Free will is a lot more useless than people initially assume. Disregard justice, morality, personal responsability and achievements, amrite?
None of that goes away... That's what I was trying to explain.
|
On May 19 2012 22:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 22:11 Kukaracha wrote:On May 19 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:
The idea that free will is a 'cornerstone of society' is bullshit. You don't need free will for that at all. Free will is a lot more useless than people initially assume. Disregard justice, morality, personal responsability and achievements, amrite? None of that goes away... That's what I was trying to explain.
The question is not wether it actually goes away or not, because it becomes a fairytale story of how humanity suddenly stopped behaving like humans. It's about legitimacy.
|
On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does.
How does free will not really exist?
|
On May 19 2012 22:26 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 22:13 DoubleReed wrote:On May 19 2012 22:11 Kukaracha wrote:On May 19 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:
The idea that free will is a 'cornerstone of society' is bullshit. You don't need free will for that at all. Free will is a lot more useless than people initially assume. Disregard justice, morality, personal responsability and achievements, amrite? None of that goes away... That's what I was trying to explain. The question is not wether it actually goes away or not, because it becomes a fairytale story of how humanity suddenly stopped behaving like humans. It's about legitimacy.
What?
Humanity cannot stop behaving like humans. That's just a pure contradiction. Are you trying to imply that animals don't have free will but humans do? Because I find that offensive to my dear wuvable kitty.
|
kids: innocent, curious... I don't think pure evil exists, at least not like Dr. Evil and mini-me evil.
Octo-mom: single mom that discovered Hollywood. Just like Kim Kardashian, she used her V to get some money. Instead of going in, her went out. I can only blame her for burdening 8 lives onto this planet. Whether she is a fit mother is another question.
Mel gibson: the aftermath of too much drugs. It seems to be like this with most celebrities. They get a few good movies or songs and are unheard of forever. Think of Hillary Duff or Miley Cyrus. Not great examples but when I was 10, I remember listening to her songs and they even did a segment on her on YTV.
The others I din't know about them before reading this but your discussion goes back to the nature vs. nurture debate. I think it's nurture. Most people have conscience or some form of world view in their puberty or early 20s. Children are just children, innocent.
|
Consider psychopahs. Sometimes they are born that way. Sometimes they become one by braindamage. In some cases they are conditioned by their upbringing. They know the rules but don't give anything about what happens to another human being. Unable to feel empathy. By learning when somebody has a sad face and other cues that other person must feel sad. But sadness or symphaty is not felt with them hidden they may even feel glee because it is an oppertunity to them. They can pretent, lie, act like they care to survive and achieve their goals. Weakness of another is to them something to be exploited only. This is not culturally relative. This can be seen on brainscans and these persons don't react to any therapy or medication in any possive way. The ''empathy'' part of the brain is not there or not hooked up.
In fact through therapy their lying and pretending becomes better reading what the therapist wants to achieve and emulating it. Although there will never be any motivation in them to change and there is nothing that can be changed these people should be locked away. The justice system is not fit to handle these persons. Deceit is their nature.
Psychology is not to absolve from responsibility but to look for ways to improve behavior and experience. It is however usefull to make an assesment of the chance of behavioral improvement. The reliabilty of these assesments must be open to debate as it is a soft sience but a necesary science non the less. To disconnect criminal behavior completely from circumstances, biology and upbringing would take us back to a penal system of the 19th century.
|
On May 19 2012 22:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 22:26 Kukaracha wrote:On May 19 2012 22:13 DoubleReed wrote:On May 19 2012 22:11 Kukaracha wrote:On May 19 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:
The idea that free will is a 'cornerstone of society' is bullshit. You don't need free will for that at all. Free will is a lot more useless than people initially assume. Disregard justice, morality, personal responsability and achievements, amrite? None of that goes away... That's what I was trying to explain. The question is not wether it actually goes away or not, because it becomes a fairytale story of how humanity suddenly stopped behaving like humans. It's about legitimacy. What? Humanity cannot stop behaving like humans. That's just a pure contradiction. Are you trying to imply that animals don't have free will but humans do? Because I find that offensive to my dear wuvable kitty.
I was saying quite the contrary. Imagening a world where humans don't believe in free will is too much of a fantasy, so wether free will will actually go away or not is irrelevant. The immediate consequences concern the legitimacy of many important fields like justice and personal responsability.
|
On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does.
You're not allowed to make statements that are based on bullshit.
|
On May 18 2012 23:52 Westy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 23:29 Sea_Food wrote:
The people I say are evil, are evil.
People can be evil, good or stupid. No reason to know learn 100 000 000 different medical terms for different kinds of people and their mental states.
Dont listen to what others say. Lets say some parents abused and tortured their child, and naturally this child turned out to be "evil" as you describe it. Is it wrong of us to want to learn about his disorder and try and treat it, so he can have a fair chance at a real life? Why would you push your views of what a real life is on him anyway? A life is a life.
|
On May 19 2012 19:02 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does. Not only that, but pretty much everything is based on the idea that free will exists. To say the contrary implies great changes.
One day it will change though because it is silly to have systems based on stuff we know is wrong.
If change doesn't happen it will lead to cases which are then well understood to be silly, absurd and unjust.
|
Everything I've read (which granted is not a huge amount) says that while you can have genetic predisposition towards certain personalities or behaviors (and that acquired personality characteristics are somehow genetically transferrable? I think), ultimately the control lies with the individual and environment.
|
On May 19 2012 23:49 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 19:02 Kukaracha wrote:On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does. Not only that, but pretty much everything is based on the idea that free will exists. To say the contrary implies great changes. One day it will change though because it is silly to have systems based on stuff we know is wrong.If change doesn't happen it will lead to cases which are then well understood to be silly, absurd and unjust.
why do so many people keep repeating this?
as if we really knew about free will. please read up on neuroscientific positions and theories.
you all sound like you were trying to be little christopher hitchens. and i dont mean this in any positive way. lol.
|
On May 19 2012 23:49 Miyoshino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 19:02 Kukaracha wrote:On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does. Not only that, but pretty much everything is based on the idea that free will exists. To say the contrary implies great changes. One day it will change though because it is silly to have systems based on stuff we know is wrong. If change doesn't happen it will lead to cases which are then well understood to be silly, absurd and unjust.
We don't know it's wrong, it's a neverending debate. Why does it never end? Because we have no idea what we're talking about.
For example, psychology studies the result of thoughts, not their process. What's your mother's maiden name? Ok, and how do you know it? How did the answer come to your mind? We don't know, you just know it! Neurology is the only field that we hope will reveal what lies behind the curtain, but as for now neurologists are advancing blind at the speed of a snail.
On May 19 2012 23:44 kamkerx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 23:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does. You're not allowed to make statements that are based on bullshit.
Your answer is ironically lacking in any sort of argument.
|
Hmm, reminds me of lobotomy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
