|
On May 20 2012 03:56 KaasZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 01:26 Miyoshino wrote:
The law system completely ignored everything that science did the last 50 or so years.
The law system doesn't even know what it tries to do. Punishing someone because he 'broke the law' and punish him with the penalty according to 'the law' is dogmatic and useless. There has to be a goal here. And once people go back and think over the goal of punishing people, there will be a revolution. Punishment is meant to be a detterent. Not only lost years by being in jail but also the social stigma and lost oppertunities. The second goal is to teach the criminal a lesson so he/she wont stay again. The third goal is retribution for the vicims or the survivors if the victim is dead. They will get some measure of peace of mind when the criminal gets punished. Fourth the criminal is at least not capable to do damage to the community outside the jail while he is locked up so society and victims feel more save.
Punishment isn't a deterrent, consequences are or at least the threat of a punishment. Punishment is something you do after someone has committed an action, you can't deter an action that has already been committed. Punishment exists to alter in an attempt to ensure it never happens again. Furthermore the problem with your point is that a. consequences for actions often times aren't a deterrent in high level crimes as shown by various studies, second of all there's not really much point in "teaching" a criminal a lesson because most criminals realize what they are doing is illegal and "wrong" most times but continue to do it anyways, 3rdly - retribution is a petty and stupid emotion and something that should never be allowed period in the law system, killing someone for them killing someone else doesn't bring the first person back, it just creates more bloodshed and oversteps the whole point of correctional facilities. Finally the fourth one wouldn't be such an issue if there weren't 909283098 societal factors that wreck havoc on people doing these crimes in the first place. Yes there are some people who are beyond correcting and it is arguable to some degree to find a way to keep them out of society but the amount of people that get put into prisons for this reason alone is way too high.
|
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.
First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars.
Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid" 
|
In the end you should punish the act and not the cause. Many people would consider any violent act "insane" and in the end society determines mental status and not science. If I say, hey that guy was pissed when he killed his wife and family.....I guess it's his fault because society deems "emotion" not insane. Another guys does the same because of stress another because of drugs another because of brain damage another because of genetics...etc...If a someone is extremely dangerous to society then they should never leave the facility of incarceration.
|
Obviously, there is no specific right answer that will let us treat all criminals fairly and satisfy the needs of the public simultaneously. Everything is compromise. I can only say that it feels wrong to me to punish someone who was not in control, to the extent to which most rational adults are, just as it feels wrong to let a rational adult commit a heinous act without reprisal. Given that all notions of justice derive from human social instincts (disregarding the contortions and abstractions of philosophers seeking to justify their instincts) I feel that this answer is enough. The current standards for judging who is reaponsible for their actions and who is not feel right and work well enough.
|
On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid"
??? How are such judgements stupid?
I'm sorry but if you rape and murder people, that's an evil act. It causes terrible suffering and death of other people. That's evil. That goes directly against humans' well being. If you do nothing and have no ambition of anything in your life or whatever, that's laziness. I don't care what environmental or natural elements cause such things, they can still be judged by the consequences and intentions of the actions.
Lack of free will has nothing to do with any of this.
|
On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid"
I'm confused as to how you think you can just write off free will completely. The discussion is still very much ongoing in the philosphical community, and has been so for a couple of millenia...
But perhaps you know something I don't?
|
On May 20 2012 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid" I'm confused as to how you think you can just write off free will completely. The discussion is still very much ongoing in the philosphical community, and has been so for a couple of millenia... But perhaps you know something I don't?
Because philosophy when paired with physics suggests that to have free will we would essentially have to be the one object in the whole universe that isn't effected by the laws of cause and effect. Whether you believe in determinism or chance decision, unless humans are somehow exempt from these laws I have yet to find a single shred of evidence suggesting free will. The only way it could be argued is that we have free will simply because we have no choice in the matter, essentially saying we have free will because we are free to make choices, but there is only one choice.
|
My take on mental disorders: We are all insane. Every single one of us is insane in some way shape or form. Some people are just more insane then others.
Not every enlightening or anything but meh!
|
On May 21 2012 03:52 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid" I'm confused as to how you think you can just write off free will completely. The discussion is still very much ongoing in the philosphical community, and has been so for a couple of millenia... But perhaps you know something I don't? Because philosophy when paired with physics suggests that to have free will we would essentially have to be the one object in the whole universe that isn't effected by the laws of cause and effect. Whether you believe in determinism or chance decision, unless humans are somehow exempt from these laws I have yet to find a single shred of evidence suggesting free will. The only way it could be argued is that we have free will simply because we have no choice in the matter, essentially saying we have free will because we are free to make choices, but there is only one choice.
Well, not really. We make all the choices we make, but our entire consciousness is determined, so we're going to come to the decision that we come to based on whatever information we have at the time. If that information changed we might change our mind in the same way. It's not like there's 'only one choice,' because it's entirely dependent on whatever information or environment we have.
|
On May 21 2012 04:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 03:52 Ace.Xile wrote:On May 20 2012 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid" I'm confused as to how you think you can just write off free will completely. The discussion is still very much ongoing in the philosphical community, and has been so for a couple of millenia... But perhaps you know something I don't? Because philosophy when paired with physics suggests that to have free will we would essentially have to be the one object in the whole universe that isn't effected by the laws of cause and effect. Whether you believe in determinism or chance decision, unless humans are somehow exempt from these laws I have yet to find a single shred of evidence suggesting free will. The only way it could be argued is that we have free will simply because we have no choice in the matter, essentially saying we have free will because we are free to make choices, but there is only one choice. Well, not really. We make all the choices we make, but our entire consciousness is determined, so we're going to come to the decision that we come to based on whatever information we have at the time. If that information changed we might change our mind in the same way. It's not like there's 'only one choice,' because it's entirely dependent on whatever information or environment we have.
Yeah but the argument is that at any given moment based upon environment you will make a certain choice because of forces acted upon you, your choices are out of your control based upon everything that's happened
|
On May 21 2012 04:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 03:52 Ace.Xile wrote:On May 20 2012 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid" I'm confused as to how you think you can just write off free will completely. The discussion is still very much ongoing in the philosphical community, and has been so for a couple of millenia... But perhaps you know something I don't? Because philosophy when paired with physics suggests that to have free will we would essentially have to be the one object in the whole universe that isn't effected by the laws of cause and effect. Whether you believe in determinism or chance decision, unless humans are somehow exempt from these laws I have yet to find a single shred of evidence suggesting free will. The only way it could be argued is that we have free will simply because we have no choice in the matter, essentially saying we have free will because we are free to make choices, but there is only one choice. Well, not really. We make all the choices we make, but our entire consciousness is determined, so we're going to come to the decision that we come to based on whatever information we have at the time. If that information changed we might change our mind in the same way. It's not like there's 'only one choice,' because it's entirely dependent on whatever information or environment we have.
"If nature is more complicated than a game of chess, a belief to which one tends to incline, then a physical system cannot be determined by a finite number of observations. But in practice a finite number of observations is all that we can make. All that is left to determinism is to believe that an infinite accumulation of observations would in principle enable it completely to determine the system. Such was the standpoint and view of classical physics, which latter certainly had a right to see what it could make of it. But the opposite standpoint has an equal justification: we are not compelled to assume that an infinite number of observations, which cannot in any case be carried out in practice, would suffice to give us a complete determination. "
Written by Schrödinger in 1926 - he later turned somewhat more towards a deterministic POV, but if you read What is life which he wrote in 1944 you'll see that he is still inclined to believe in a free will....
My objection to the general notion in this thread is that when a Nobel laurate in physics wasn't convinced (and no one has managed to properly refute his arguments), perhaps we shouldn't be either - especially not using arguments within his field. If you have a certain belief, fine, but don't call people idiots because they don't share it (and until you can refute another notion completely, it is only a belief you are holding).
|
On May 21 2012 04:42 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 04:06 DoubleReed wrote:On May 21 2012 03:52 Ace.Xile wrote:On May 20 2012 22:47 Ghostcom wrote:On May 20 2012 13:26 liberal 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. First post pretty much nailed it. Although I would say there are many cases where a recognition of the lack of free will would be better for society. Most judgements of people are pretty stupid... "lazy, evil, selfish" etc. And the whole legal attempt to pin down sanity vs. insanity is an exercise in futility, but it makes people feel good, like ribbons on their cars. Edit: Yes I see the irony in calling judgements "stupid" I'm confused as to how you think you can just write off free will completely. The discussion is still very much ongoing in the philosphical community, and has been so for a couple of millenia... But perhaps you know something I don't? Because philosophy when paired with physics suggests that to have free will we would essentially have to be the one object in the whole universe that isn't effected by the laws of cause and effect. Whether you believe in determinism or chance decision, unless humans are somehow exempt from these laws I have yet to find a single shred of evidence suggesting free will. The only way it could be argued is that we have free will simply because we have no choice in the matter, essentially saying we have free will because we are free to make choices, but there is only one choice. Well, not really. We make all the choices we make, but our entire consciousness is determined, so we're going to come to the decision that we come to based on whatever information we have at the time. If that information changed we might change our mind in the same way. It's not like there's 'only one choice,' because it's entirely dependent on whatever information or environment we have. "If nature is more complicated than a game of chess, a belief to which one tends to incline, then a physical system cannot be determined by a finite number of observations. But in practice a finite number of observations is all that we can make. All that is left to determinism is to believe that an infinite accumulation of observations would in principle enable it completely to determine the system. Such was the standpoint and view of classical physics, which latter certainly had a right to see what it could make of it. But the opposite standpoint has an equal justification: we are not compelled to assume that an infinite number of observations, which cannot in any case be carried out in practice, would suffice to give us a complete determination. " Written by Schrödinger in 1926 - he later turned somewhat more towards a deterministic POV, but if you read What is life which he wrote in 1944 you'll see that he is still inclined to believe in a free will.... My objection to the general notion in this thread is that when a Nobel laurate in physics wasn't convinced (and no one has managed to properly refute his arguments), perhaps we shouldn't be either - especially not using arguments within his field. If you have a certain belief, fine, but don't call people idiots because they don't share it (and until you can refute another notion completely, it is only a belief you are holding).
Determinism certainly isn't the only argument against free will and he still fails to adress the key issue when discussing free will, that regardless of events whether they be determined or not they still shape our behaviors entirely. We are products of our environment and biology (of which is just a product of environment). Without being able to prove that cause and effect somehow apply differently to us than say a rock (which there is little proof to do so) then there isn't a grand argument for free will. His argument is 100% correct in the sense that we are unable to say definitively one way or the other, yet at the same time leaves us in the same place where epistemology does, asking questions about questions which often times ends up in us getting nowhere. Whether or. Not we can know something for sure is an entirely different argiment in itself.
|
While there may not be a strong case for free will in my mind, I do agree that there shouldn't be any derogatory remarks in this thread. Society generally looks down on atheists who try to get into arguments with religious people every time they see one even though it can be argued that there is no strong case for religions being correct.
It's interesting how TL maintains a degree of civility by using deterrent punishments (if you're a dick you get banned).
|
Looks like another Determinism vs Free Will Thread
These just keep on popping up lately in one form or another =o
|
On May 21 2012 05:22 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
Looks like another Determinism vs Free Will Thread
These just keep on popping up lately in one form or another =o
Lol I mean, to be fair, the whole idea of free will is arguably one of the most, if not the most, important debates you could have, take for exampe my country, the u.s. the whole idea of free will is so significantly forefront to american society that it defines it. I mean the whole idea that one can just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and be whatever they want to be is deeply based upon assertions of free will (among other things). Its not surprising it would pop up
|
Guys, i can proof that free will does exist.
If everything was AND is predetrminated by billions of tiny things (that top scientist have very loose speculations of what they are atm), and everything is just a chain reaction, then in the future someone could build this machine that sees the whole universe in the most precise detail. Now he could also build a machine that uses that information to calculate the already set and comfirmed future. Now the machine could tell the guy that he will either lift hes hands up after 5 seconds, or not lift them. Because the guy has FREE WILL, he can choose to not obey the pre set future.
I am glad you all understood what i ment.
|
On May 21 2012 05:57 Sea_Food wrote:
Guys, i can proof that free will does exist.
If everything was AND is predetrminated by billions of tiny things (that top scientist have very loose speculations of what they are atm), and everything is just a chain reaction, then in the future someone could build this machine that sees the whole universe in the most precise detail. Now he could also build a machine that uses that information to calculate the already set and comfirmed future. Now the machine could tell the guy that he will either lift hes hands up after 5 seconds, or not lift them. Because the guy has FREE WILL, he can choose to not obey the pre set future.
I am glad you all understood what i ment.
I'm going to say lost in translation since it appears english isn't your first language. Your example doesn't make sense. The man's future reading machine would know he knew about the decision it was going to make and factor that in.
Lots of mechanists in this thread.
|
What else are you going to blame?
|
On May 21 2012 06:12 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 05:57 Sea_Food wrote:
Guys, i can proof that free will does exist.
If everything was AND is predetrminated by billions of tiny things (that top scientist have very loose speculations of what they are atm), and everything is just a chain reaction, then in the future someone could build this machine that sees the whole universe in the most precise detail. Now he could also build a machine that uses that information to calculate the already set and comfirmed future. Now the machine could tell the guy that he will either lift hes hands up after 5 seconds, or not lift them. Because the guy has FREE WILL, he can choose to not obey the pre set future.
I am glad you all understood what i ment. I'm going to say lost in translation since it appears english isn't your first language. Your example doesn't make sense. The man's future reading machine would know he knew about the decision it was going to make and factor that in. Lots of mechanists in this thread.
Way to be a nitpick - let us see you try in Finnish... His post was very easy to understand, which you obviously did, seeing as you could disprove his example (rightly so).
|
On May 21 2012 05:57 Sea_Food wrote:
Guys, i can proof that free will does exist.
If everything was AND is predetrminated by billions of tiny things (that top scientist have very loose speculations of what they are atm), and everything is just a chain reaction, then in the future someone could build this machine that sees the whole universe in the most precise detail. Now he could also build a machine that uses that information to calculate the already set and comfirmed future. Now the machine could tell the guy that he will either lift hes hands up after 5 seconds, or not lift them. Because the guy has FREE WILL, he can choose to not obey the pre set future.
I am glad you all understood what i ment.
I actually agree. Free will will needs to exist or I wouldnt be typing this, but rather doing something else, theoretically. if Im not doing this then Id be doing something else, and if I was, then why couldnt I be following the chain of events that was predetermined since I was little boy in belly? Why do atoms make orbits, but why do quantum physics say randomness happens? Why cant I be a quark and I should be doing something else rather then something else I would originally be doing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
