|
The practice of Psychology in America is getting more and more controversial.
Consider the following:
Is a nine-year-old who pushes a toddler into the deep end of a swimming pool because he’s curious to “see someone drown” mentally impaired or evil? Does the Octomom suffer from “compulsive hoarding disorder” or “breeding disorder” or narcissistic personality disorder – or is she just a freak? And what about Patricia Krentcil, the “tanorexic” New Jersey mom charged with child endangerment for allegedly bringing her five-year-old daughter into a tanning booth – is she crazy with a small “c” or a big “C”? Should a person like Mel Gibson be viewed as mentally ill or morally repugnant? What about Bernie Madoff, and the “psychopaths” of Wall Street?
These concerns, like so much in America today, are deeply politicized. For the right, brain-disorder-talk portends a dangerous de-centering of moral values, religious belief and free will as the most important drivers of human behavior. For the left, contemporary neuropsychology threatens to let society off the hook for its responsibility in generating the toxic relational, environmental and ideological influences believed to foster mental illness.
Is there really value on this in the sense that humans are really not in complete control of their thoughts and actions? Can the brain be blamed for actions that we normally have control over, and those that define our humanity - ethics, morality? Or will this be used to shield immoral and even criminal acts and just put the blame anywhere except on the responsible conscientious person?
Source: http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/18/the-latest-trend-blaming-brain-science/
|
Free will doesn't really exist, but society functions better when it's assumed that it does.
|
Well, first off, I don't think that anyone is evil. That is all in perspective (the Nazis believed they were improving the human race).
Second, I think that many people get many so-called "evil" thoughts, but the major difference between somebody that is insane and not insane is acting on these thoughts. There have been times, when I truly felt like I could kill somebody. I didn't, because I understood the ethical, legal, and moral issues that would arise from doing so, but I had the thought. Most people aren't that different, in this regard, I think.
Again, just what I have observed, I have no scientific evidence to back me up.
|
psychology is bullshit. this is why america's education and free givesaway of phd at random subjects such as psychology, sociology, or any social sciences lack any value.
as for a person "being evil", it is only evil in perspective. to a strict buddhist monk, consuming meat is evil. to a person who views the same specie killing each other is part of survival to their fittest. but when it comes to humans inspecting other humans, it becomes "good" or "bad" but in really it is neither. what makes KangarooA killing KangarooB different from HumanA killing HuamnB. Nothing, it is all about perspective. Each has their own motive, but neither is wrong or right, but rather "happened" or "didnt happen"
|
I think psychology often gets confused with things like this. Bernie Madoff, and psychopaths in general are people created out of certain social situations, which usually are not the norm. The age old, the consequences dictate the actions is totally at play. But those consequences are perceived consequences, and the person's perception of them based on the early experiences as people.
I don't think everybody is a psychopath, its just people are raised under and expierence an insane variety of social influences, and that can cause a person to vary incredibly from a norm, and do something that somebody would consider crazy.
Also, micro. You're stupid.
|
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.
|
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.
Don't you think that you might be oversimplifying human behavior by plugging it in 3 categories?
|
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?
|
On May 18 2012 23:16 CyDe wrote:
Second, I think that many people get many so-called "evil" thoughts, but the major difference between somebody that is insane and not insane is acting on these thoughts. There have been times, when I truly felt like I could kill somebody. I didn't, because I understood the ethical, legal, and moral issues that would arise from doing so, but I had the thought. Most people aren't that different, in this regard, I think.
Interesting topic, my opinion would be very close to what this guy just said but with one slight variation. I believe that the difference between somebody that is insane and someone who isn't is in the feelings.
A psychopath, in it's core definition isn't a mad killer or someone who aims at destroying society or any of the things most TV shows are showing us. At it's very basis, a psychopath is someone who doesn't feel emotions. Therefore he can't relate to most other people, doesn't have any empathy and doesn't experience things like doubts, love, hatred etc ... Now don't get me wrong, a psychopath will still see people experiencing these feelings every day so he will know or at least get a grasp of how to react when experiencing these but technically he's only mimicking them, not feeling anything. Why am I talking about psychopaths? Well the main reason is because I believe that what distinguishes a psychopath from a "normal" person is somehow the same thing that distinguishes any normal people from an insane one: feelings. Even though a psychopath is an extreme example because it basically doesn't have any feelings, the comparison seems relevant to me because what makes an insane person insane is that core idea of twisted feelings. Someone is considered insane because he's feelings doesn't seem to fit his acts (e.g: enjoys hurting animal = insane). So of course society influences how we react, how we are conditioned to feel in each situation etc. But when once's feelings aren't developing according to the logic of the society he's leaving in, this society is very likely to consider him/her as insane.
My answer to the initial question would be that someone is judged sane or insane based on how he feels after doing something. But the judgement made of those feelings can be different according to the society he's leaving in .... And even knowing that, every judgement will still be biased because most people will never be perfectly honest about how they feel (mostly because they can't identify it themselves). So I'll just end saying that what matters isn't really whether people are good or evil because as someone previously stated, it's a heavily culturally biased question, but rather about whether they are sane or not. Because most culture judge sanity on the same thing: feelings (you're not insane because you killed someone, you're insane because you enjoyed doing it).
|
|
|
First, I think psychology will move much further towards molecular biology and will soon become non-speculative (but strongly evidence based)
As Emix_Squall said, feeling is very important in knowing how to constitute yourself. It must be very difficult to feel absolutely nothing at all, as some of those feelings could lie at the core of why one loves.
However, one must also look at brain composition and individual placement.
Brain composition is an easy concept, but something very hard to fully grasp (and research).
It is the most concrete part about psychology, neuropsychology or neurosciences (or whatever's in between) which tells us that how the brain acts to certain stimuli and how it's made up of from it's core down, makes us act the way we do. And it can explain alot. Someone being schizophrenic will not simply put on schizomode and go berserk on everybody. No, there are certain triggers that can make an episode happen.
Let's assume that someone who is considered crazy, has a fundamentally flawed brain. This can be formed through faulty development, toxicity (pollution), trauma (physically, mentally), disease, intrinsic factors and so on..
This flawed brain acts how it should in circumstances that don't activate the symptoms of a mentally ill person, but certain impulses can let the brain act in strange ways.
This is also a problem, trying to find WHAT and WHY these people act the way they do.
The individual placement is simply about how a certain person grows up in the world and how the brain adapts to it. Someone brought up in a family with alot of violence, nonunderstanding and wrong ethical views will probably be more open to a fucked up way of braindevelopment (unless this person learns to relativate from a very early age).
Somebody else may be brought up like the perfect child, but his genome doesn't lend to a good brain composition, and makes him permanently depressed or gives him a psychose lurking somewhere.
Blaming the brain is like blaming a car or a truck. It's been driving all this time, with you behind the wheel, it's been made by people (mom, dad, friends, teacher, yourself, ..), but sometimes it breaks down or you lose control and you kill someone in the process.. Looked like the roads were too sippery to drive today, but you were the only one not to notice it.
|
Two thoughts on this:
1) Whether or not a person has the capacity to obey the laws because of some psychological problem, that does not change the fact that they are a part of society. For the protection of society, the damage these people inflict needs to be minimized.
2) It is also important that neurological/psychological considerations are factored into the administration of justice for these people.
Take for example three different instances of murder, where in each instance the person claimed they could not help themselves. In the first, a man with schizophrenia killed a person during a psychotic episode because he believed the person to be an assassin sent by the president. In the second instance, a man with severe frontal lobe lesions killed a person in a fit of impulsive rage. In the third instance, a man with psychopathic personality killed someone, and claimed as his reason that he could not control his urge to murder.
In the first instance, the man was not able to think rationally and believed it was absolutely necessary to his survival to kill that person. He was in the midst of a psychotic episode, and was grossly delusional and suffered from hallucinations. Evidence can be presented to corroborate that he is schizophrenic, possibly including witness accounts, medical records, or neurological findings. It seems more fitting that this man should be confined to a psychiatric ward where attempts might be made to rehabilitate him, rather than spending his life in jail. It is possible to recover from schizophrenia and live at a functional level, and many schizophrenics are indeed responsive to medication.
According to the second instance, the man in an uncontrollable fit of rage killed another person. MRI scans show severe damage to the frontal lobes, which are by large responsible for self-control and inhibition. It is therefor very possible that he could not control himself. The death sentence does not seem to me to be fair to this person who literally did not have the brains to stop himself. It may be more fair that he gets a life in jail sentence (with amenities), or life confinement to a psychiatric institution. Complete freedom for this person, however, is apparently too dangerous for society.
This is a difficult issue and I cannot say that I know a fair and good solution to it. But I believe it is important that the neurological findings are considered, because if the legal system is supposed to be "fair," it should not ignore that the person could not behave rationally.
In the final instance, the man may cite his psychopathic personality as a defense, claiming his lack of inhibitions and empathy were the causative factors in his uncontrollable urge to kill. Neurological findings are in line with the psychopathy diagnosis. However, people with psychopathic personality do have clear and rational thinking, they understand the law, and they are able to make conscious decisions on whether or not to follow it.
Most people with psychopathic personality avoid serious trouble with the law. He claims he could not help himself, but here there is a distinction. In the prior example, the man could not help himself because the part of his brain that would do that was not intact. But for a person with psychopathy, this is more like cheesecake is your favorite food, you haven't seen it in years, and you're in a store and you see it. But you're broke, so you steal it. Does that make any sense? It's more like the person succumbed to a powerful temptation more than it's like they are literally unable to resist temptations. This person deserves either the death sentence or life in prison. He should be held fully responsible for his actions, as he was fully in control of them.
And so each of these people committed the same crime, but because of different things going on with their brains, I believe they should be considered differently, for the reasons given. Just my 2 cents, hope you liked it.
|
Nothing in the OP is actual psychology. Actual psychology (the study of behaviour and it's substrates) is frequently conflated with random bullshit in the media. This thread is like saying "has medicine gone too far?" and then citing a bunch of examples of sensationalist media stories about vaccinations causing autism.
|
Neuroscience may find more and more excuses, but that doesn't mean you don't punish criminals. Phrase that another way--neuroscience is finding more and more explanations for criminal behaviors. You don't let criminals off the hook just because you have excuses for them. With knowledge, you know what kind of therapy and rehabilitation the criminal needs during his sentence. This decreases the recidivism.
This isn't a black and white issue, where it's neuroscience letting criminals off the hook (because it's not) vs. simply punishing the criminals.
|
On May 19 2012 00:30 xTrickyx wrote:
Two thoughts on this:
1) Whether or not a person has the capacity to obey the laws because of some psychological problem, that does not change the fact that they are a part of society. For the protection of society, the damage these people inflict needs to be minimized.
2) It is also important that neurological/psychological considerations are factored into the administration of justice for these people.
Take for example three different instances of murder, where in each instance the person claimed they could not help themselves. In the first, a man with schizophrenia killed a person during a psychotic episode because he believed the person to be an assassin sent by the president. In the second instance, a man with severe frontal lobe lesions killed a person in a fit of impulsive rage. In the third instance, a man with psychopathic personality killed someone, and claimed as his reason that he could not control his urge to murder.
In the first instance, the man was not able to think rationally and believed it was absolutely necessary to his survival to kill that person. He was in the midst of a psychotic episode, and was grossly delusional and suffered from hallucinations. Evidence can be presented to corroborate that he is schizophrenic, possibly including witness accounts, medical records, or neurological findings. It seems more fitting that this man should be confined to a psychiatric ward where attempts might be made to rehabilitate him, rather than spending his life in jail. It is possible to recover from schizophrenia and live at a functional level, and many schizophrenics are indeed responsive to medication.
According to the second instance, the man in an uncontrollable fit of rage killed another person. MRI scans show severe damage to the frontal lobes, which are by large responsible for self-control and inhibition. It is therefor very possible that he could not control himself. The death sentence does not seem to me to be fair to this person who literally did not have the brains to stop himself. It may be more fair that he gets a life in jail sentence (with amenities), or life confinement to a psychiatric institution. Complete freedom for this person, however, is apparently too dangerous for society.
This is a difficult issue and I cannot say that I know a fair and good solution to it. But I believe it is important that the neurological findings are considered, because if the legal system is supposed to be "fair," it should not ignore that the person could not behave rationally.
In the final instance, the man may cite his psychopathic personality as a defense, claiming his lack of inhibitions and empathy were the causative factors in his uncontrollable urge to kill. Neurological findings are in line with the psychopathy diagnosis. However, people with psychopathic personality do have clear and rational thinking, they understand the law, and they are able to make conscious decisions on whether or not to follow it.
Most people with psychopathic personality avoid serious trouble with the law. He claims he could not help himself, but here there is a distinction. In the prior example, the man could not help himself because the part of his brain that would do that was not intact. But for a person with psychopathy, this is more like cheesecake is your favorite food, you haven't seen it in years, and you're in a store and you see it. But you're broke, so you steal it. Does that make any sense? It's more like the person succumbed to a powerful temptation more than it's like they are literally unable to resist temptations. This person deserves either the death sentence or life in prison. He should be held fully responsible for his actions, as he was fully in control of them.
And so each of these people committed the same crime, but because of different things going on with their brains, I believe they should be considered differently, for the reasons given. Just my 2 cents, hope you liked it.
This was actually very interesting to me, thanks for posting 
But it is true, there are some people who simply cannot control the fact that they are unfit for society. This shouldn't mean that they exempt from the rules, but it should mean they are treated differently. I mean, let's say someone is drunk or high on some sort of hallucinogen; they physically CANNOT act on anything besides how they are interpreting reality (flawed as that perception may be). Anyone who has been high or drunk knows what I mean.
To some of these people, for instance the schizophrenic that you brought up, what they see IS REAL. It is not like there is another part of their brain that tells them, "This man is normal, he is not an assassin." It would be as though someone came up to you right now and said, "You are not using a computer, this computer is not real." It is physically impossible for you to see otherwise.
Personally, I have spoken to several meth addicts, who have shared their perception of reality with me. It is incredible. They are so convincing to ME, someone who is out of their situation, so to themselves they must truly "know" their thoughts are true. For instance, one kid began to think that people, like the government or just people, were watching him. While on his cell phone, he heard a slight echo, and he heard that that is indicative of a phone tap. He also saw some cars in his neighborhood that he had never seen before, and they were moving in a pattern that, he believed, showed that they were not from the area; they were only there to watch him. Then he heard shuffling in the crawl space of his house, and he thought about how he saw some "suspicious looking small people" earlier that could probably fit in there. So he took a baseball bat to the walls.
To him, what he was doing was perfectly logical. PERFECTLY logical. It would be like if someone actually WAS tailing him; he responded in kind. Unfortunately no one actually was tailing him, so by all accounts, he was fucking insane.
|
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant.
|
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.
There are indeed three kind of people: The good, the bad and the ugly.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant.
99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it.
Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale.
|
Psychology is a pseudo science, its not based on actual objective theory but on percentages and experiments with not real theory to back them up.
It has changed very little from Ancient Greece to modern days and unlike physics or chemistry most of the changes are corrections to the initial theories not additions to a correct theory.
That alone shows how flawed psychology is, but no the less until we figure out close to 99% how our brain ( by that i mean the nervous system and all its interactions with out relation system ) works, which will take actual scientist years of work and billions of $, well... psychologists and there "pseudo science" is the best we have, and its generally accurate... we just have to deal with the cases when they are talking bs or when they are payed to talk bs and continue our lives.
On May 19 2012 01:07 Pantythief wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant. 99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it. Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale.
There are very few species that willingly KILL other individuals as often as humans do and used to do and in 99% of the cases a mentally healthy "wild" human will likely not kill another human
|
On May 19 2012 01:44 Aterons_toss wrote:Psychology is a pseudo science, its not based on actual objective theory but on percentages and experiments with not real theory to back them up. It has changed very little from Ancient Greece to modern days and unlike physics or chemistry most of the changes are corrections to the initial theories not additions to a correct theory. That alone shows how flawed psychology is, but no the less until we figure out close to 99% how our brain ( by that i mean the nervous system and all its interactions with out relation system ) works, which will take actual scientist years of work and billions of $, well... psychologists and there "pseudo science" is the best we have, and its generally accurate... we just have to deal with the cases when they are talking bs or when they are payed to talk bs and continue our lives. Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 01:07 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant. 99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it. Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale. There are very few species that willingly KILL other individuals as often as humans do and used to do and in 99% of the cases a mentally healthy "wild" human will likely not kill another human
That is because we're influenced (or controlled, if you will) by fear, law/control and reasoning. I can ensure you, "murder" is something very different in the dark corners of our "civilized" world.
|
On May 19 2012 00:55 CyDe wrote:
But it is true, there are some people who simply cannot control the fact that they are unfit for society. This shouldn't mean that they exempt from the rules, but it should mean they are treated differently. I mean, let's say someone is drunk or high on some sort of hallucinogen; they physically CANNOT act on anything besides how they are interpreting reality (flawed as that perception may be). Anyone who has been high or drunk knows what I mean.
To some of these people, for instance the schizophrenic that you brought up, what they see IS REAL. It is not like there is another part of their brain that tells them, "This man is normal, he is not an assassin." It would be as though someone came up to you right now and said, "You are not using a computer, this computer is not real." It is physically impossible for you to see otherwise.
Personally, I have spoken to several meth addicts, who have shared their perception of reality with me. It is incredible. They are so convincing to ME, someone who is out of their situation, so to themselves they must truly "know" their thoughts are true. For instance, one kid began to think that people, like the government or just people, were watching him. While on his cell phone, he heard a slight echo, and he heard that that is indicative of a phone tap. He also saw some cars in his neighborhood that he had never seen before, and they were moving in a pattern that, he believed, showed that they were not from the area; they were only there to watch him. Then he heard shuffling in the crawl space of his house, and he thought about how he saw some "suspicious looking small people" earlier that could probably fit in there. So he took a baseball bat to the walls.
To him, what he was doing was perfectly logical. PERFECTLY logical. It would be like if someone actually WAS tailing him; he responded in kind. Unfortunately no one actually was tailing him, so by all accounts, he was fucking insane.
That's pretty wild about the kid on meth. I think on the issue of crimes caused by drug use, people should be held partially responsible, because it was their decision to take the drug, and they chose to take it in a manner that wasn't safe. Maybe if they were driving on mushrooms and they killed someone crossing the street, they should get a hefty manslaughter sentence and not first-degree murder. I think that a lot of people who have been in similar situations under the influence of alcohol get manslaughter? But I'm not positive.
I think that one of the unfortunate but unavoidable things about our legal system is that so much of all of it is context dependent. From the details about the crime itself, to the judge's and/or jury's interpretations and perceptions, to the efficacy of the defense and prosecution teams. Right and wrong are delicate ethical issues, and they vary from eye to eye. In my example of the man with frontal lobe damage, I believe he wasn't fully responsible for his behavior, because the part of his brain that would make him able to be responsible wasn't intact. Maybe a jury might think differently on that because they see that the man is able to conduct himself in the court room in a rational manner. That's a different topic in itself, but a serious issue in relation to the topic at hand.
|
On May 19 2012 01:44 Aterons_toss wrote:Psychology is a pseudo science, its not based on actual objective theory but on percentages and experiments with not real theory to back them up.It has changed very little from Ancient Greece to modern days and unlike physics or chemistry most of the changes are corrections to the initial theories not additions to a correct theory. That alone shows how flawed psychology is, but no the less until we figure out close to 99% how our brain ( by that i mean the nervous system and all its interactions with out relation system ) works, which will take actual scientist years of work and billions of $, well... psychologists and there "pseudo science" is the best we have, and its generally accurate... we just have to deal with the cases when they are talking bs or when they are payed to talk bs and continue our lives. Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 01:07 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant. 99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it. Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale. There are very few species that willingly KILL other individuals as often as humans do and used to do and in 99% of the cases a mentally healthy "wild" human will likely not kill another human
that's completely not true.
there are tonnes of different ways to approach psychology, such as neurology and animal behaviorist which relies of scientific method and there are others that are set theories and experiments such as psychoanalysis
the thing is, everyone has a difference in mental health and everyone has a bit of one and another mental illness, it's just how much it is to be considered as a medically recognized illness.
There isn't a "normal, healthy" human mind.
|
On May 19 2012 02:04 Pantythief wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 01:44 Aterons_toss wrote:Psychology is a pseudo science, its not based on actual objective theory but on percentages and experiments with not real theory to back them up. It has changed very little from Ancient Greece to modern days and unlike physics or chemistry most of the changes are corrections to the initial theories not additions to a correct theory. That alone shows how flawed psychology is, but no the less until we figure out close to 99% how our brain ( by that i mean the nervous system and all its interactions with out relation system ) works, which will take actual scientist years of work and billions of $, well... psychologists and there "pseudo science" is the best we have, and its generally accurate... we just have to deal with the cases when they are talking bs or when they are payed to talk bs and continue our lives. On May 19 2012 01:07 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant. 99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it. Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale. There are very few species that willingly KILL other individuals as often as humans do and used to do and in 99% of the cases a mentally healthy "wild" human will likely not kill another human That is because we're influenced (or controlled, if you will) by fear, law/control and reasoning. I can ensure you, "murder" is something very different in the dark corners of our "civilized" world.
I think this is an unbased assumption,
If you haven't notice we are the only relatively intelligent animal that willingly kills its own when he has other options with the same short term results.
Bears, wolfs, dolphins, sea lions, lions... those are all animals that fight each other for dominance, but they never willingly kill one another.
A human is the only animal, as far as i know, that goes out of his way to kill another individual... not because he is a threat to him mating, feeding himself or what not... because he could be a threat in the future or simply because he fells that he has been wrong by said individual and sees death as fit punishment for him ( because he is intelligent, because he learns, because he is so much more conscious than other animals ).
There are other animals who kill one another but its due to there instincts and its usually ether a mistake for the fact that the individual was indeed a hinder for the "specie".
Animals don't kill to show there greatness... they beat each other up, that is for sure ( and sometime in the process the loser or even the winner dies ), but its not actually "natural" to fell good by killing one of your own species... its natural to fell bad, the "adrenalin rush" , the "powerful felling" you are said to get if you kill someone its actually the felling you get from dominating another member of your species that overcomes the part of you that fells bad because he killed one of his own.
I might be wrong, i have in no way shape of from "professional" knowledge about this type of thing but i don't think that you do ether cuz if laws and society were the only thing keeping us from killing one another we would be all dead by now, and everyone with a little bit of knowledge in field varying from biology to scio economy would laugh at what you just said.
Again, im not saying im right but what you said is wrong and you brought no argument to sustain it, you are likely confusing the "kill someone" with the "dominate someone so that you get his position in a social structure or certain materials required for survival and comfort"... it is society itself and our "evolved" thought process that makes us want to kill other people.
|
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.
User was warned for this post
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
I have a strong opinion on this so here we go.
I absolutely approve of this "brain blaming" and I do think it is a way forward. It just has to be understood.
When someone is blaming their brain, psychologists diagnose this person with some kind of mental health problem that so many people consider bullcrap, it is nothing more than explanation. Obviously if such diagnosis is abused just to shorten the sentence, it IS pretty stupid.
The thing is, if you know the explanation, you can treat such a person better. You can lock him up for life, or you can use behavioral therapy or similiar stuff to "cure" him, or at least teach him to behave responsibly. Obviously I consider the latter option preferable, because it is 1. potentially cheaper 2. better for the criminals themselves 3. I also think that such intelligent, humane and efficient way of "dealing" with criminals is an important part of a more civilized culture, something that should be desired.
Unfortunately, as of yet, we don't know all the possible ways one can be screwed up between his ears, so we have to lock people up for life. But I think that as psychology moves forward we will be able to correct the behavior and feelings of our fellow criminals and allow them a better life.
As a side note, I do not think the family and friends of the victims of our cured criminals should have any say in what's to happen with them. Whenever something like this happens, there is always the mother of the victim, all shocked and appaled that they released or gave any leeway to the criminal. It is a normal behavior, but an emotional and irrational one.
|
On May 19 2012 04:09 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 02:04 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 01:44 Aterons_toss wrote:Psychology is a pseudo science, its not based on actual objective theory but on percentages and experiments with not real theory to back them up. It has changed very little from Ancient Greece to modern days and unlike physics or chemistry most of the changes are corrections to the initial theories not additions to a correct theory. That alone shows how flawed psychology is, but no the less until we figure out close to 99% how our brain ( by that i mean the nervous system and all its interactions with out relation system ) works, which will take actual scientist years of work and billions of $, well... psychologists and there "pseudo science" is the best we have, and its generally accurate... we just have to deal with the cases when they are talking bs or when they are payed to talk bs and continue our lives. On May 19 2012 01:07 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant. 99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it. Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale. There are very few species that willingly KILL other individuals as often as humans do and used to do and in 99% of the cases a mentally healthy "wild" human will likely not kill another human That is because we're influenced (or controlled, if you will) by fear, law/control and reasoning. I can ensure you, "murder" is something very different in the dark corners of our "civilized" world. I think this is an unbased assumption, If you haven't notice we are the only relatively intelligent animal that willingly kills its own when he has other options with the same short term results. Bears, wolfs, dolphins, sea lions, lions... those are all animals that fight each other for dominance, but they never willingly kill one another. A human is the only animal, as far as i know, that goes out of his way to kill another individual... not because he is a threat to him mating, feeding himself or what not... because he could be a threat in the future or simply because he fells that he has been wrong by said individual and sees death as fit punishment for him ( because he is intelligent, because he learns, because he is so much more conscious than other animals ). There are other animals who kill one another but its due to there instincts and its usually ether a mistake for the fact that the individual was indeed a hinder for the "specie". Animals don't kill to show there greatness... they beat each other up, that is for sure ( and sometime in the process the loser or even the winner dies ), but its not actually "natural" to fell good by killing one of your own species... its natural to fell bad, the "adrenalin rush" , the "powerful felling" you are said to get if you kill someone its actually the felling you get from dominating another member of your species that overcomes the part of you that fells bad because he killed one of his own. I might be wrong, i have in no way shape of from "professional" knowledge about this type of thing but i don't think that you do ether cuz if laws and society were the only thing keeping us from killing one another we would be all dead by now, and everyone with a little bit of knowledge in field varying from biology to scio economy would laugh at what you just said. Again, im not saying im right but what you said is wrong and you brought no argument to sustain it, you are likely confusing the "kill someone" with the "dominate someone so that you get his position in a social structure or certain materials required for survival and comfort"... it is society itself and our "evolved" thought process that makes us want to kill other people.
About the future threat comment...... I don't know if that is true or not but maybe that has something to do with animals perception of time? I've always heard animals don't have a perception of time but I've never really understood how someone could come to that conclusion.
|
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.
I don't even need to post. This is just right.
But, because I've nothing better to do:
Everything that everyone and everything that is doing, has done, or will do is predetermined by the miniscule, almost immeasurable amount of physics that plays out in existence. In this way, fate is real and unbreakable, but we cannot accurately determine it. Nothing is anyone's, "fault," as it was destined to happen since the dawn of the world's creation.
The universe's existence was done by the exact mount of force and matter pushed in a certain direction, at a certain speed, over a certain time and applying the constant rules of physics. This pattern just kept going until every little thing was created, as a result of this innevitable action, resulting in innevitable solar systems, innevitable planets, innevitable life, and innevitable evolutionary patterns that made us into what we are (chemical-following brains (who run off of innevitable patterns) hooked up to an innevitably designed body).
In this way, nothing is anyone's fault. But, unfortunately, reacting in any way to this knowledge changes nothing. As my moment of typing was innevitable, as your (possible) reading, and response to it. Even with this being known, apparent, and true, our reactions would just be part of the nearly infinite chain of events. So, I guess that I'd be best to not over complicate everything and just ignore truth and reason, and replace it with ignorance?
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
I don't know or actually think that we need the concept of fault and blame to explain our dealing with criminals.
For example, if our criminal murders someone, he has demonstrated his capability to murder and as such is dangerous to the society. In an ideal world, we would determine what is wrong with his mind and try to treat it using advanced psychological methods. Or if we don't know, we lock him up.
Notice how this process doesn't need any concept of guilt or fault. It is just a simple demonstration of capability/likeness to do unsocial acts. Also notice that this process can be applied to someone who has been diagnosed with the same mental problem, but hasn't commited any crime yet. He too, should be treated appropriately.
|
Good, bad, right and wrong are simply classifications of actions based on perspective. Morality is a societal construct; it's subjective.
There is no objective "right" or "wrong" or "evil" because each person has their own relative experience, values (existentialism), and perspective to evaluate the situation with. An action is just an action. Just because we've evolved the capacity to create a construct by which to classify actions does not equate it to being objective.
|
In some sense, we really don't have much control over our subliminal actions unless we are able to recognize what we are doing before we do it.
|
People lack the courage to take responsibitilynowadays.
They have to blame it on everything but themselves.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On May 19 2012 04:46 divito wrote:
Good, bad, right and wrong are simply classifications of actions based on perspective. Morality is a societal construct; it's subjective.
There is no objective "right" or "wrong" or "evil" because each person has their own relative experience, values (existentialism), and perspective to evaluate the situation with. An action is just an action. Just because we've evolved the capacity to create a construct by which to classify actions does not equate it to being objective.
I disagree with that.
Obviously if you want to give right/wrong/evil some divine properties, you are going to hit a wall. Or indeed if you try to argue the validity of these as given by religion.
But in a simple natural world, wrong/evil mean nothing more than behaviors that lead to a more unstable, undesirable and unhappy society. You can argue that different people want different societies, still there are some core values necessary for a functioning, technologically advanced society. And defying those values is therefore wrong and evil.
(I am not hating on religion, but some of them have values that do not necessarily lead to a more stable society)
|
The only reason why 'blame the brain, not the person' isn't all over mainstream psychology yet is because it is a taboo subject and people don't want to find out it is true even if it is.
|
On May 19 2012 04:37 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 04:09 Aterons_toss wrote:On May 19 2012 02:04 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 01:44 Aterons_toss wrote:Psychology is a pseudo science, its not based on actual objective theory but on percentages and experiments with not real theory to back them up. It has changed very little from Ancient Greece to modern days and unlike physics or chemistry most of the changes are corrections to the initial theories not additions to a correct theory. That alone shows how flawed psychology is, but no the less until we figure out close to 99% how our brain ( by that i mean the nervous system and all its interactions with out relation system ) works, which will take actual scientist years of work and billions of $, well... psychologists and there "pseudo science" is the best we have, and its generally accurate... we just have to deal with the cases when they are talking bs or when they are payed to talk bs and continue our lives. On May 19 2012 01:07 Pantythief wrote:On May 19 2012 00:57 Yorbon wrote:
How to prove we do or do not have control over ourselves?
I think the question is irrelevant. 99.9% of the threads posted on TL are irrelevant, but we're sharing and discussing these irrelevent subjects for the sake of having something to discuss and enjoy. I personally think it's funny that people think they're knowledgeable enough on this subject to even talk about it. Anyway, what I believe, is, that whatever you do, as a human being, it can only be right, for whatever you do should be part of our nature. However, that eliminates the illusion of free will, for if we kill another human being, it'd be considered a crime by the "illusion" that says "thou shall not kill other people -- for it is evil!", although it's technically part of our nature and instinct, since we, the homo sapiens, are supposed to hunt and kill in packs, regardless of who we're up against. To me, that explains why we're so good at killing each other, becauses it's in our nature to not really get along on a massive scale. There are very few species that willingly KILL other individuals as often as humans do and used to do and in 99% of the cases a mentally healthy "wild" human will likely not kill another human That is because we're influenced (or controlled, if you will) by fear, law/control and reasoning. I can ensure you, "murder" is something very different in the dark corners of our "civilized" world. I think this is an unbased assumption, If you haven't notice we are the only relatively intelligent animal that willingly kills its own when he has other options with the same short term results. Bears, wolfs, dolphins, sea lions, lions... those are all animals that fight each other for dominance, but they never willingly kill one another. A human is the only animal, as far as i know, that goes out of his way to kill another individual... not because he is a threat to him mating, feeding himself or what not... because he could be a threat in the future or simply because he fells that he has been wrong by said individual and sees death as fit punishment for him ( because he is intelligent, because he learns, because he is so much more conscious than other animals ). There are other animals who kill one another but its due to there instincts and its usually ether a mistake for the fact that the individual was indeed a hinder for the "specie". Animals don't kill to show there greatness... they beat each other up, that is for sure ( and sometime in the process the loser or even the winner dies ), but its not actually "natural" to fell good by killing one of your own species... its natural to fell bad, the "adrenalin rush" , the "powerful felling" you are said to get if you kill someone its actually the felling you get from dominating another member of your species that overcomes the part of you that fells bad because he killed one of his own. I might be wrong, i have in no way shape of from "professional" knowledge about this type of thing but i don't think that you do ether cuz if laws and society were the only thing keeping us from killing one another we would be all dead by now, and everyone with a little bit of knowledge in field varying from biology to scio economy would laugh at what you just said. Again, im not saying im right but what you said is wrong and you brought no argument to sustain it, you are likely confusing the "kill someone" with the "dominate someone so that you get his position in a social structure or certain materials required for survival and comfort"... it is society itself and our "evolved" thought process that makes us want to kill other people. About the future threat comment...... I don't know if that is true or not but maybe that has something to do with animals perception of time? I've always heard animals don't have a perception of time but I've never really understood how someone could come to that conclusion.
Its not that they have no perception of time... or at least i never heard of something like that.
But they are mainly unable to realize the long-mid term consequences of an action most of the time... at least i believe so, and it would be the most logical explanation.
Also, they are not so focused on themselves as individuals, at least certain species... but that isn't really a fact for every mammal, so its not that valid of an argument.
|
Most people that act that way are a creation of the fact that our system is made NOT to fail anyone, that even those who in the past would have died or been bred out are allowed to stay in the system. EVERYONE finds "love," EVERYONE is to pass highschool, EVERYONE is to follow suggested social norms that are created for the ideal average person but not for the majority normal person. I think its quite obvious where i am going with this. Abnormal psych teaches that labelling theory - attaching labels to people is harmful because they may always stay, and even people like thomas szasz are vibrant critics of formal psychiatry saying that its not for humans to judge what is "normal" since there is no known normality within the human race. Lets face some facts, most humans have some "deviant" part of them, some people are gay (not following genetic ability to reproduce), some people are deaf/mute/blind (not following genetic sensory abilities), some people are mentally incapacitated (not autism, more like down syndrome), some people have terrible genetic diseases that are in their genes. Most of these people other than down syndrome and the blind/mute/deaf seem normal enough, but when we take a look at the supposed normal people in our lives, we still se deviantry. The average normal male would most likely love to try a 3-some or more girls, despite this being looked down upon by society if you married more than 1 girl (insert any gender here). Someone totally normal looking could have GID (gender identitiy disorder) and not identify with their biological sex but put on a facade for their own sake. Some people are psychopaths and they don't even know it. The average person is a shade of weird, going from more safe to more risque. The most safe isn't normal and the most risque isn't normal but most people fall into a bell curve of it and most are around the mean or withing the 68 percentile of "normal-ness" this doesn't make us normal by any means, only just as weird as the next guy. The issue is that we don't let psychology take its wings and fly and let them find the root reasons people act a certain way, not a label, but a reason. The reason we ask these questions is not that we can't find the answer, but that we don't feel that finding the answer will please society or in other words the ends don't justify the means.
|
Are we merely flesh, blood and bones? I personally believe that thinking that way limits you instead of actually giving you more freedom.
I think the argument that somehow we are blameless for our actions speaks of incompetence and irresponsibility rather than anything else.
|
|
|
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.
|
This isn't black and white. Free will does and does not exist. You do the math.
|
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.
This is not a matter of degrees. If there's a small choice, then free-will exists. If every action is predetermined, then it does not.
I don't see how it can be ant not be at the same time. Keep in mind we're talking about free-will, not about choices.
|
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
|
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.
If you accept cause and effect as something that exists then the concept of freewill can be quickly deconstructed as the individuals subjective experience of a causal chain.
|
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.
No it doesn't, it just creates prejuces.
The idea that belief in free will is good, is just a belief it has no real basis.
Law system doesn't require free will, the person who commits the crime isn't responsible for the crimes, but neither is the person who did suffer due to his acction is, dealing with criminals increases overal well being. The concept of punishing causing unecessery hardship on the criminal is lost but that is a good thing.
If you think that burning kittens is bad, and helping somebody is good then not beliving in free will doesn't change that, it is irrelevant. You stop somebody from buring kittens becouse you think that it is wrong not becouse you think that he could act otherwise.
It can only harper part of your motivation as you lost the bragging rights, but this motivation cause more harm then good.
|
On May 20 2012 01:08 Polis 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. No it doesn't, it just creates prejuces. The idea that belief in free will is good, is just a belief it has no real basis. Law system doesn't require free will, the person who commits the crime isn't responsible for the crimes, but neither is the person who did suffer due to his acction is, dealing with criminals increases overal well being. The concept of punishing causing unecessery hardship on the criminal is lost but that is a good thing. If you think that burning kittens is bad, and helping somebody is good then not beliving in free will doesn't change that, it is irrelevant. You stop somebody from buring kittens becouse you think that it is wrong not becouse you think that he could act otherwise. It can only harper part of your motivation as you lost the bragging rights, but this motivation cause more harm then good.
If there is no free will then why deal with the criminal in the first place? He has no responsability in what he did. Removal is too imperfect to affect society in any way, unless you imagine a conspiracy scenario where evey criminal is terminated after a certain limit (which limit?) is reached.
|
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.
|
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 really only the goal in misdemeanors and minor offenses. Rehabilitation and Removal from Society is supposed to be the main goal for serious crimes. Or at least that's the way it should be imo.
|
On May 20 2012 01:24 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 01:08 Polis 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. No it doesn't, it just creates prejuces. The idea that belief in free will is good, is just a belief it has no real basis. Law system doesn't require free will, the person who commits the crime isn't responsible for the crimes, but neither is the person who did suffer due to his acction is, dealing with criminals increases overal well being. The concept of punishing causing unecessery hardship on the criminal is lost but that is a good thing. If you think that burning kittens is bad, and helping somebody is good then not beliving in free will doesn't change that, it is irrelevant. You stop somebody from buring kittens becouse you think that it is wrong not becouse you think that he could act otherwise. It can only harper part of your motivation as you lost the bragging rights, but this motivation cause more harm then good. If there is no free will then why deal with the criminal in the first place? He has no responsability in what he did. Removal is too imperfect to affect society in any way, unless you imagine a conspiracy scenario where evey criminal is terminated after a certain limit (which limit?) is reached.
It is less imperfect then not having any legal system, and no I wasn't suggesting to kill for breaking the law. And he has no free will but he is responsible in the same sense that flood is responsible for the damage that it did, you want to prevent flood if the flood has free will or not is irrelevant to your judgment of it being good or bad. I don't see why human behavior should be judge based on some another criteria that is not needed for judgment of anything else it seems arbitrary, and irrelevant to me.
You only want to take into account how likely he is to do it again, if somebody had killed by accident then that is very different then killing on purpose.
And you might send schizophrenic who had committed crime to treatment rather then to jail, again it should be based on practicality, and in many cases on what is best for the offender as well. You don't judge people in the same sense, you judge behavior, and how to correct it, not punish people when it isn't necessary, you don't punish for the sake of it.
|
On May 20 2012 02:29 Polis wrote:
It is less imperfect then not having any legal system, and no I wasn't suggesting to kill for breaking the law. And he has no free will but he is responsible in the same sense that flood is responsible for the damage that it did, you want to prevent flood if the flood has free will or not is irrelevant to your judgment of it being good or bad. I don't see why human behavior should be judge based on some another criteria that is not needed for judgment of anything else it seems arbitrary, and irrelevant to me.
You only want to take into account how likely he is to do it again, if somebody had killed by accident then that is very different then killing on purpose.
And you might send schizophrenic who had committed crime to treatment rather then to jail, again it should be based on practicality, and in many cases on what is best for the offender as well. You don't judge people in the same sense, you judge behavior, and how to correct it, not punish people when it isn't necessary, you don't punish for the sake of it.
Well do you punish flood? Do you actually put water in a very small glass with a lot of very other aggressive, stinky types of water?
Because prison and jails are designed as places for punishment, with little to no rehabilitation and temporary sentences (so the individual is, in fact, not removed from society). The history of law mostly relies on the concept of punishment and, well, justice. And it does so for the sake of it, only minor crimes benefit from any sort of rehabilitation process.
What benefit is there if we "remove" an individual for a short time, only to release him hardened and almost trained in professional thuggery?
There is also no difference between an accident and a murder if there is free will, unless you take the case of someone who could kill again. Say I kill my wife because I found out she was cheating on me, should I go to prison? I probably won't kill again and did not clearly intent to kill. If I have no will of my own, then there is no reason to remove me from society.
You're speaking in hypothetical terms about an imaginary situation, when we're trying to base ourselves on the reality of the legal system. Yes, free will does matter.
|
There is free will. It is in our nature to decide always what we think is in our best interest. These developments in psychology only prove that there is still more to be known about the nature of the human mind, and what it is capable of doing. The important thing is to separate the truth from falsity. As humans we are gifted with intellect and judgment. It is up to us to put them to good use.
|
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.
Unless there will be a system that prevents future crimes or alters criminals in a scientific and humane way we are still stuck with our old system.
It is better then it used to be. There was banishment, torture, chopping of hands or fingers, penal colonies, dungeons, being completely drugged out of your mind in a psychiatric hospital.
There were convictions without trial. Judge, jury and executioner in one person or body and more travesties of the like.
I think the legal system is failing in preventing crime and rehabilitating criminals. In retribution or keeping the criminal away from society it only partially succeeds. Overal a poor outcome but better then anarchy or ancient justice systems.
|
edit: nvm
Society should consider looking at deviants as people who have no free will and behave as a result of their environments. Then it should try to change the penal system into one that shapes the environments of the deviants in a way that can rehabilitate them towards social norms. The current penal system does not do enough for rehabilitation and only tries to punish and prevent further disruption of the deviants by locking them up.
|
There is a huge misunderstanding here on the philosophy of the penal system. It is not primarily about a primordial right or wrong action, and even the legal parlance is never framed as such, but only on the actual violation of the legal requirements of society. It is therefore merely to control and regulate social relations, as those who have demonstrated tendency and capability of violating socially agreed upon contracts (laws) are isolated to prevent further incidents and to restore social order. Free will is only an operational term in this respect, as it boils down to what the individual did or did not do and how it relates to the whole social context.
|
On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 02:29 Polis wrote:
It is less imperfect then not having any legal system, and no I wasn't suggesting to kill for breaking the law. And he has no free will but he is responsible in the same sense that flood is responsible for the damage that it did, you want to prevent flood if the flood has free will or not is irrelevant to your judgment of it being good or bad. I don't see why human behavior should be judge based on some another criteria that is not needed for judgment of anything else it seems arbitrary, and irrelevant to me.
You only want to take into account how likely he is to do it again, if somebody had killed by accident then that is very different then killing on purpose.
And you might send schizophrenic who had committed crime to treatment rather then to jail, again it should be based on practicality, and in many cases on what is best for the offender as well. You don't judge people in the same sense, you judge behavior, and how to correct it, not punish people when it isn't necessary, you don't punish for the sake of it. Well do you punish flood? Do you actually put water in a very small glass with a lot of very other aggressive, stinky types of water?
If putting some small % of water in a glass would prevent flood then we should do so.
On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:Because prison and jails are designed as places for punishment, with little to no rehabilitation and temporary sentences (so the individual is, in fact, not removed from society).
So how is that a punishment? You had described yourself how sentence can be prevention without punishing the offender.
On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:The history of law mostly relies on the concept of punishment and, well, justice. And it does so for the sake of it, only minor crimes benefit from any sort of rehabilitation process.
What benefit is there if we "remove" an individual for a short time, only to release him hardened and almost trained in professional thuggery?
One benefit would be prevention, it discourages to commit crime, and it discourages from revenge. As for the justice system the ones in Scandinavian countries that aren't focused on punishment work much better then any other.
On May 20 2012 03:25 Kukaracha wrote:There is also no difference between an accident and a murder if there is free will, unless you take the case of someone who could kill again. Say I kill my wife because I found out she was cheating on me, should I go to prison? I probably won't kill again and did not clearly intent to kill. If I have no will of my own, then there is no reason to remove me from society.
So you would legalize wife killing when they had cheated? You don't see how that could cause problems for society? In the examples that you are giving it is actually quite obvious on why there should be a punishment even if there is no free will. Ultimately it would be best if you wouldn't had to punish anybody but it isn't practically possible, and again we don't need to assume free will to state that.
What punishment exactly would be good is hard to say but it isn't any easier when you claim free will, you only can come up with a justification easier, but that is a bad thing if you base it on a bogus claim.
|
On May 20 2012 03:58 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
There is a huge misunderstanding here on the philosophy of the penal system. It is not primarily about a primordial right or wrong action, and even the legal parlance is never framed as such, but only on the actual violation of the legal requirements of society. It is therefore merely to control and regulate social relations, as those who have demonstrated tendency and capability of violating socially agreed upon contracts (laws) are isolated to prevent further incidents and to restore social order. Free will is only an operational term in this respect, as it boils down to what the individual did or did not do and how it relates to the whole social context.
But why social order is good? I would say that it is good because it is better for general well being, no matter how you frame it you still have to give reasons on why social order or anything else that you try to promote by law is good.
|
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. Unless there will be a system that prevents future crimes or alters criminals in a scientific and humane way we are still stuck with our old system. It is better then it used to be. There was banishment, torture, chopping of hands or fingers, penal colonies, dungeons, being completely drugged out of your mind in a psychiatric hospital. There were convictions without trial. Judge, jury and executioner in one person or body and more travesties of the like. I think the legal system is failing in preventing crime and rehabilitating criminals. In retribution or keeping the criminal away from society it only partially succeeds. Overal a poor outcome but better then anarchy or ancient justice systems.
First: Deterrents don't work for major crimes. You are ignoring the reasons why people do serious crimes in the first place (desperation, insanity, or doesn't believe he would ever be caught). The best deterrents might do is get people to confess. But by that time they've already committed the crime.
Second: Uh... once again no. That only works for minor crimes and misdemeanors. It's not like if you punch a rapist in the face he'll reconsider or whatever.
Third: Retribution is not an acceptable reason to do anything.
Fourth: That is the primary reason. Removal from Society. That's why we have prisons. You can argue that we suck at rehabilitation, but if rehabilitation isn't practical for whatever reason, then the very least we can do remove them from society.
|
On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
If putting some small % of water in a glass would prevent flood then we should do so.
But what if it doesn't, mh? Why do we still put water in that glass? Why do we believe it can stop the river?
On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
So how is that a punishment? You had described yourself how sentence can be prevention without punishing the offender.
[...]
What punishment exactly would be good is hard to say but it isn't any easier when you claim free will, you only can come up with a justification easier, but that is a bad thing if you base it on a bogus claim.
Well, is jail time a punishment or a way to remove an individual for society? Because if it's a punishment, then it's to punish a choice in the first place. Thus free will.
On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
One benefit would be prevention, it discourages to commit crime, and it discourages from revenge. As for the justice system the ones in Scandinavian countries that aren't focused on punishment work much better then any other.
Norwegian prisons are known exceptions. Now, how do our traditional prisons - and I stress the term traditional as in what we inherited from our past - discourage anyone if wannabe thugs go in and gangsters come out?
On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
So you would legalize wife killing when they had cheated? You don't see how that could cause problems for society? In the examples that you are giving it is actually quite obvious on why there should be a punishment even if there is no free will. Ultimately it would be best if you wouldn't had to punish anybody but it isn't practically possible, and again we don't need to assume free will to state that.
You didn't understand. The whole point is that I'm not a dangerous individual per se. There is consequently no reason to remove me from society. If any sort of action is taken, it's to punish me, which implies that I'm responsible for my deeds, which requires the existence of free will.
|
Psychological sicknesses are usually perfectly normal human characteristics that have been unhealthily amplified by whatever reasons. Therefore, there will always be grey zones.
|
On May 20 2012 00:59 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 23:44 kamkerx 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. You're not allowed to make statements that are based on bullshit. If you accept cause and effect as something that exists then the concept of freewill can be quickly deconstructed as the individuals subjective experience of a causal chain.
Its still *possible* that one can be completely aware of oneself and their own conditioning, and try to be concious of it while trying to be as open minded as possible.
Bonifaceviii's statement is pretty controversial and pessimistic in my opinion, without explaining why he feels that way. I dare myself to call it ignorant.
|
wrong thread, my bad.. -.-
|
I don't mind the idea that society has an idea of "right" and "wrong" (or "good" and "evil") which guides us in developing laws to punish those we fairly deem to have "wronged" us (not necessarily all of us, but one or more of us). It remains unclear as to what type of law is the BEST, given the fact that some countries' performance may be swayed by their quality of life. While some people defy logic with their abhorrent behaviour, there is clearly a larger amount of people who just play by the rules despite some skeletons they may have in the closet. It's still not easy to brand someone as evil or a freak when they do something we consider to be beyond unlawful, since they may actually have reasons which to them make perfect sense and excuse their behaviour. We are simply incapable, for the most part, of identifying evil and preventing it from ever touching our lives, so why bother trying? Just do what we've always done and punish on a case by case basis.
|
On May 20 2012 07:19 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
If putting some small % of water in a glass would prevent flood then we should do so. But what if it doesn't, mh? Why do we still put water in that glass? Why do we believe it can stop the river? Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
So how is that a punishment? You had described yourself how sentence can be prevention without punishing the offender.
[...]
What punishment exactly would be good is hard to say but it isn't any easier when you claim free will, you only can come up with a justification easier, but that is a bad thing if you base it on a bogus claim. Well, is jail time a punishment or a way to remove an individual for society? Because if it's a punishment, then it's to punish a choice in the first place. Thus free will. Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
One benefit would be prevention, it discourages to commit crime, and it discourages from revenge. As for the justice system the ones in Scandinavian countries that aren't focused on punishment work much better then any other.
Norwegian prisons are known exceptions. Now, how do our traditional prisons - and I stress the term traditional as in what we inherited from our past - discourage anyone if wannabe thugs go in and gangsters come out? Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 04:23 Polis wrote:
So you would legalize wife killing when they had cheated? You don't see how that could cause problems for society? In the examples that you are giving it is actually quite obvious on why there should be a punishment even if there is no free will. Ultimately it would be best if you wouldn't had to punish anybody but it isn't practically possible, and again we don't need to assume free will to state that. You didn't understand. The whole point is that I'm not a dangerous individual per se. There is consequently no reason to remove me from society. If any sort of action is taken, it's to punish me, which implies that I'm responsible for my deeds, which requires the existence of free will.
To your last point, yes and no. Punishment exists in at least a proper sense to elicit change, not necessarily be a source of retribution. Punishment doesn't require one to have free will because the goal of the punishment is to change deviant behavior period. Also with the lack of free will it doesn't mean you are not responsible for your actions. They are after all your actions, just because you didn't have a choice doesn't change the fact that you committed them and in the grander scheme it is entirely okay to punish someone so that they do not in the future make these actions. It's a very tricky line because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone sane say that because we don't have free will we can't be held responsible for our actions, but we should because they affect others and we can potentially change people's future actions with punishment.
|
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?
|
For me 'free will' is self contradicting. Either you have a will or you are free of your will by not having one. 'Free will' is a remnant from the idea that the soul was in the drivers seat of the brain, controlling the body through it.
Since the mind is a product of the brain, you can't be free of your brain.
I have never seen 'free will' defined in a for me acceptable manner.
|
One of the many reasons I don't ever read the TL General forum anymore.
GG.
|
On May 21 2012 07:46 Jitsu wrote:
One of the many reasons I don't ever read the TL General forum anymore.
GG.
You know what, if you dont like it you have FREE WILL and if you dont contribute I will report you and you will get banned as you are off topic.
GG
|
On May 20 2012 12:55 Ace.Xile wrote:
To your last point, yes and no. Punishment exists in at least a proper sense to elicit change, not necessarily be a source of retribution. Punishment doesn't require one to have free will because the goal of the punishment is to change deviant behavior period. Also with the lack of free will it doesn't mean you are not responsible for your actions. They are after all your actions, just because you didn't have a choice doesn't change the fact that you committed them and in the grander scheme it is entirely okay to punish someone so that they do not in the future make these actions. It's a very tricky line because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone sane say that because we don't have free will we can't be held responsible for our actions, but we should because they affect others and we can potentially change people's future actions with punishment.
Responsability only exists when a choice is consciously made by an individual who could've done otherwise. If there's no free will, then what happened was bound to happen. Responsability is not cause, otherwise we wouldn't have the principle of "legal responsability" for adults in contrast to minors.
Furthermore, does punishment change anything in the case I brought up? If I wasn't going to kill again anyway, then why should I change? And as said before, it rarely changes people for the better, it often just hardens individuals who happen to survive the jungle that prison is.
As for the idea that it's the removal of a dangerous individual from society, again, do you stop the flood with a glass of water? Not only is this removal temporary, but in many cases criminals are simply replaced by others on the outside.
So, even though the constitution only speaks of "rehabilitation" and "regulation", the main motive still seems to be retribution. This is why Norwegian prisons are an exception and a scandal in many eyes.
|
On May 21 2012 07:47 Lord Gilgamesh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 07:46 Jitsu wrote:
One of the many reasons I don't ever read the TL General forum anymore.
GG. You know what, if you dont like it you have FREE WILL and if you dont contribute I will report you and you will get banned as you are off topic. GG
I have my opinion on the topic, but since trying to have a legitimate debit ends up with people thinking other people are stupid/wrong automatically based on zero solid, physical evidence and only on their opinions, makes any debate here hard to even have.
I'm a Psychology major. I don't want to become a Psychologist. I also believe in Free Will, and I am a religious person.
Watch how many people are going to hate on me because of the above statement. It'll actually make it impossible to hold a debate because a lot of people will think i'm automatically wrong based on my beliefs.
Also, why are you playing the role of a backdoor mod?
|
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.
Yes because your own standard of morality is better than that of others because YOU say so.
Good thinking.
|
On May 21 2012 08:10 Jitsu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 07:47 Lord Gilgamesh wrote:On May 21 2012 07:46 Jitsu wrote:
One of the many reasons I don't ever read the TL General forum anymore.
GG. You know what, if you dont like it you have FREE WILL and if you dont contribute I will report you and you will get banned as you are off topic. GG I have my opinion on the topic, but since trying to have a legitimate debit ends up with people thinking other people are stupid/wrong automatically based on zero solid, physical evidence and only on their opinions, makes any debate here hard to even have. I'm a Psychology major. I don't want to become a Psychologist. I also believe in Free Will, and I am a religious person. Watch how many people are going to hate on me because of the above statement. It'll actually make it impossible to hold a debate because a lot of people will think i'm automatically wrong based on my beliefs. Also, why are you playing the role of a backdoor mod?
Mh, no, no one hates you. In fact, I think that no one cares.
If you're a psych major, then you shouldn't be surprised by the nature of common "debates". It's no different than talking to people at your local bar.
|
On May 21 2012 04:11 Ace.Xile 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. 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
No, your choices are completely in your control. It's NOT that your consciousness is destined to pick this choice or that choice, it's that your entire consciousness is totally determined. You still have complete control over what you do and all choices you make. It's just that 'you' is determinable.
|
On May 21 2012 08:10 Jitsu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 07:47 Lord Gilgamesh wrote:On May 21 2012 07:46 Jitsu wrote:
One of the many reasons I don't ever read the TL General forum anymore.
GG. You know what, if you dont like it you have FREE WILL and if you dont contribute I will report you and you will get banned as you are off topic. GG I have my opinion on the topic, but since trying to have a legitimate debit ends up with people thinking other people are stupid/wrong automatically based on zero solid, physical evidence and only on their opinions, makes any debate here hard to even have. I'm a Psychology major. I don't want to become a Psychologist. I also believe in Free Will, and I am a religious person. Watch how many people are going to hate on me because of the above statement. It'll actually make it impossible to hold a debate because a lot of people will think i'm automatically wrong based on my beliefs. Also, why are you playing the role of a backdoor mod?
I bet no one will hate you on this, and yet, you still havent provided anything beyond you majoring in psychology and believing in religion and somehow that makes you above us.
In the concept that you can have a legit discussion without others getting all defensive and just saying "he's wrong/stupid" is obviously not the case about this thread as you read it here so you're just wrong. Outrageous and I will repeal it.
And is backdoor mod somehow a slam to my sexual orientation? Dude, you're pretty sick and insulting me based on sexual orientation. Not cool.
|
this thread is stupid and here is why; as with everything there's a line between the two extreme "polarities". You are extremly simplifying at least the "left way". Basically if your behaivour isnt within the accepted borders of todays society and you dont understand it yourself, you are mentally insane.
|
On May 21 2012 08:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 04:11 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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 No, your choices are completely in your control. It's NOT that your consciousness is destined to pick this choice or that choice, it's that your entire consciousness is totally determined. You still have complete control over what you do and all choices you make. It's just that 'you' is determinable.
This doesn't even make sense, it's like you try to divide a person is and what his decisions are which isn't the case. Who you are is a biological thing in all it's senses, all your choices are believe it or not the result of biological and chemical reactions that take place. Because of your brain wiring and how it works you will choose certain decisions. It's almost as if you assume that there is some other being separate as if there is a brain and then there is a self. Which if you want to choose to argue of something like that (the soul) that's fine, but to prove that one has a soul would take thousands of posts in this thread, if it were even possible. The self that makes choices is a direct representation of the biochemical reactions in the brain. To say that you have complete control over what you do, and at the same time that "you" are predetermined, doesn't make sense, they're contradicting ideas. What you do is the result of what you are.
Like i said you are more than willing to try to explain, i'm more than welcome to hear anything but it seems that you try to argue that our actions and choices are somehow not a direct result of who we are and the situation we are in, which most arguments would say otherwise. Our "conscious" is the result of neurochemical reactions.
|
'You' must always refer to the product of the brain, not the brain yourself. You as a product of the brain don't control the brain and the brain makes the decisions, not the mind or the consciousness.
So no, you can't say you are in control of your decisions because in fact when you think you are about to make a decision, it is already made.
|
On May 21 2012 07:53 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 12:55 Ace.Xile wrote:
To your last point, yes and no. Punishment exists in at least a proper sense to elicit change, not necessarily be a source of retribution. Punishment doesn't require one to have free will because the goal of the punishment is to change deviant behavior period. Also with the lack of free will it doesn't mean you are not responsible for your actions. They are after all your actions, just because you didn't have a choice doesn't change the fact that you committed them and in the grander scheme it is entirely okay to punish someone so that they do not in the future make these actions. It's a very tricky line because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone sane say that because we don't have free will we can't be held responsible for our actions, but we should because they affect others and we can potentially change people's future actions with punishment.
Responsability only exists when a choice is consciously made by an individual who could've done otherwise. If there's no free will, then what happened was bound to happen. Responsability is not cause, otherwise we wouldn't have the principle of "legal responsability" for adults in contrast to minors. Furthermore, does punishment change anything in the case I brought up? If I wasn't going to kill again anyway, then why should I change? And as said before, it rarely changes people for the better, it often just hardens individuals who happen to survive the jungle that prison is. As for the idea that it's the removal of a dangerous individual from society, again, do you stop the flood with a glass of water? Not only is this removal temporary, but in many cases criminals are simply replaced by others on the outside. So, even though the constitution only speaks of "rehabilitation" and "regulation", the main motive still seems to be retribution. This is why Norwegian prisons are an exception and a scandal in many eyes.
Actually if you look at the definition of what it means to be responsible it only implies:
Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
It does not imply that it was necessarily a choice it just relies on who can be blamed. If i kill someone whether it was my choice or not i can still be held responsible. In some cases people try to find mitigating factors but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day that I did it. It is the case that people feel that those who fall under mitigating circumstances are less responsible, but in the end it still doesn't change the fact that I would have been the one to kill someone. I feel like you're implying that if we don't have free will then one can not be held responsible, however that isn't correct. One can be like i mentioned previously and should because then you can apply methods to change their behavior. If someone who is declared medically insane kills someone, we don't let them off free, we attempt to rehabilitate them even though in some cases it is out of their control what they do. There is a distinct difference, or should be, between retribution and rehabilitation.
It seems also you think to know what my views are on prisons. Typical prisons today don't rehabilitate, typical prisons seek retribution and do more harm then good. A proper prison should work to educate and rehabilitate people and then put them back into society in a good position, these however rarely exists across the world. Punishment or for that matter negative or positive reinforcement are how prisons should be run, not by retribution.
As for the removal i already spoke of its overuse, however there are some people that I think many would think it right to remove them from society (not kill them). Take for example sociopathic killers (these are some of the few types of people i believe this should be used for), in many cases they are incurable by anything we know, and are a danger to everyone around them. Removing them from society doesn't cause replacements and is a sound idea for the greater good. I'm not saying remove a drug dealer from society, cause that's not only pointless but stupid.
I don't support the crappy, for profit, retribution styled prisons you see around the world. They do more harm than good most of the time.
|
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.
This machine could never be built, and is arguably the hardest thing about proving the non-existence of free will. To know everything that causes our behavior we would literally have to understand everything about the universe and know everything that has ever happened since the beginning of time. Believe it or not behavior is as complex as that simply because if a bird flaps its wings on the other side of the world and moves air it starts a chain reaction that will have tons of differences. That's my biggest issue with things like back to the future, if someone were even to go back into the future, their mere existence and the fact that there body would cause particles to move in the air would change the future. That's how many things you would have to understand to have to predict future events x an almost infinite number, assuming determinism is true.
|
Free will doesn't exist or not exist. Its untestable.
There are no observations which could be made which can only be explained by either having free will or not having it. There's just no way to tell one way or the other. Any observation which could be explained in a world with free will could just as easily be explained in one without it.
Personally, I think it's kind of pointless to really discuss it much more than that.
+ Show Spoiler +(but given how long the other TL threads on this topic have been, you guys apparently have a different opinion)
Since the question is so clearly un-answerable, it seems like a waste of effort to really try. Almost like making a perpetual motion device.
|
On May 21 2012 09:26 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 08:50 DoubleReed wrote:On May 21 2012 04:11 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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 No, your choices are completely in your control. It's NOT that your consciousness is destined to pick this choice or that choice, it's that your entire consciousness is totally determined. You still have complete control over what you do and all choices you make. It's just that 'you' is determinable. This doesn't even make sense, it's like you try to divide a person is and what his decisions are which isn't the case. Who you are is a biological thing in all it's senses, all your choices are believe it or not the result of biological and chemical reactions that take place. Because of your brain wiring and how it works you will choose certain decisions. It's almost as if you assume that there is some other being separate as if there is a brain and then there is a self. Which if you want to choose to argue of something like that (the soul) that's fine, but to prove that one has a soul would take thousands of posts in this thread, if it were even possible. The self that makes choices is a direct representation of the biochemical reactions in the brain. To say that you have complete control over what you do, and at the same time that "you" are predetermined, doesn't make sense, they're contradicting ideas. What you do is the result of what you are. Like i said you are more than willing to try to explain, i'm more than welcome to hear anything but it seems that you try to argue that our actions and choices are somehow not a direct result of who we are and the situation we are in, which most arguments would say otherwise. Our "conscious" is the result of neurochemical reactions.
It doesn't seem contradictory to me. 'You' have complete control over what you do. However, 'you' are predetermined.
So yes your decisions are predetermined eventually, but you're still making them. When you're talking about people, the 'you' is referring to something, your consciousness. You can't argue that choices are 'out of your control.' No they aren't. Because the you is your consciousness which has control over the situation.
|
On May 21 2012 09:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 09:26 Ace.Xile wrote:On May 21 2012 08:50 DoubleReed wrote:On May 21 2012 04:11 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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 No, your choices are completely in your control. It's NOT that your consciousness is destined to pick this choice or that choice, it's that your entire consciousness is totally determined. You still have complete control over what you do and all choices you make. It's just that 'you' is determinable. This doesn't even make sense, it's like you try to divide a person is and what his decisions are which isn't the case. Who you are is a biological thing in all it's senses, all your choices are believe it or not the result of biological and chemical reactions that take place. Because of your brain wiring and how it works you will choose certain decisions. It's almost as if you assume that there is some other being separate as if there is a brain and then there is a self. Which if you want to choose to argue of something like that (the soul) that's fine, but to prove that one has a soul would take thousands of posts in this thread, if it were even possible. The self that makes choices is a direct representation of the biochemical reactions in the brain. To say that you have complete control over what you do, and at the same time that "you" are predetermined, doesn't make sense, they're contradicting ideas. What you do is the result of what you are. Like i said you are more than willing to try to explain, i'm more than welcome to hear anything but it seems that you try to argue that our actions and choices are somehow not a direct result of who we are and the situation we are in, which most arguments would say otherwise. Our "conscious" is the result of neurochemical reactions. It doesn't seem contradictory to me. 'You' have complete control over what you do. However, 'you' are predetermined. So yes your decisions are predetermined eventually, but you're still making them. When you're talking about people, the 'you' is referring to something, your consciousness. You can't argue that choices are 'out of your control.' No they aren't. Because the you is your consciousness which has control over the situation.
I mean that's fine you can argue that you are making the choices, the problem is that there is only one choice you will make at any given moment and what you will chose is out of your control because it is determined by your brains wiring and the given situation. I don't understand the the thought about the fact that you have control over the situation, the you is your consciousness again, which is the result of your brains wiring and the given situation. Like when it comes down to it, your brain wiring and given environment make decisions, you could argue that you can change the environment but you'd just be doing it in response to your previous situation milliseconds ago with your brain wiring.
|
On May 21 2012 10:07 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 09:55 DoubleReed wrote:On May 21 2012 09:26 Ace.Xile wrote:On May 21 2012 08:50 DoubleReed wrote:On May 21 2012 04:11 Ace.Xile wrote: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. 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 No, your choices are completely in your control. It's NOT that your consciousness is destined to pick this choice or that choice, it's that your entire consciousness is totally determined. You still have complete control over what you do and all choices you make. It's just that 'you' is determinable. This doesn't even make sense, it's like you try to divide a person is and what his decisions are which isn't the case. Who you are is a biological thing in all it's senses, all your choices are believe it or not the result of biological and chemical reactions that take place. Because of your brain wiring and how it works you will choose certain decisions. It's almost as if you assume that there is some other being separate as if there is a brain and then there is a self. Which if you want to choose to argue of something like that (the soul) that's fine, but to prove that one has a soul would take thousands of posts in this thread, if it were even possible. The self that makes choices is a direct representation of the biochemical reactions in the brain. To say that you have complete control over what you do, and at the same time that "you" are predetermined, doesn't make sense, they're contradicting ideas. What you do is the result of what you are. Like i said you are more than willing to try to explain, i'm more than welcome to hear anything but it seems that you try to argue that our actions and choices are somehow not a direct result of who we are and the situation we are in, which most arguments would say otherwise. Our "conscious" is the result of neurochemical reactions. It doesn't seem contradictory to me. 'You' have complete control over what you do. However, 'you' are predetermined. So yes your decisions are predetermined eventually, but you're still making them. When you're talking about people, the 'you' is referring to something, your consciousness. You can't argue that choices are 'out of your control.' No they aren't. Because the you is your consciousness which has control over the situation. I mean that's fine you can argue that you are making the choices, the problem is that there is only one choice you will make at any given moment and what you will chose is out of your control because it is determined by your brains wiring and the given situation. I don't understand the the thought about the fact that you have control over the situation, the you is your consciousness again, which is the result of your brains wiring and the given situation. Like when it comes down to it, your brain wiring and given environment make decisions, you could argue that you can change the environment but you'd just be doing it in response to your previous situation milliseconds ago with your brain wiring.
So when you say "what you will chose is out of your control" I don't know what you mean by that.
'You' is the biochemical process of consciousness. It clearly has control over what happens.
It sounds to me like you are differentiating between 'you' and your brain wiring. They're the same thing.
|
On May 21 2012 07:46 Jitsu wrote:
One of the many reasons I don't ever read the TL General forum anymore.
GG.
i can see why lol
|
On May 21 2012 09:33 Ace.Xile wrote:
Actually if you look at the definition of what it means to be responsible it only implies:
Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
This definition is meaningless in the legal system, because then how isn't a child responsible for his misdeeds even though he is the primary cause?
Looking at the same Oxford dictionary, there is another definition that is more fit :
"Morally accountable for one’s behavior: the progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being"
On May 21 2012 09:33 Ace.Xile wrote:
It does not imply that it was necessarily a choice it just relies on who can be blamed. If i kill someone whether it was my choice or not i can still be held responsible. In some cases people try to find mitigating factors but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day that I did it. It is the case that people feel that those who fall under mitigating circumstances are less responsible, but in the end it still doesn't change the fact that I would have been the one to kill someone. I feel like you're implying that if we don't have free will then one can not be held responsible, however that isn't correct. One can be like i mentioned previously and should because then you can apply methods to change their behavior. If someone who is declared medically insane kills someone, we don't let them off free, we attempt to rehabilitate them even though in some cases it is out of their control what they do. There is a distinct difference, or should be, between retribution and rehabilitation.
Back to my example. If I'm not going to kill again, then why should I be rehabilitated if there is no free will? Why should I go to prison in the first place?
If there is no free will, then why are adults more responsible than children?
Besides, there is a tremendous difference between a voluntary and an involuntary action in the legal system.
On May 21 2012 09:33 Ace.Xile wrote:
It seems also you think to know what my views are on prisons. Typical prisons today don't rehabilitate, typical prisons seek retribution and do more harm then good. A proper prison should work to educate and rehabilitate people and then put them back into society in a good position, these however rarely exists across the world. Punishment or for that matter negative or positive reinforcement are how prisons should be run, not by retribution.
[...]
I don't support the crappy, for profit, retribution styled prisons you see around the world. They do more harm than good most of the time.
You say, typical, but I repeat my choice of words : traditional in the sense prisons in history have always been like this, if not worse. Prisons have always been a form of retribution, and the idea of rehabilitation and/or removal has always been marginal.
|
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.
Who told you to say that?
|
you could theoretically argue any murder as some form of mental disorder with the brain, as killing people is not considered normal behaviour. in practise however, there has to be a point where the line is drawn.
also this thread looks like 7 pages of complete garbage, reading the amount of shit people spurt on the topic of free will makes me want to kill myself.
|
On May 21 2012 22:37 anycolourfloyd wrote:
you could theoretically argue any murder as some form of mental disorder with the brain, as killing people is not considered normal behaviour. in practise however, there has to be a point where the line is drawn.
also this thread looks like 7 pages of complete garbage, reading the amount of shit people spurt on the topic of free will makes me want to kill myself.
Do you really want to kill yourself or is the choice out of your control?
|
IMO they try to tell everyone they have "x" disorder...and then HERE TAKE OUR MEDS $$$$$
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/movies/wallpapers/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly.jpg)
