Free will deniers

[Trailblazer]

Baseless assertion. You are not able to demonstrate free-will exists, you are simply assuming your conclusion.

and you are not able to demonstrate that free will doesn't exist, so why argue about it?
It is just my opinion vs. your opinion.

Find me a law book which says humans are punished because they have a spirit capable of overriding their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs in any secular society.

Only theocracies enact laws based on superstition in my view.

The justice systems in every country in the world are based upon the assumption that humans are responsible their choices and their actions. It is not based upon any religious beliefs. It is based upon logic and common sense. You don't punish a person who is not responsible for their actions.

 

[danieldemol]

and you are not able to demonstrate that free will doesn't exist, so why argue about it?
It is just my opinion vs. your opinion.

The two opinions I do not see as being on equal footing, I'm not able to demonstrate the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist - that is no reason to enact laws that affect demonstrably real people on its basis.

But I can demonstrate that brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs exist and that behaviours can be modified by changing these things which is far more than you can do for free will.

The justice systems in every country in the world are based upon the assumption that humans are responsible their choices and their actions. It is not based upon any religious beliefs. It is based upon logic and common sense. You don't punish a person who is not responsible for their actions.

So you cannot find a law book that says humans have a spirit capable of overriding their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs in any secular society - why didn't you say so?

The justice systems of the world appear to me to be based on outdated notions of free-will which stem from prior times when the concept of will and what it means to be free was not understood as well as it is now.

To simply call it "common sense" merely shows in my view that the masses are not properly educated in what free-will means and what relevant fields of scientific enquiry have to say on the issue. I fully expect that as outdated notions of free-will are replaced by education people will discover that rehabilitative justice is superior to punishment based justice because its underpinnings - brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs - are demonstrable unlike the underpinnings of the so called "common sense" view that we have a spirit which overrides our physical nature.

 

[Trailblazer]

The two opinions I do not see as being on equal footing, I'm not able to demonstrate the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist - that is no reason to enact laws that affect demonstrably real people on its basis.

So you know more than the people who write the laws and enact them, wonderful.

But I can demonstrate that brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs exist and that behaviours can be modified by changing these things which is far more than you can do for free will.

Even if you could do that, which you can't, it would not prove people don't have free will to choose.

So you cannot find a law book that says humans have a spirit capable of overriding their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs in any secular society - why didn't you say so?

The law book doesn't need to talk about a spirit. It is a given that people make choices and are responsible for them, religion is not needed to know that.

The justice systems of the world appear to me to be based on outdated notions of free-will which stem from prior times when the concept of will and what it means to be free was not understood as well as it is now.

The justice systems are as valid now as they ever were.

To simply call it "common sense" merely shows in my view that the masses are not properly educated in what free-will means and what relevant fields of scientific enquiry have to say on the issue. I fully expect that as outdated notions of free-will are replaced by education people will discover that rehabilitative justice is superior to punishment based justice because its underpinnings - brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs - are demonstrable unlike the underpinnings of the so called "common sense" view that we have a spirit which overrides our physical nature.

Science has nothing to say about free will and no scientist can prove we don't have it.
You really have your head in the sand if you think that criminals did not choose to commit the crimes so thye are not responsible. These people are pure evil and they deserve more punishment than the justice system can dole out.
I guess you don't watch true crime shows on TV. That is all I watch.
You really have your head in the sand if you think most criminals can be rehabilitated. That is simply false.

 

[danieldemol]

So you know more than the people who write the laws and enact them, wonderful.

I never claimed that, only that I know more about will and how it is constrained than the common folk on whose vote politicians enact laws.

Even if you could do that, which you can't, it would not prove people don't have free will to choose.

Actually I can because things like pschizophrenia medications which alter brain chemistry are proven in clinical trials to modify patient behaviour.

Likewise it is well known that brain tumours in certain regions of the brain and other brain deformities have modified human behavior such as in the case of Phineas Cage;

'Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman remembered for his improbable[B1]: 19  survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior over the remaining 12 years of his life‍'

Source: Phineas Gage - Wikipedia

The law book doesn't need to talk about a spirit. It is a given that people make choices and are responsible for them, religion is not needed to know that.

People are a product of their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs, in my opinion you are refusing to look at what the underlying cause of peoples choices are because it doesn't support your assertion.

Science has nothing to say about free will

To the contrary as explained above

and no scientist can prove we don't have it.

It would be ridiculous to pass laws based on things we can't prove don't exist. Demonstrate their existence first and then we can legislate based on them.

You really have your head in the sand if you think that criminals did not choose to commit the crimes so thye are not responsible.

They chose to commit crimes, however those choices were constrained by their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs. As such finger pointing them as blameworthy for acting according to their nature does not make sense in my view.

These people are pure evil and they deserve more punishment than the justice system can dole out.
I guess you don't watch true crime shows on TV. That is all I watch.

There you go finger pointing rather than looking at the underlying reasons they are the way they are.

You really have your head in the sand if you think most criminals can be rehabilitated. That is simply false.

I dont know if "most" criminals can be rehabilitated based on current technology, but I do know that the ones that can be should be, whilst the ones that can't be should be isolated for the safety of society until such time as the tech can be developed that will enable their rehabilitation in my view.

Neither of those two groups should have vengeance based actions undertaken against them in my opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

I want to add and emphasize: First I did say 'Free Will' does not exist. Second, the criminal justice system does not necessarily need the necessity of 'Libertarian Free Will' to punish some one of a crime.

One question: did the Titanic sink because of free will? Was it avoidable?
Or because of fate? Bad luck? Determinism?

 

[Trailblazer]

I never claimed that, only that I know more about will and how it is constrained than the common folk on whose vote politicians enact laws.

Actually I can because things like pschizophrenia medications which alter brain chemistry are proven in clinical trials to modify patient behaviour.

Likewise it is well known that brain tumours in certain regions of the brain and other brain deformities have modified human behavior such as in the case of Phineas Cage;

'Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman remembered for his improbable[B1]: 19  survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior over the remaining 12 years of his life‍'

Source: Phineas Gage - Wikipedia

People are a product of their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs, in my opinion you are refusing to look at what the underlying cause of peoples choices are because it doesn't support your assertion.

To the contrary as explained above

It would be ridiculous to pass laws based on things we can't prove don't exist. Demonstrate their existence first and then we can legislate based on them.

They chose to commit crimes, however those choices were constrained by their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs. As such finger pointing them as blameworthy for acting according to their nature does not make sense in my view.

There you go finger pointing rather than looking at the underlying reasons they are the way they are.

I dont know if "most" criminals can be rehabilitated based on current technology, but I do know that the ones that can be should be, whilst the ones that can't be should be isolated for the safety of society until such time as the tech can be developed that will enable their rehabilitation in my view.

Neither of those two groups should have vengeance based actions undertaken against them in my opinion.

Sure, brain tumors and deformities and even brain damage from accidents can alter behavior, but criminal courts take that into consideration.
Most criminals have nothing physical wrong with their brains. They want money so they break in houses and steal money an d other things and if people are there they kill the people for no reason except that they might be identified later. Human life means nothing to them. They want drugs so they break in houses and kill people for drugs and they even kill innocent animals. They want sex and/or they hate women so they rape women for sex and usually they kill them after that.

Married men or women get tired of their spouse and find another partner they like better so they commit adultery. Then instead of getting a divorce, which would mean dividing the assets and paying child support they take out a large life insurance policy and plot to kill their spouse. The main reasons for murder are money and sex, not any biological problems with the brain. Most of these murders are premeditated. I have seen every episode of Forensic Files that was ever aired, more than once, and I have seem most shows on Investigation Discovery and Dateline TV. I have also seen every Law & Order show that was ever aired.

 

[danieldemol]

Sure, brain tumors and deformities and even brain damage from accidents can alter behavior, but criminal courts take that into consideration.

But they shouldn't if humans have a spirit which is capable of overriding brain wiring - the brain wiring shouldn't matter at all if behaviour is just a choice which comes independently from the spirit.

Most criminals have nothing physical wrong with their brains.

Citation required and also noted that you did not take into account the interaction of environmental inputs as well.

They want money so they break in houses and steal money an d other things and if people are there they kill the people for no reason except that they might be identified later. Human life means nothing to them. They want drugs so they break in houses and kill people for drugs and they even kill innocent animals.

Addiction is a sign of mental and environmental problems. This is from the Mayo clinic about drug addiction under the heading "Causes";

'Like many mental health disorders, several factors may contribute to development of drug addiction. The main factors are:

• Environment. Environmental factors, including your family's beliefs and attitudes and exposure to a peer group that encourages drug use, seem to play a role in initial drug use.
• Genetics. Once you've started using a drug, the development into addiction may be influenced by inherited (genetic) traits, which may delay or speed up the disease progression.

Changes in the brain​

Physical addiction appears to occur when repeated use of a drug changes the way your brain feels pleasure. The addicting drug causes physical changes to some nerve cells (neurons) in your brain. Neurons use chemicals called neurotransmitters to communicate. These changes can remain long after you stop using the drug.'
Source: Drug addiction (substance use disorder) - Symptoms and causes

So in short contrary to your assertion these addicts do have environmental inputs and brain structures which are altered to their law abiding peers in my view.

They want sex and/or they hate women so they rape women for sex and usually they kill them after that.

Married men or women get tired of their spouse and find another partner they like better so they commit adultery. Then instead of getting a divorce, which would mean dividing the assets and paying child support they take out a large life insurance policy and plot to kill their spouse. The main reasons for murder are money and sex, not any biological problems with the brain. Most of these murders are premeditated. I have seen every episode of Forensic Files that was ever aired, more than once, and I have seem most shows on Investigation Discovery and Dateline TV. I have also seen every Law & Order show that was ever aired.

Yeah and I bet few if any of those shows discussed the neuro pathology, environmental inputs etc of criminals.

 

[The Hammer]

One question: did the Titanic sink because of free will? Was it avoidable?

Both

 

[Trailblazer]

But they shouldn't if humans have a spirit which is capable of overriding brain wiring - the brain wiring shouldn't matter at all if behaviour is just a choice which comes independently from the spirit.

Citation required and also noted that you did not take into account the interaction of environmental inputs as well.

Addiction is a sign of mental and environmental problems. This is from the Mayo clinic about drug addiction under the heading "Causes";

'Like many mental health disorders, several factors may contribute to development of drug addiction. The main factors are:

• Environment. Environmental factors, including your family's beliefs and attitudes and exposure to a peer group that encourages drug use, seem to play a role in initial drug use.
• Genetics. Once you've started using a drug, the development into addiction may be influenced by inherited (genetic) traits, which may delay or speed up the disease progression.

Changes in the brain​

Physical addiction appears to occur when repeated use of a drug changes the way your brain feels pleasure. The addicting drug causes physical changes to some nerve cells (neurons) in your brain. Neurons use chemicals called neurotransmitters to communicate. These changes can remain long after you stop using the drug.'
Source: Drug addiction (substance use disorder) - Symptoms and causes

So in short contrary to your assertion these addicts do have environmental inputs and brain structures which are altered to their law abiding peers in my view.



Yeah and I bet few if any of those shows discussed the neuro pathology, environmental inputs etc of criminals.

I don't want to argue about this anymore since neither one of us are going to change our views.

 

[blü 2]

If I ask Leonardo Di Caprio to sleep with me, will he say "yes"?

His evolved decision-making processes will come up with the answer, and his conscious mind, when in due course it finds out, will treat the result as its own.

 

[Estro Felino]

Both

Thank you for your answer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most of us are not retards.
So our choices are the result of our will.

Our choice depends on the inclination of the person, on the environment in which we were raised, what kind of education (religious or otherwise) was given to us, what were our experiences in life and what is our situation at present. What we choose is not free of that, though you may term it as 'free will'.

 

[danieldemol]

What we choose is not free of that, though you may term it as 'free will'.

Why would a person term it as free will if it is not free of the things you mentioned?

 

[Heyo]

Tell this to the judge and jury in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

Haven't I debunked that argument already? (Multiple times.)

If the criminal isn't acting out of free will then neither is the judge. She is just as restrained by her biological makeup and experience - and by the law. You can't condemn her for doing what she has to do.

 

[Heyo]

and you are not able to demonstrate that free will doesn't exist, so why argue about it?

Lets observe the decision making process on multiple levels:
1. Subatomic: particles can behave randomly. But that just makes the process random at that level. There is no free will in randomness.
2. Atomic level: Although atoms behavior is based on subatomic randomness, the sum over the random events is pretty precise and can be seen as mostly deterministic. Atoms don't have free will.
3. Chemical level: As we go up, the process loses all all of the initial randomness is now further gone. The chemistry happening in neurons is well known and known to be deterministic. Chemicals have no free will.
4. Biological level: Here we see cells forming and growing, according to the DNA in them. The process is a series of chemical reactions which are all deterministic. Cells have no free will.
5. Neurological level: Neurons are cells that have the function to process information. That function is totally determined by the chemistry within the neuron. It can be altered by external chemistry but that is also 100% determined. There is no free will in a neuron.
6. Psychological level: Looking at the function of the whole brain, we see some emergent properties. But those properties emerge deterministically from 100% determined neurological processes so there can't be any freedom within a brain.

Ergo, free will can't exist at any level of a decision making process.

Do you disagree? At which level do you think comes free will into the process? By what mechanism?
As you have already left the discussion, I don't expect an answer from you. It was just that you posted a hook for my argument. This is more directed toward @Estro Felino who still thinks the absence of free will can't be proven.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you know more than the people who write the laws and enact them, wonderful.

No

Even if you could do that, which you can't, it would not prove people don't have free will to choose.

I never said prople do not have 'Free Wyll

The law book doesn't need to talk about a spirit. It is a given that people make choices and are responsible for them, religion is not needed to know that.

The justice systems are as valid now as they ever were.

All human legal systems need improvement

Science has nothing to say about free will and no scientist can prove we don't have it.

Science is involved, and as usual your abundant voluntary ignorance shines. Science does not prove anything.

One question: did the Titanic sink because of free will?

No, fallible human incompetence.

Was it avoidable?

Yes, but hind sight is 20/20

Or because of fate? Bad luck? Determinism?

No such thing as fate. Determinism only assures that all cause and effect events are determined by Natural Laws within a range of possible outcomes.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, fallible human incompetence.


Yes, but hind sight is 20/20


No such thing as fate. Determinism only assures that all cause and effect events are determined by Natural Laws within a range of possible outcomes.

I have never had car accidents because I seldom use the car and when I do I am very slow. They call snail for that.

My sister does drive very fast. She had a couple of accidents in the past.

Don't you think that it's free will that determines our mishaps?

 

[Estro Felino]

Lets observe the decision making process on multiple levels:
1. Subatomic: particles can behave randomly. But that just makes the process random at that level. There is no free will in randomness.
2. Atomic level: Although atoms behavior is based on subatomic randomness, the sum over the random events is pretty precise and can be seen as mostly deterministic. Atoms don't have free will.
3. Chemical level: As we go up, the process loses all all of the initial randomness is now further gone. The chemistry happening in neurons is well known and known to be deterministic. Chemicals have no free will.
4. Biological level: Here we see cells forming and growing, according to the DNA in them. The process is a series of chemical reactions which are all deterministic. Cells have no free will.
5. Neurological level: Neurons are cells that have the function to process information. That function is totally determined by the chemistry within the neuron. It can be altered by external chemistry but that is also 100% determined. There is no free will in a neuron.
6. Psychological level: Looking at the function of the whole brain, we see some emergent properties. But those properties emerge deterministically from 100% determined neurological processes so there can't be any freedom within a brain.

Ergo, free will can't exist at any level of a decision making process.

Do you disagree? At which level do you think comes free will into the process? By what mechanism?
As you have already left the discussion, I don't expect an answer from you. It was just that you posted a hook for my argument. This is more directed toward @Estro Felino who still thinks the absence of free will can't be proven.

It's a philosophical notion and philosophy or theology can hardly be explained through science.
There is a difference between physics and metaphysics.

It was Erasmus who wrote the De libero aribtrio, and then Luther responded by writing De servo arbitrio, but the latter is a theological, Christian work meant for theologians and believers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have never had car accidents because I seldom use the car and when I do I am very slow. They call snail for that.
My sister does drive very fast. She had a couple of accidents in the past.
Don't you think that it's free will that determines our mishaps?

No. Kindly read my post #412.
Is she younger to you? Some times younger siblings are more impulsive.

 

[Heyo]

It's a philosophical notion and philosophy or theology can hardly be explained through science.
There is a difference between physics and metaphysics.

So, to you philosophy is like theology? Distinct from reality and not influenced by it?
Well, yes, when reality plays no role in your thinking, then you can assume anything you want, even free will.