Free Will - Yes/No?

[robvalue]

Poc: I think we're talking at cross purposes

I'm talking about someone suggesting that a potential scientific discovery that we have "no genuine choices" should morally persuade us to change our protocol about who we put in prison; ie. we put no one in prison.

But the premise of the argument removes any meaningfulness from making a change of protocol, because such a change would be beyond our control anyway, should it happen, due to the correctness of the discovery which is hypothetically assumed. We wouldn't do it because this is an accurate and persuasive argument.

I don't know how else to explain it Like I said, it would be like saying "if we have no money, we should spend it on wine."

It's a problem with the logic, not with the science behind free will and such.